The Left's Blind And Dangerous Obsession

Being an adult is not all it's cracked up to be. As one, I'm forced to accept things that I wish weren't true. I have to acknowledge that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and neither does the Tooth Fairy. I have to accept that "summer vacations" end when school is finished. And sadly, I have to accept that Democrats truly do value their own political power more than the security of the United States, and that the American media is not an institution with a duty, but one with an agenda. Whatever my political leanings, these are not pleasing realities. But in light of the ongoing furor over the now infamous "16 words" any lingering doubts are fading.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

from President Bush's 2003, State of the Union address, it's possible that it is more familiar to the American public than the Pledge of Allegiance, and may well end up as a verse in a Barney tune, sung spitefully by preschoolers everywhere.

"...that outrageous lie was inserted into the State of the Union speech to justify the president's case for bypassing the United Nations Security Council, for chasing U.N. inspectors out of Iraq and for invading and occupying an oil-rich country."

"trying to defend the indefensible in its depiction of Iraq's nuclear weapons program,"

Granted, this is the same Robert Scheer, who will still lovingly quote communist mass murderer Mao Zedong, and this is the New York Times, but theirs is indistinguishable from the perspective that has dominated the media for weeks.

According to a CBS headline, "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False." And the Boston Globe claimed,

"President Bush erred in saying during his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to obtain large quantities of uranium from the African nation of Niger."

The Globe is accurate in reflecting the basis of the charges being levied against the president. As has been known for some time, a report of alleging an attempted transaction between Iraq and Niger was forged. But that report was never referenced in the State of the Union. In, fact, the president's January 28 address took just over an hour to deliver, and consisted of approximately 5,500 words, but "Niger" wasn't one of them. The untruth in this matter, which was reflected in the Globe's editorial and reinforced throughout the American media (including by that supposed bastion of rightwing propaganda, Fox News), was not perpetrated by George W. Bush or his administration, but by a press whose task it is to provide the public with accurate information.

As the contrived scandal has bubbled, the position of the British government has been largely, if not totally, ignored. The critical phrase in the much-derided sentence states, "The British government has learned..." To critics this was merely an underhanded mincing of words designed to mislead the American people and the legislature into supporting war. But the legislature had long before voted Bush additional authority to remove Saddam, on top of that which he already possessed by virtue of the Gulf War ceasefire and his position as commander-in-chief. Moreover, the removal of any reference to Iraq's attempts to procure nuclear material would have made little difference to the overwhelming case made for war.

The British government has maintained throughout that it had intelligence confirming the Iraqi effort, independent of the much-ballyhooed forgery. Prime Minister Tony Blair argued recently that the account was not "a fantasy", as portrayed in the American press, and that,

"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence..."

"The media have reported that the CIA expressed reservations to us about this element of the September dossier. This is correct...However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US (for good reasons, which I have given your committee in private session)."

If the statement by Bush is that the British had come to a conclusion, based on various intelligence sources, and the British are consistent in their assertions, by definition, the president could not have lied.

No matter. Through the willful omission of facts, the press is successfully fomenting suspicion with the American people. A recent ABC News poll suggested that half of those asked believed Bush "intentionally exaggerated WMD evidence". There has also been a significant drop in those who feel "the war was worth fighting".

Seeking to get in on the action created by Howard Dean's asinine antiwar rhetoric, the vast field of Democrat presidential candidates, and congressional Democrats almost in unison, are being similarly accusatory and misleading. Calls are mounting for further, more sweeping and public investigations. Sen. Bob Graham and a few others have gone so far as to call for Bush's impeachment. Surely there are those who hold out hope that such investigations will turn up evidence sufficient to remove Bush from office, but the goal is clearly to damage him, thereby increasing the chances for Democrats in 2004.

Bush's use of the term "axis of evil" to critics represented "arrogance," "warmongering," and "simplistic" thinking that endangered the world. The thought that the word "evil" would be used to describe the genocidal regimes in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea was unthinkable.

The collapse of Enron, though the current administration by all indications gave them no favoritism whatsoever, was Bush's responsibility, sparking condemnation in the media, reckless and unsubstantiated allegations and endless hours of attention in Congress. All this while ignoring, or actively running interference for, the Clinton administration, which accommodated the vilified firm in exactly the manner that the Bush White House did not.

Landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln was "showboating", and "a misuse of government funds" that likewise needed investigating, though countless other presidents and members of Congress engaged in similar activities.

Asking, "Why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have not been found?" is a valid question. But charging the Bush administration with engineering a vast web of lies to precipitate war can be taken as nothing other than naked political maneuvering, considering that virtually no one outside of Saddam's regime (Democrats, Europeans, and press operatives included) claimed Iraq was free of such weapons.

Many of Bush's most vociferous assailants, among them Democrat Senators Carl Levin, John "F" Kerry, Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, Bob Graham, Joseph Lieberman and others, led the way in passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act (ILA), which established "regime change" as the official policy of the United States. President Bush's rationale for war was a virtual regurgitation of the ILA, which cited human rights violations, noncompliance with U.N. Inspectors, and banned weapons a half-dozen times. The problem, it seems, was a president from the wrong party carried it out.

Just days ago, Senator Levin accused the president of "calculated," "misleading statements" and "exaggerations" designed to lead the country into an unnecessary war. But only a few months before Bush's State of the Union address, on CBS's "Face the Nation", Levin accepted that Saddam would,

"continue to attempt to hide those chemical and biological weapons and continue with a clandestine nuclear program..."

"Iraq's use of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks, and reports that Iraq attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program contrary to its treaty obligations."

For a list of reasons consistent with the war on terror, basic humanity and having nothing whatsoever to do with WMD, the Bush administration was justified in ending Saddam Hussein's brutal reign. Moving against other obvious targets that support international terrorism, like Syria and Iran, while leaving Saddam in power would have been foolhardy in the extreme, but not a bit more foolish than the path now being taken by the Democrats and their compatriots in the press.

They may attain their heart's desire, to assure another one-term Bush presidency. A paralysis of the current administration will, however, all but guarantee a North Korean nuclear weapons production line, a probable nuclear Iran and emboldened Islamic terrorists and Baathist holdouts in Iraq. A small price to pay, it seems, to put the Democrat Party back where they believe they're entitled to be.

CHEAP THRILLS - $1 (the first one's free!)

If every FR member gave a buck a month, we wouldn't need fundraisers. Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

O'Reilly said last evening that this story is not connecting with "the folks", that we don't care about it. So...the whole premise of this editorial is wrong.

Does anyone really believe this "story" will survive for much longer? We had the same fears about the Enron debacle, which lasted for quite a while & was used to seriously discredit Bush & Cheney. And so many other "issues" along the way, too many to even remember.

Call me an optimist, but I think all this gloom & doom is premature and we will soon be on to another Bush-bashing frenzy & topic. And the trust in Pres. Bush will remain. The war needs to be better regulated, THAT is the problem pulling down his poll numbers this past month.

One thing the WMD hissy-fit makes crystal clear.

America must never again allow a democRAT to soil our White House.

They are out to destroy us.

And sadly, I have to accept that Democrats truly do value their own political power more than the security of the United States, and that the American media is not an institution with a duty, but one with an agenda.

The agenda of the Democrats is to win power, and the agenda of journalism is to attract attention and to influence people. The way to attract attention is to raise questions about the things people depend on; that motivates the superficial, negative tone of journalism. And that superficiality and negativity produce a propaganda wind of cynical criticism of conservatism.
The easy way to get power in a democracy is to sail downwind of that propaganda barrage; those who do that are called "liberals". Liberals parroting and emphasizing the superficial and negative tone they get from journalists flatters journalists--and with no qualm at all the journalists return the favor.
Each of the groups, journalists and liberal politicians, expect as a right what in fact the other gives them.
"When I tell Caesar he hates flatters he smiles--being then most flattered.

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.