Democrat Line on Iraq War Is Demagoguery Sure to Backfire

Although I am a Democrat, I don't think that my party deserves to win the presidency next year. One reason is because most of our candidates have become demagogues.

For example, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia has been insinuating that in starting the Iraq war President George W. Bush deceitfully relied on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction as "a manufactured excuse ... to seize a country." Ironically, back in October Byrd had warned that "Saddam Hussein has retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and [is] on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capability."

Like Byrd, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also has become demagogic, charging that "Bush misled every one of us. That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States. I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign ... because if he lied, he lied to me personally."

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism, Kerry had access to reams of classified documents on which the president's contention was based. He had a duty to review them personally and not rely on the president's word. In that regard, for the senator to say that he was deceived along with "every one of us" is provably false.

On another level I see Kerry as hypocritical. Ironically, in October 1998 he had sent a personal letter to President Bill Clinton stating: "I urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

In 1998, in addition to Kerry, 13 other Democratic senators signed an identical letter: Carl Levin of Michigan, Joseph Lieberman and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Robert Kerrey of Nebraska, Dianne Feinstein of California, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, John Breaux and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Wendell Ford of Kentucky. (Eventually Clinton began the bombing of Iraq - on the same day that Monica Lewinsky began testifying to a grand jury of her affair with him.)

Currently, along with Kerry, six candidates in the Democratic presidential primary are denouncing Bush for waging the Iraq war. At the same time, writers for the the New York Times are rivaling Democratic candidates in anti-Bush demagoguery. On May 30, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof (relying entirely on undisclosed sources) charged Bush with using intelligence that was "deliberately warped ... to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize [the war]."

On June 3, Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote: "It is long past time for this administration to be held accountable. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-Contra."

To put the issue of weapons of mass destruction in a truthful historical perspective Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on June 8 published an excellent article in the Washington Post stating: "There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied ... [about weapons of mass destruction]. The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. ... Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX for years."

Kagan also cites the report that chief weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27 stating that: (1) there is "no convincing evidence" they were ever destroyed, (2) Iraq possessed enough "bacterial growth media" to produce "5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax," (3) "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin" and (4) there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" weighing 1,000 tons that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown.

Kagan also provides detailed quotes from former vice president Al Gore, former CIA director John Deutch and former secretary of defense William Cohen of the Clinton administration, all piously warning the nation of the dangers of Saddam's secret weapons. Finally, Kagan closes his article with excerpts from a speech made by former president Clinton, who stated unequivocally that Iraq had 5,000 gallons of botulinum, 2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled Scud warheads and 157 aerial bombs.

At the conclusion of his speech Clinton warned of "the kind of threat Iraq poses - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists who travel the world among us unnoticed." Not surprisingly, the demagogues continue to ignore the truths Kagan documented.

On June 28, the Post published an article by Harvard University professor Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a Democratic stalwart, who wrote: "The weapons-of-mass-destruction issue will not subside and disappear as the administration supposes (and hopes). The issue will build because many Americans do not like to be manipulated and deceived. It will build because elements in Congress and in the media will wish to regain their honor and demonstrate their liberation from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld."

With Democratic propaganda spreading widely, at least one prominent conservative, Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, now is advising the White House to be prepared for the introduction of impeachment resolutions. Based on my own experience with impeachment politics, I agree with his advice.

In my case, I believe that political parties that thrive on demagoguery destroy themselves. These days I fear that the Democratic Party that I have known for 60 years now may be close to extinction.

Jerome Zeifman (jzeifman@yahoo.com) was the Democratic chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment proceedings.

I hope other reasonable Democrats will agree with the author and see through the hypocrisy of the Democrats, their deliberate lies for political gain, even if it hurts the security of America.

Speaking of Demagoguery!

See this skewer of the leftists by a political cartoonists ():

Explanation first

then go to the top for the cartoon!

Good piece!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Jerome Ziefman seems to provide support to Ann Coulter's thesis that the democrat party was effectively shanghi'ed during the 1972 election cycle and that nothly remains of the central democrat - that the liberal left has siezed control and is pushing fringe issues as a collation of core values. He speaks from the vantage point of being at the heart of the democrat legal team during the Nixon years and impeachment, he warns of impeachment proceedings again....

I fear, as does Jerome, that the democrat party is entering a phase of social and political destruction and will drag the Country through the gutter as they proceed with their communist idealogically driven campaign against a free America and try to bring US(A) down to parity with the Russians and EU - maybe "Peace through weakness" should be the Democrat Party's Campaign Slogan.

I appreciate all the articles you've posted on this subject.

I wonder if you could help me find a list of facts/articles concerning Iraq's WMD?

I'm particularly trying to find one I read here that describes how the learned to avoid problems in chem agents by mixing precursors just in time to load shells.

Are these accusations designed to reach those of us who are educated or are they designed to reach the simple-minded? As long as the simple-minded can read enough to ID the names on the ballots and associate the name with lies and deceit, their mission is accomplished. The absurdity of the claim and their ability to really supply any proof of their claims is irrelevant as long as their constituents fall for it. There really are a lot of people (simple-minded) who believe that Bush went after Saddam as a vendetta from his fathers term as President. Yes, it is very depressing and I absolutely abhor the media. But I still believe that the Dems don't have anyone strong enough to beat Bush.

The Democrats are being stupid in their demagoguery though. Saying "Bush lied, there were no WMDs" simply makes most people think, "Well, maybe he was wrong or exagerated, maybe not. But in any case better safe than sorry. At least Saddam is out of power."

Were the Democrats smart, they would say "Everyone knows Saddam had WMDs, so where are they? Where is Saddam? Bush went to war to make sure he didn't give them to terrorists, and for all we know he has. Bush blew it." That would resonate a whole lot more with the public that the Bush lied mantra.

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.