The 9/11 Commission & Iraq's WMD [liberal bias and hypocrisy]

RUSH: You know what the liberals obviously are best at, what they're demonstrating that they're best at, is investigations. I might even call them witch hunts. They don't care whether there's ethics involved, they don't care who they destroy and smear, it is simply an ends to justify the means. So what we have now, we basically have a book, and it's going to be followed by another book by Bob Woodward. We've got a book that has brought the government to a screeching halt to investigate the one man, the very man who had the courage and vision to change the world for the better. We got one book, and we're going to have another, going to have a series of hits in the media that have been building up to this, all these libs meeting with each other in LA and New York to try to plot out strategy; and who knows how much of that this is part of, but I mean they've been on, as you know since 2001, they've been on a mission to unseat Bush anyway. And they're showing that their only way of doing it is with witch hunt investigations, Stalinist kangaroo courts.

They do not have the ability to trumpet their own agenda, they don't have the ability to actually admit who they are, and they certainly are scared to death to let their international friends endorse them because they know what that will do. It will effectively demonstrate just who these people are, and on whose side they are in this current circumstance. Look, I know all of you are disgusted out there; you're disgusted because you know we've made tremendous progress in this war, we've transformed Iraq, we had transformed Libya, we've transformed Afghanistan.

Can I share with you a thought? I'm going to take a real risk here, folks. I'm going to take a huge risk, but I mean I didn't get where I am playing it easy, and I'm not afraid of people getting mad at me, I never have been, so I'm not going to start now. But this whole business of the weapons of mass destruction is a central element of this committee's investigation. It may not be a spoken element, but clearly Iraq is an instrumental part of this element. They're trying to separate Iraq from the war on terror to show that Bush did not care about Al-Qaeda because he went into Iraq. And then of course you add to that that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction to be found. Well, you know what's always troubled me about this is that there were weapons of mass destruction and there for four years, from 1988 on, there were no inspectors. They were kicked out. And we've heard all of these theories about, well, Saddam didn't even know, his guys charged with coming up with the WMD lied to him and they didn't have the guts to tell him, and so the big mirage of the existence of these things just continued. And it got out of hand and the world was fooled.

Something about this just doesn't ring right. My intelligence, guided by experience, both of which are formidable, tell me that we haven't seen the last of this weapons of mass destruction business. When out of the blue, in the midst of all of this, who sticks up his head, [doing impression] "I want to give up, I want to give up, I have no interest in weapons of mass destruction," none other than our old bud Colonel Muammar Khadafy, and Colonel Khadafy has weapons of mass destruction. Hmm. The world never knew. World never knew he had weapons of mass destruction. Where are the hearings on that? Where are the hearings on what was going on in Pakistan? You know, they had this rogue nuclear scientist, he stood up, too, all because we went into Iraq, [doing impression] "You know what, I don't want the pressure of Bush on me. I will tell all that I did." And he did. And we got this little pot bellied despot up in North Korea, this Kim Jong ll guy, you know, he's got nukes because of Clinton. Where's that investigation? That investigation doesn't exist because our side doesn't use the government that way. We don't do witch hunts. Richard Miniter had a book. Came out and talked about how Clinton was solely responsible for letting bin Laden grow into the force that he is. Where's the congressional hearings on that? We run the Congress, we're in charge of it, where's the investigation about Miniter's book? How come he's not out there apologizing and making a million dollars? Because we don't use the government that way. And I know what you're saying, "What about Clinton?"

You know, folks, that was unavoidable. There you had lying under oath. I mean, do you libs really think that Bill Clinton entertaining himself with Monica in the restroom off of the Oval Office -- a room I have seen, by the way -- do you really think there was a full-pledged effort to fight terrorism in this administration? We know that there wasn't. And along those lines, if the threat of terrorism was such a high priority at the White House while Bill was out there chasing all these interns and Kathleen Willey and trying to destroy, you know, Linda Tripp and all these other people, why didn't we hear more about it from the Democrats in Congress? They sat on the intelligence committees. Where were the warning bells? Where were the Klaxons, where were the signs, where were the indications we were facing trouble? It didn't exist.

Nobody was talking about terrorism back then, not from the Democratic Party, not from the Clinton administration, all of these congressional chairmen, Senate chairmen, committee chairmen, they met with Clinton, they met with the president, I don't recall terrorism dominating any Clinton State of the Union speeches. He did mention Osama in one State of the Union speech, what, two or three sentences. Yeah, it was after the USS Cole. Yip yip yip yip yahoo, that counts, okay, he's on record, that counts for being big time against terrorism. You know. So we're out there instead, this administration saw its enemies in people like Linda Tripp and Ken Starr, and that's who they declared war on. That's where they spent all their time. You didn't hear any of the Clinton spokesmen out there railing against terrorists and bin Laden and try to warn the country we've got to get ready for it. We were warned about Ken Starr, we were warned about Linda Tripp, we were warned, oh, yeah, and me, I, yeah. Yeah.

You know what their biggest assault on terrorism was? Me. After the Oklahoma City bombing, they tried to blame me for that and talk radio. They focused more on me in that regard than they ever did on bin Laden, for crying out loud. Although they didn't launch any missiles at me, verbal but not actual. But I mean, this is all such an affront to common sense and the people who, like us, we pay attention to this all day, every day. But here we're disgusted because all the great progress that we've made in this war. Well, let me get back to Libya. I don't want to lose my train of thought here and I almost did, but I'm too seasoned a professional, my friends, for this to happen. So back to it.

I don't believe what has now become conventional wisdom that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. We know that they were used against the Iranians in an eight-year war that Saddam had with them, and we know he used them against the Kurds in his own country, the chemical weapons, they existed. And the inspectors saw them, the inspectors were dismantling some of the processes necessary to make them, but they saw all this stuff. Now, Khadafy comes up with weapons of mass destruction, and nobody knew. I mean if they knew, nobody was making any big deal of it. There certainly weren't any UN resolutions against Khadafy, were there? There weren't any big time news we can go back and research where the world was telling Khadafy to disarm, get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. All the sudden he throws up his hands, [doing impression] "I have some here, and I want to become anti-terrorist, I want to join world on good guys' side."

I just wonder. I just wonder. You know, I just wonder if some mechanism for Iraq WMD, either scientists or actual weaponry or whatever was, you know, Libyans are documenting this stuff for us, and we're cross-checking it on some things. Just a wild guess. Don't hold me to it. But this is something that everybody is going to be shocked on. I just can't believe the whole world got fooled on this weapons of mass destruction business in Iraq, not to the extent that we have been. The intelligent question would be "where are they?" instead of concluding that they didn't exist or that they were destroyed or what have you.

Considering that Colin Powell showed satellite photos to the UN in which convoys of trucks were leaving Iraq for Syria, I'd think they could be anywhere in the region.

I've love it if we could tie the Libya WMD to Iraq. It would make the leftist's heads explode.

I find it somewhat unbelievable that Iraqi scientists would lie to Hussein about the WMDs. Why would they lie to a maniac who would not think twice about having them executed on the spot over a trifle much less the existence of chem and bio weapons which Hussein had used a number of times in the past. All Hussein would have to do is send one of his flunkies out to check on the weapons. Does anyone really think that Hussein would fail to dispose of a scientist who had lied to him. I mean would you lie to Hussein knowing what the consequences would be?

What I like about Rush is he says it as it is -- no spin (have you ever wondered why there are no liberal radio programs? -- "Today, we are going to talk about welfare and why it benefits society")

According to a report of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism & Unconventional Warfare dated February 10, 1998, Iraq began moving its WMD development capabilities to Libya and Sudan in the 1990's.

The Iraqi WMD Challenge -- Myths and Reality

The capture of Saddam Hussein was reported on December 15, 2003.

Saddam 'caught like a rat' in a hole

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair announced Libya's decision to give up its WMD's on December 19, 2003.

World welcomes Libya WMD move

I suppose the timing of these events was just one of life's coincidences.

Does anyone really think that Hussein would fail to dispose of a scientist who had lied to him. I mean would you lie to Hussein knowing what the consequences would be?

The argument, as I understand it, is that these scientists were responsible for WMD progress that they were unable to attain and therefore they lied in order to avoid execution for this failure. I don't know of any evidence to say that this was true. In fact, it seems that this theory is purely speculative. But if a dictator said to me "Go to your lab and make me some WMD, and if you fail I shall be highly displeased" and then he subsequently called and asked how things were going, I might say "Pretty well but I need some more time."

Is it possible that the WMD are gone and were gone? That the WMD were used during the first Gulf War? The the smoke of the oil fires were used to cover the use of WMD?

I'm not familiar will all the various symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome, but could they be attributed to some form of WMD?

Just thinking out loud.

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.