posted on November 6, 2005 05:18:33 PM new
Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let's reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject.
First, here's the president:
"If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. . Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction.? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."
Here is the vice president:
"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world."
Here's the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.
President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States.
Clinton and Gore were not alone in their conviction that Saddam had WMDs. France thought so, too, as did Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months.
Robert Einhorn, Clinton's deputy assistant secretary of state, told the Senate Governmental Affairs committee in March 2002 that Saddam could have nukes and the missiles capable of striking Europe "within four to five years" and would be able to deliver nukes in America via "non-conventional means." "If Iraq managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material," he said, "these threats could arrive much earlier."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller - the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee and now a full member of the "Bush lied" chorus - echoed Einhorn's assessment, adding, "I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat" and "we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun."
Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards all voted for the war.
Most of these Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the president. But now, in one of the most repugnant and craven partisan ploys in modern American history, Democrats have decided that they cannot accept their own responsibility in what they clearly consider to be a mistake. They cannot even criticize the CIA for yet another horribly botched job or stick to the ample areas where constructive criticism is warranted. Instead, the same CIA that liberals derided for years is now heroic, and Senate Minority Leader Reid has decided - now that the Fitzgerald investigation has fizzled - to dedicate his party to slandering the president.
Meanwhile, the Democrats cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war - except in that they believed Bush's "lies." But how could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied. But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush's decision to topple Saddam. And they will not even concede that, after 9/11, the argument over WMDs wasn't the best - never mind the sole - argument for toppling Saddam but the easiest one.
"Never again" was the new rule after 9/11, and - after ousting the Taliban - Saddam was the next obvious target. He applauded the attack, funded suicide bombers, defied the international community and, we now know, pretended he had WMDs. Remember: "Regime change" became the official policy of the U.S. in 1998, not 2002. Post-9/11, where would you start?
But the Democrats don't care. They don't care about all the previous investigations or that the planet is watching this spectacle. Or that their shabby accusations feed the very worst theories about America's role in the world. Heck, Howard Dean is recycling the charges in fundraising letters. They don't care that Iraq is poised to become either one of America's greatest achievements or its worst debacles. They want timetables, apologies and scalps.
But does anyone doubt that if there were no insurgency, with Iraq as far along in the democratic process as it is now, the Democrats would be boasting about their bi-partisan support for the war and cackling about how Democrats were right about "nation-building" all along?
But they don't care. In their America, partisanship begins at the water's edge.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
posted on November 6, 2005 06:32:13 PM new
Yep....then THEY thought he was a HUGE threat....but now that they feel they can use their own decisions to go to war against this administration, they are doing so. Slime buckets that they are.
This article includes several of the leading democrats and their statements right before we went to war:
As I have often said (and resaid) the inexcusable element in the Democrats' attacks on their President in the midst of a war is that they are betraying a war they authorized in the first place.
In the wake of Harry Reid's unhinged accusations the Republican National Committee has posted a collection of statements by Democratic Party leaders reminding us why we went to war.
DEM OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ FOR YEARS
click on the link to read their quoted statements....and see what hypocrites/liars they've become.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 6, 2005 06:38 PM ]
posted on November 6, 2005 06:43:53 PM new
Again....this is a book I believe all need to read....to better understand just why our own radical liberals support our enemies
[i]Unholy Alliance-Radical Islam and The American Left[/b].
posted on November 6, 2005 06:59:27 PM new
You know what I dont get? The running repeat phrase is : It was all a lie, there were no WOMD's!! But if you actually read up a little about it, there were chemical and biological weapons, and the equipment for them, found. And some of the history of where they got it from was us (the U.S.) selling them to Iraq in the 80ties! Technically, biological and chemical weapons are considered as much WOMD's as nuclear bombs are.
posted on November 6, 2005 07:06:33 PM new
Sure they are, I totally agree. And at one time, one of our liberals here agreed...although if she still would admit...I don't know.
I still, in my heart of hearts believe that in the run up to this war...there was over a month's time....saddam arranged to have them taken out and into Syria. I can remember watching this caravan of trucks with white canopies all following the lead truck out of the country. Wondering why in the world were we not doing something to check them. Whether we did or not...I still do not know to this day.
But I sincerely believe that the radical fraction of the liberal dem party are putting our safety in great jeopardy with their current actions. We, as a Nation should be showing a United front against them...not against each other while they watch and hope the liberals win this battle for them.
And yes, some of those things you mentioned were found....but not in the quanities they had been unwilling to report to the UN inspectors. The #'s they said were missing were huge amounts. But...there again....they could have dumped/hit them out in all that sand somewhere....
posted on November 6, 2005 07:12:03 PM new
This problem was just the tip of the Muslim jihad ice berg. If you remove the tip, the problem ice berg continues to get larger.........
___________
The Islamofascist fig-puckers are fighting to spread their culture and religion, and to destroy ours
posted on November 6, 2005 09:31:39 PM new
This is a religion-wide conspiracy. Like an ice berg we don't see 90% of the problem. If you eliminate the high profile part sticking up above the surface; the surface area expands, but now there are no promontories. Leaders can be arbitrary, as required for the moment.
Yes, religion-wide, where are the Muslim statements virulently and vehemently objecting to atrocities in the name of Allah? If there is such a thing as a peace loving Muslim, they know when to keep their mouths shut. And, of course, they would be male.
__________
The Islamofascist fig-puckers are fighting to spread their culture and religion, and to destroy ours
posted on November 6, 2005 09:40:07 PM new
Thank you. I agree this is a religious issue that's cloaked in other coverups....made to look like it's really not.
I have long read their goals...and they're quite clear about what they're after. World domination of their religion. Period....they want the whole world to be Muslim. Those who won't agree to go along will pay for it with their lives.
That is the denial I believe a ton of American's currently live in. For some reason they refuse to really listen to what their radical leaders are telling all of us.
What binladen and his AQ followers have said themselves.
AND then they think we're the problem.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 7, 2005 08:08:54 AM new
I've stated my feeling on the Islam religion and Muslims a few years ago and was said to be racist.
It was not my goal to build hate. It was to sound a warning.
I hoped the Muslim people would be the ones to take care of this but No that wasn’t the case. They back any damage to their enemies, us. (I don’t mean the U.S.) Any non Muslim is an infidel as stated by their websites and their Muslim religious leaders.
It’s gone to far now and as can be seen in France (and all of Europe soon). We had better make a stand now or Kiss Our Azzez goodbye. This isn’t a joke or game that can be boohooed by the bleeding hearts, this is real time live or die, us or them.
posted on November 7, 2005 08:18:01 AM new
97% of Iraqis are Muslim so please tell me why you would back a war to "free" them ?
Don't give me the BS about WMD ...there were none found , there IS proof that the bush administration orchestrated the intelligence...just connect the dots starting with Scooter and go backwards ...it's all about doctored intelligence and lies. Simple as that.
And, no, scooty didn't out anyone....someone else IN THE WHITE HOUSE DID....Scooty just lied to a grand jury.
For those concerned about our nation's security....look up what happens when CIA agents are outted.
