Skip to comments.The Big Lie Campaign-Stabbing the president -- and the country -- in the back
Posted on 06/18/2004 1:29:55 AM PDT by kattracks
As wars go, the conflict inIraq was (and is) as good as it gets. A three week military campaign with minimal casualties, 25 million people liberated from one of the most sadistic tyrants of modern times, the establishment of a military and intelligence base in the heart of the terrorist world. What well-meaning person could oppose this? In fact there is none. It was one thing to worry about the war before the fact, as Brent Scowcroft and others did, that a military conflict could lead to eruptions in the Muslim world and a conflagration out of control. This was opposition based on honorable intentions, which events have effectively answered.
But the current opposition to the war after the fact has no such justification in real world events. The war has had enormous beneficial effects with minimal negative consequences. A terrible tyrant was taken down. The filling of mass graves with 300,000 corpses were stopped. Plastic shredders for human beings were deactivated. Prisons for four to twelve year olds were closed. A democratic constitution has been drafted. Two-thirds of al-Qaedas leadership is gone. There hasnt been a terrorist attack in America in more than two and a half years, something no one would have predicted after 9/11. By any objective standard, the Bush war on terror is a triumph.
These real world considerations are why the campaign waged by the Democratic Party and a Democratic press against the Bush war policy is based not on any analysis of the war itself, but on maliciously concocted claims about the prewar justification for military action. For purely political agendas, the Democrats hope attempt to convict the Administration of misleading the American public and wasting American lives through deception and fraud, and thus to defeat the President at the polls in November.
This is the campaign of the Big Lie and its success depends on the very fact that it is a big lie. Its aim is to shift the very terms of the argument to a terrain favorable to the critics who have been refuted by the events themselves a terrain entirely irrelevant to the reality of the war itself. To respond to this campaign would require of its targets candor and courage, because the only way to confront it is to impugn the integrity, honesty and goodwill of those who so maliciously prosecute it. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration does not seem up to this task of calling its critics to account. This is why it is on the defensive and in serious trouble in its political campaign.
How does this Big Lie operate? A look at todays top headline in the New York Times (whose example is faithfully followed in most of the nations press) illustrates it well: Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie. That is the news of the day similar in its negative spin for the Bush campaign to the news of the last 30 or 60 days as well. The Times headline refers to the report of the 9/11 commission that Mohammed Atta did not meet with Iraqi government officials in Prague prior to 9/11 and that it could find no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 plot. The Times News Analysis accompanying the account draws this conclusion: In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bushs justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.
Actually this Times reportage is several lies in one. First, the panel did not conclude that there was no Qaeda-Iraq tie. It concluded that it could not find a Qaeda-Iraq tie in respect to the attacks of 9/11. This is entirely different from the claim that there were no links between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. There are in fact extensive links, which Stephen Hayes and others have detailed.
But that is just the beginning. The bigger lie in this particular claim is that Mohammed Attas visit to Prague was one of Mr. Bushs justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush made no such claim, certainly not in connection with a justification for the war in Iraq. (The Times actually prints Bushs references to Iraq and al-Qaeda links on February 8, 2003, none of which mentions 9/11.) The justification for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein was the violation of UN Resolution 1441 and 16 UN resolutions before that. Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force as of December 7, 2002, the deadline that had been set by the Security Council on November 8, 2002.
Anyone doubting that Saddam violated this resolution can consult the recent memoir written by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, Disarming Iraq. Blix opposed the military option right to the end. But he states very clearly in his book that Saddam failed to meet the requirements of UN Resolution 1441, that he showed his contempt fo them in fact, and that they were a legal justification for force.
The lie about al-Qaeda is just one of a tissue of lies concocted by Administration critics about the rationale for the war in Iraq, each of which is designed to distract attention from the moral worthiness of the war and the critics own unhappiness with the war on terror itself. The Times News Analysis also cites the failure to find WMDs as a further undermining of the Administrations rationale for the war. But WMDS were not the rationale for the war. The rationale for the war was Saddams violation of UN Resoloution 1441, which called for compliance or serious consequences. Saddam did not comply. The consequences followed.
The Presidents rationale for the war was contained in his September 12, 2002 address to the United Nations General Assembly. He did not refer to an al-Qaeda link. He did not refer to an imminent threat (the third malicious falsification put forward by proponents of the Big Lie). What the President said was this: The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The UN resolutions that Saddam had defied were constituent elements of the truce that Saddam had signed at the end of the Gulf War and the condition under which the allied forces allowed him to remain in power. Saddam violated that truce. The 2003 Iraq war was in fact the resumption of the hostilities of 1991 that had been interrupted to allow Saddam the chance to comply. (In fact, they were only partially interrupted since the United States and Britain flew continuous sorties over Iraq throughout the decade of the 1990s). Many critics of the war argue that Saddam should have been appeased once more, and given more time to comply. That it is a reasonable (if morally distasteful) argument. To claim that the Bush Administration misled the American people and waged the war under false pretenses is not.
The critics of the Bush Administration have used their lies about the rationale for the war to call the President a liar, a fraud, a deceiver and a traitor. These are terms that apply to the critics themselves. But the Bush Administration has not had the gumption to use them (or their political equivalents). The Bush Administration had better rethink this reluctance if it intends on retaining power in November. American voters are not going to be able to sort out these lies for themselves in the absence of a strong case by the Bush team.
Prior to the inception of hostilities in Iraq in March 2003, the Democratic Party with honorable exceptions like Senator Lieberman and Minority Leader Gephardt was a party of appeasers, demanding more time and more offerings to the Baghdad butcher to avoid a military conflict. From the day Baghdad was liberated in April 2003 and continuously through the present, the Democratic Party and its willing press have constituted a chorus of saboteurs, attacking the credibility, integrity and decency of the commander in chief, exaggerating, sensationalizing and magnifying every American setback or fault -- with the guilt orgy over Abu Ghraib the most egregious example effectively tying the hands of American forces in the field and encouraging the enemys resistance. The hard left actually celebrates this resistance. The soft and cowardly left merely encourages it while pretending not to notice what is doing.
In either case and in both cases what we are confronting in this spectacle is an unprecedented event in American political life. In the midst of a good war and a noble enterprise, a major American party is engaged in effort to stab its own country in the back for short term political gain, and is willing to do to so by the most underhanded and unscrupulous means.
David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as the first great autobiography of his generation, and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield. Horowitzs latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring. Click here to read more about David
excellent article, and one I will be linking on a few sites.
The Bush team needs to start hitting back hard and call a spade a spade. If they don't refute the lies in the strongest possible terms, they will lose.
President Bush has before him an historic opportunity to expose the leftist media as the traitorous liars they are....if not for that new tone...time to invite Ted Kennedy over for popcorn and movies, then have Poppy give him an award.
"You know this election and who wins over the people is going to be all about who wants it more...and right now I think the left wants it more."
-- Rush Limbaugh [from a previous radio program] in response to Bush's LACK of a response.
I weep almost every day for the children of America. The enemy of their future is not Al Queda. It is the thoughtless, uncaring, undisciplined, history revisionist, propagandistic, power-lusting mobs running the major media here along with the huge help they receive from Hollywood and the entertainment media. They care not a whit for how much power and inspiration their words are feeding to those around the world who would do harm to this nation and it's people. Do they really think they can sweet-talk their way to safety with the terrorists? I don't think so. The terrorists want to kill ALL the infidels..That is ALL of us. Sometimes I wonder about substance use among individuals who cast all caution aside during times like this. What kind of impulsivity is present to cause such a bent to destruction of their people and their nation? Their goal is to render conservative thinkers powerless and therefore to "take over." Their methods, it seems to me, are very corrupt in that they lie and distort even normal situations to convince those not educated or paying attention to all that facts that normal is abnormal. The rage today is the Clinton book. Well, I was in what is supposed to be one of the busiest bookstore in the country this week. Clinton's book was right by the door..The place was crowded and only two middle-aged ladies were looking at the book. Can we believe anything the left prints on any subject? I would dread to try to figure out what it would be since they use a political angle in all their stories.
"How does this Big Lie operate? A look at todays top headline in the New York Times (whose example is faithfully followed in most of the nations press) illustrates it well: Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie. That is the news of the day similar in its negative spin for the Bush campaign to the news of the last 30 or 60 days as well."
One of many Big Lies refuted:
04 November 1998 - BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Thanks for posting this excellent article!
Wow! That is one of the most powerful posts I've seen in a long, long time. Thanks for posting it! The absolute treachery of a party and its mouthpiece, the mainstream media, is simply heartbreaking. They sell the LIVES of our children, of all of us, for mere political power.
We know Saddam worked with the PLO and other terrorists, he funded them. He at LEAST knew that 9/11 was coming.
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya carried a column headlined, American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin. (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden will strike America on the arm that is already hurting, and that the US will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, New York, New York.
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The AQ connection (excellent):http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Western Nightmare: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's link to OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
Document linking them: http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
A federal judge rules there are links:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts
Iraq and Iran contact OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts
More evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
Further connections: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
What a court of law said about the connections:
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
Free Republic Thread that mentions so me books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
Freeper list of links between AQ and Iraq:
Salman Pak (Aviation Weekly)
Another freeper resource - list of links between OBL and Saddam:
Saddam/911 Link (FrontPage Magazine, Laurie Mylroie, May 2004):
Bush says Zarqawi killed Berg, cites Saddam ties (Reuters, May 2004)
The Connections (May 2004, The Weekly Standard)
Saddam's role in 9/11. (Freeper book, May 2004)
Entire link and Post #5 - Clinton mentioned how AQ was developing a relationship with Iraq.
The House of Representatives read into the congressional record the ties that Saddam had to Osama bin Laden (read down and open links in the record): June 2004
Exploring the links between 9/11 and Iraq (Richard Miniter, June 2004)
The Terrorist behind 9/11 was trained by Saddam (The Telegraph, 12/03)
New Iraqi Chief Links 9/11 to Saddam (June 2004, NewsMax)
Increasing evidence of Saddam's ties to 9/11 and AQ (National Review, June 2004)
Pre Bush Timeline of Saddam/OBL Ties (Freeper research):
Cheney claims Iraq/AQ connections (June 2004)
I have been printing articles like thes and leaving them in the lunch room and bulletin boards at work to help combat the lies of the liberaal media
Bump, bookmark, and APPLAUSE to you!!! (I've always bragged that FReepers are smarter than just about anybody else, and you helped me prove it!) Keep up the great work!
This is a wonderful thread. Thanks for posting, both of you, a lot of information here in one place.
Mr Josef Goebells
Thanks Kat for posting this article -- I sent it to the White House -- I just hope someone reads it and acts. Rove and Bush MUST realize their "Compassionate Conservatism" isn't going to win over any of the RATS and in fact, makes them look weak. We can rant and rave, fight as hard as we can, but if the Administration doesn't take off their rose colored glasses soon, we will lose the election.
I continue to worry that W will turn out to be, indeed, his father's son. I remember in 92 waiting for Sr. to finally go on the offensive. He was just waiting for the right moment. That moment never came and he lost the election.
Over against that is that W has confounded his enemies many times now without seeming to "fight" at all. He allows them to go all the way out on their limbs and at some point all realize that there is no tree supporting the limb and it is a long way to the ground. Maybe it will happen again. Maybe not.<
P> This chapter is taking much longer than previous ones. I pray that it ends the same way.
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.