The Iraq weapons naysayers

Some Democrats think they have found an issue they can ride to election victory in 2004.

"Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" they ask. "President Bush led us to war on false pretenses. He lied to the nation and told us there was an imminent threat posed to the security of the United States by Saddam Hussein's unconventional arms. Where are they?"

At least one character in the party has begun calling for Bush's impeachment because weapons have not yet been found.

Let me reassure you, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be found. Conclusive evidence of a program to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons will be produced.

Having said that, I need to point out that I supported the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to wage it for other important strategic and security reasons – reasons besides weapons of mass destruction and violation of United Nations sanctions.

Iraq supported al-Qaida terrorism for more than a decade preceding Sept. 11, 2001. That fact has been well-documented by experts like Yossef Bodansky in his book, "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America."

That was reason enough to attack Iraq. If President Bush is guilty of anything, it is in not making the terror case against Iraq earlier and more strongly.

With the successful invasion of Iraq, we eliminated one of the world's major terror-sponsoring regimes. Need I reiterate that we also liberated 26 million people from a brutal tyranny that shredded human beings alive, systematically raped and tortured and killed its own people in numbers greater than any external enemy could.

We ought to be collectively celebrating those achievements. Instead, there are some Americans, for political reasons, who would prefer to run down our victory and what it means to the security of the world and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Nevertheless, have confidence that these people will be proven wrong. We will find the weapons of mass destruction. Significant evidence of weapons programs has already been discovered. More will come. Let not your heart be troubled.

What these naysayers refuse to understand is this: Iraq is a nation the size of California. Some of these weapons of mass destruction are concealable in a suitcase. Can you imagine finding a suitcase in the state of California? Indeed this process may be like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack.

There's one other important factor that needs to be considered: Some of these weapons have probably left the country.

I think we're all certain Saddam Hussein was actually in Iraq before the invasion. Yet, he has not been found. He is believed to have left the country. Some reports suggest he and his entourage filled up moving vans with U.S. dollars at the Iraqi national bank before they left. If they had that capability, certainly they had the means and motive to remove weapons that cost mega-millions to produce.

But don't expect the naysayers to be persuaded. Don't expect them to be patient. Don't expect them to give America and its president the benefit of the doubt. These people have a political agenda and that's all that matters to them. They don't even mind doing Saddam Hussein's propaganda work if it helps elect Democrats in the next election cycle.

However, I don't believe this strategy will work. If this is all the Democrats have in their political bag of dirty tricks, they are going to face disaster on election day. The American people believe President Bush. They don't believe he is a liar. And when Democrats make such suggestions, they help seal their own political fate.

The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein

As the date approaches for likely Congressional action on an Iraq resolution, Democrats have begun sounding the alarms of dissent. Hinting at a "Wag the Dog" scenario, they have questioned whether Iraq truly poses a clear and present danger to the United States and implied that the Bush Administration may only be acting with an eye toward November. Speaking on the floor last week, Senator Byrd appears to have gotten this latest ball rolling:

"What Congress needs is solid evidence. What we need are answers. Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States? Should the United States act alone as this administration has been threatening to do? Should Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq?" [floor statement, 9/20/02]

Al Gore followed suit on Monday, albeit in much stronger terms, expressing concern that "[the President] is demanding in this high political season that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq." Gore went on to add, "no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such choice is not presented in the case of Iraq" [speech, 9/23/02].

Few would disagree that legitimate questions remain to be considered regarding our policy toward Iraq, among them such issues as the scope of the authority given the President to act and the likely long-term U.S. investment in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. However, questions over the evil nature of the regime and whether or not it poses a threat to our interests seem already to have been addressed, as the following statements attest.

These statements - by leading Democrat Senators - spell out a strong case against Iraq, and they have another thing in common - all were made in 1998. Yet, if the threat was real then, it only stands to reason that it has grown over the last four years, a fact supported by the testimony of Iraqi defectors as well as recent intelligence reports as to the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities of Baghdad.

Senator Daschle:

"Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Biden:

"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Lieberman:

"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Levin:

"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal" [Congressional Record, 2/12/98].

Senator Kerry:

"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses." [Congressional Record, 3/13/98.]

In fairness, a few of these Senators have continued to recognize this increased threat and maintained a certain level of consistency on the subject. Unfortunately, others have not.

Consider the following remarks by a key Democrat: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. . .Saddam should never doubt the will of the American people, their legislators, their military, or their commander-in-chief to protect our interests, defend our security, and ensure the well-being of our fellow citizens and that of our friends and allies around the world. He should know that when it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one. We will speak as one. And whenever, necessary, we will act as one."

Of course, these were the comments of Vice President Al Gore in February 1998, not those of presidential aspirant Al Gore in September 2002. And yet, they claim that Republicans are the ones politicizing the case against Iraq?

What the Democrats and their willing accomplises in the media are doing is more than just dishonest and cowardly. In fact, I would argue that what the Democrats are now engaged in, is so dangerous and dispicable, that it endangers the lives of US citizens and threatens our national security. There is a reason why politics once ended at the waters edge...and especially during a time of war. For some to call Bush a liar (in regards to WMDs and the war) not only disparages Bush...it obstructs our war on terror and gives the enemies of this country a further reason to hate us.

The Demoncrats know Bush didn't lie about WMDs...heck, most of them made the same arguments against Iraq when Clinton was president. They supported the 1998 bombing of Iraq for the exact same reasons, claiming that Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors and this country. These claims were further supported by the UN and their inspectors...including Scott Ritter, who said that even if Saddam was disarmed, he could reconstitute his Bio/Chem program in 6 weeks and his nuclear program in a couple years. In other words, the weapons weren't the only problem....Saddam was. Resolution 1441 acknowledged these weapons and put the burden on Saddam to disclose them. The Democrats are well aware of the danger Saddam posed to this country as they made the exact same claims. And yet today, for purely partisan reasons, the Democrats in their zeal to destroy Bush are putting this country at risk.

We have US citizens all around the globe who are now even more dispised thanks to Democrats who are feeding the hatred of the anti-American haters. They don't have to make up excuses for a reason to hate us any longer...they can just quote a Democratic politician as their reason to kill an America. Or they an just take a quote out of context from our liberal media, such as, "Wolfowitz admits war was about oil." And thanks to these same media liars and Democrats, our war on terror is going to be derailed. Not only have the American haters been giving a new reason to despise us...our own allies can now question America's motives, thanks to the lie being perpetuated by the Democrats and their willing accomplises in the media.

The Democrats in their desperation to depose Bush, have now endangered the lives of more Americans by lying about Bush's motives. They have planted the seeds of more hatred against America and given our enemies and allies alike, a reason to not trust this country. And they have done all this knowing full well that what they're saying is a lie. This couldn't be more evident than in the case of Iran and their nuclear program..and concern for Al-Qadea being harbored there. Thanks to the Democrats, our allies and enemies can now question Bush's motives...despite their lies. They have immeasurably not only damaged Bush..but the security of this country. And while many Americans may see through this charade, it has given others...especially the useful idiots, all the ammunition they need to continue to hate and attack this country. The war on terrorism just got harder thanks to the Democrat's desire to regain control.

it concerns me that even some conservatives are pouring oil to the fire, by pushing the Democrats line of questioning and accusations

For the most part, I think that it's the same "conservatives," you know the "real conservatives," who jump on every one of the 'rat bandwagons when they come up with another one of their attacks on the president.

Then the media 'rats, predictably, report, "even some on the right" blah, blah, blah.

I had the TV on while taking a nap earlier and I was dozing, but could hear the TV. Linda Vester's show was on. David Corn was the 'rat guest. I don't know who the other guest or guests were, but Corn was trotting out the fake Wolfowitz quote about how WMD was not the real reason for going into Iraq, and he was spouting some other crap.

One, ONE, person in the audience applauded.

Someone in the audience refuted Corn point by point. The audience erupted with applause. Even one lady who had earlier said that she agreed with Corn spoke up and now said that she agreed with the person who so ably refuted Corn.

Vester asked her about this, and she said that she did believe Corn at first, but now after hearing the other side that she is on the fence and that the arguments that were made defending the president makes sense.

So that's my long way of trying to say that I have faith in the American people. The 'rats will pick up some of the gullible. They already had those on the far right who cannot stand Bush.

I think in the long run this will be like all of the other attempts that they've made to bring this president down. The American people will continue to love him, and they'll probably resent the 'rats more and more for blatantly to trying to undermine him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.