Mark Alexander http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=342
From Patriot No. 05-46; Published 18 November 2005
On the heels of the "White
House-CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken
(but which resulted in straw-grasping charges against Lewis Libby, the Vice
President's chief of staff), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter
into a much bigger political brawl.
Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin
and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war."
Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges
have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off
balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party
leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial
political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our
Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.
Let's be clear: There is nothing
wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have
written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and
politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk,
however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly --
treasonous.
Here are their accusations:
Reid: "We all know the
Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell
the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of
intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind
that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a
loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)
Durbin: "I seconded the motion
Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite
repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war
intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the
truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the
Nazis and Pol Pot.)
Kennedy: "The Bush
administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war
that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got
kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove
his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while
he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to
sleep.)
Naturally, the Democrats' media
lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is
considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD
long before President George Bush came to Washington.
Leading the bogus "Bush
lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before
does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words
of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of
words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an
important piece of Clinton-era legislation.
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by
the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It
should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the
regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This
legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate
without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before
the 2000 election of George W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton:
"[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He
will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with
weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists,
drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us
unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow
in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can
act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the
arsenal."
Clinton on Operation Desert Fox:
"Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to
threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological
weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is
to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its
military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
(That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox.
Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth
was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula"
factory.
Vice President Albert Gore:
"Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses
a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the
stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical
or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat
we face."
Sandy Berger, Clinton
National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief:
"[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten
times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The
problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third
World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's
near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us
all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons
of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "If you
don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you
shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving
on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week,
briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those
weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple.
The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Dick Durbin: "One of
the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the
possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's]
chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam
Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a
mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg,
Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu,
Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting
with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, 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."
After the 2000 election:
When President Bush was sworn into
office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of
intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of
appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin
Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers
licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA
director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position
on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks prior to the invasion
of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush
administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration),
were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Here's what Democrats were
saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam has
thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is
approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We have
known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of
mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be
voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if
necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons
of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent
an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In
the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his
missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear,
however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is
in the long-term interests of our national security."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam
Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question
about that."
In October 2002, by a large margin,
a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to
deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the
U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations."
These assessments were echoed by
intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France,
Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a
dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
So, Ted, Dick and Harry É what's
your real agenda?
Clearly this Democrat
"leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into
political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us
into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation
Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of
his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other
hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've
placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part, President Bush has
finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my
decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite
the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never
give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"?
He is much too kind.
In the end, American Patriots must
call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else
to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and
erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
Perhaps the most distressing
conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem
to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.
(Editor's Note: This essay is based
on a Patriot Alert that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in
exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998"
into your Internet search engine.)
Quote of the week...
"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor
Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking
the high road, Senator Lieberman.)
Don't even think about ending your
week without arming yourself with The Federalist Patriot's
comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most important news, policy
and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any other e-journal, The
Federalist Patriot is a concise, highly acclaimed (see endorsements) digest of
anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media Leftists -- now
delivered FREE by E-MAIL
directly to your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national
editorial panel, The Federalist Patriot's highly condensed format
is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of
reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations.
Don't leave home without it!
Subscribe to The Federalist
Patriot -- It's right and it's free!