Bush Takes On Critics

President Bush is on the offensive. His Veteran's Day speech took to task those who are questioning the intelligence gathering and subsequent decision to invade Iraq.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," Bush said. "They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."

In taking on his critics the President noted that the criticism has an effect on the morale of coalition forces engaged in combat.

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said.

Democrats were quick to respond led by Harry Reid. Reid took exception to the President's comments, noting that,

"Attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush administration made to take our country to war does not provide us a plan for success that will bring our troops home," Reid said.

The plan for success should be apparent - even to Mr. Reid. Nothing less than a wholesale defeat of the forces arrayed against coalition troops can be considered a success. It is a puerile notion to expect that a grand plan, including a firm date for withdrawal, would be put forth publicly. The reason is very simple. Combat tactics and doctrine, along with a study of military history, leads a reasonable person to conclude that if the opposing force is given free intelligence, in the form of a grand plan, this force can then prepare accordingly.

The President offered his view of what will occur if withdrawal is sought as a substitute for victory.

If the terrorists drive America out of Iraq, Bush said, they could develop weapons of mass destruction, intimidate Middle East regimes friendly to the West, attack the United States and "blackmail our government into isolation."

"Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme," Bush said. "They are fanatical and extreme but they should not be dismissed."

Some will dismiss these latter comments as hyperbole. Others will treat it as the gospel truth. The possible ramifications are sobering.

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." (David Horowitz)

DEM OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ FOR YEARS

Former President Bill Clinton:

President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)

President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

Former Vice President Al Gore:

Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Gore: "[I]f 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 ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):

Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

Sen. 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." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)

Sen. Edwards: "The Question Is Whether We're Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who's Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We're Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It'll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/6/03)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

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." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):

Bayh: "In My Opinion - And I Do, As You Know, I'm Fairly Hawkish On Iraq. I'm Inclined To Support Going In There And Dealing With Saddam. But I Think That Case Needs To Be Made On A Separate Basis - His Possession Of Biological And Chemical Weapons, His Desire To Get Nuclear Weapons, His Proven Track Record Of Attacking His Neighbors And Others." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/4/02)

Bayh: "The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?" (CNN's "Live Event/Special," 12/1/01)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

Biden: "First Of All, We Don't Know Exactly What He Has. ... We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):

Richardson: "The Threat Of Nuclear Proliferation Is One Of The Big Challenges That We Have Now, Especially By States That Have Nuclear Weapons, Outlaw States Like Iraq." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 5/29/98)

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):

Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):

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 North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):

Feingold: "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):

Nelson: "And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)

Nelson: "Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He's Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):

Sen. Byrd: "The Last U.N. Weapons Inspectors Left Iraq In October Of 1998. We Are Confident That Saddam Hussein Retains Some Stockpiles Of Chemical And Biological Weapons, And That He Has Since Embarked On A Crash Course To Build Up His Chemical And Biological Warfare Capabilities. Intelligence Reports Indicate That He Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons ..." ("Threats And Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA):

Harman: "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)

Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO):

"Gephardt Said He's Seen 'A Large Body Of Intelligence Information Over A Long Time That He Is Working On And Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Before 1991, He Was Close To Having A Nuclear Device. Now, You'll Get A Debate About Whether It's One Year Away Or Five Or Six." (Morton M. Kondracke, "Gephardt Pushes Consensus Action Against Iraq Threat," Roll Call, 9/23/02)

Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright:

Madeline Albright: "Iraq Is A Long Way >From [Here], 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, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm."

Excerpted from a letter by an angry and fed up Father:

One would think that the infamy of 9/11, an event that had awoken so many complacent and oblivious Americans out of their stupor about the real world, would have at least knocked a little common sense and decency into John Kerry, the presidential candidate. It did not, and now he was up to his old tricks against, blaming the American soldiers in Iraq for things they supposedly did not do, as opposed to his "Ghenghis Khan" speech in which he blamed them for things he said they did do, including committing widespread, systematic war crimes as a policy in Vietnam.

Now why was I so personally furious at Sen. John Kerry and his campaign? It was because my son served and fought with his Army Reserve company as part of the 3rd Infantry Division in the final drive to oust Saddam Hussein that occurred on April 3, 2003, at a place on the Euphrates River known as Hindiyala ("Objective Peach"). If, to use a "Ghostbusters" movies analogy, Hindiyala, on the east bank of that river, was the "lock" that would keep the 3rd from crossing over on the four-lane concrete bridge spanning it, SPC 4 Joshua Friedman and the 299th Army Engineers (Reserve), MRB (Multi-Role Bridge) out of Fort Belvoir were the "keymaster" to opening that bridge up to American armor for the final drive onto Baghdad. Now, how does this fit into the Al Qaqaa story about allegedly missing explosives? Easy. The 299th and the 54th Ordnance Battalion had conducted a joint amphibious assault to seize the eastern bank of the Euphrates and its bridge before the Iraqi Republican Guards' Medina Division could destroy it. And they did so quite successfully, suffering no casualties and losing only one small craft. Then the Ordnancemen of the 54th defused the remaining explosives on the bridge, after one side had already been partially damaged, thus saving it for the heavy armor of the M-1 Abrams tanks to cross the Euphrates quickly and safely. The 299th helped to clear remaining resistance on the eastern bank of the river, then went downstream a little ways and put up the first operational combat ribbon bridge of some 22-23 bays across the Euphrates, as well as constructing a medium-girder steel bridge. These were used to allow lighter equipment to cross the river in support of the Abrams tank units. And away they went, wiping out the last of the Medina Division and Saddam's Fedeyeen militia thugs, eventually seizing Baghdad Airport on the outskirts of that city, an event that led to the "Baghdad Tank Run" and the subsequent quick surrender of the last remaining Iraqi units there. My son and the 299th also went out on patrols to police the area around Hindiyala, capturing Iraqi soldiers, many of whom were surrendering in droves, setting up traffic checkpoints, and most importantly, finding and seizing ammunition caches and sites. It was this last action that began to reveal the extent of the ammunition (including explosives)and weapons hoards that Saddam had built up over a decade since Gulf War I (despite United Nations observers).

He said that there were caches all over the place, buildings filled to the ceiling with boxes of small-arms ammo, equipment, including new chemical-warfare suits, as well as old Gulf War I ammo strewn around the desert areas.

American ordnance experts have stated that there were at least 10,000 such sites that they found (so far), spread across a country the size of California, and no one knows how much material, possibly including weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear) might still lie beneath the sands there. Some planes were found buried under the sand while one photo my son brought back showed a MIG-25 parked in a cornfield; another in the driveway of someone's house.

The total estimated weight of the Iraqi arms caches so far has been calculated to be two and a half times that of the total arms in the whole United States, some 1 million tons or more.

Now the duplicitous, U.S.-hating United Nations had made a suspiciously timed claim that the U.S. was responsible for losing 270 tons of high explosives, including RDX and HMX, from a site some 20 miles south of Baghdad known as Al Qaqaa, a claim that the Times picked up with and ran like the town drunk on a binge, a binge which CBS had planned to start on their own.

Without any proof of even whether any dangerous high-explosive materials were actually missing, the Times went after President Bush in a blatantly partisan political manner, aided by none other than Sen. Kerry. Kerry made outrageous claims blaming President Bush for mishandling the security of the explosives, letting Iraqi looters and terrorists steal them by the ton, and claiming that this was just another example of the failure of the U.S. policy in Iraq. Kerry kept claiming that he "could have done it better."

Now that a major from the 3rd has come forward and explained that his small unit had hauled away about 210 tons (quite possibly including some of the claimed 270 tons) for destruction at a designed ordnance handling site, Sen. Kerry began to slink away like a coward in the night, never apologizing to the brave American soldiers of the 3rd and the 101st/82nd Airborne who had fought and then guarded those sites during their stays there.

Kerry never said anything about aerial-surveillance photos that showed the Iraqis, and, according to Bill Gertz of The Washington Times, a special Russian Speznatz unit, hauling away munitions before the war started. Nor did he acknowledge earlier press stories about reported heavy truck movements into Syria and possibly Iran before the U.S. entry into Iraq, trucks which may have carried WMDs, the missing explosives and other deadly items.

*emphasis mine*
(entire letter)

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.