Posted on 07/01/2006 7:32:10 AM PDT by kellynla
While the Bush administration focuses on the elimination of the terrorist threat in Iraq, the Saddam-was-no-threat left has remained obsessed with the pre-war months, not only harping on the failures of Western intelligence, but more importantly, advancing a hardened historical narrative. They would have the world believe the Bush administration was not only wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but also lied intentionally and went to war for some unstated cynical reason -- oil, enriching war profiteers, avenging Daddy Bush.
To a large degree, they are succeeding with their revisionist history lesson, and the proof is in the pudding of the polls. Not only does a majority declare that the war wasn't worth the cost to our troops and our treasury, but a majority believes George W. Bush is not honest or trustworthy. When the USA Today-Gallup poll asked if the words "honest" and "trustworthy" applied to Mr. Bush in February of 2001, 64 percent said he was honest, while 29 percent said the words did not apply. By April of 2006, the numbers were 41 percent honest, 56 percent dishonest. It's an easy guess that a lot of that turnaround is our failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
So it was surprising to Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, who were investigating whispers that weapons of mass destruction have actually been found by American troops in Iraq, to learn the rumors were true. After badgering administration officials for several months, the government gave the legislators a declassified memo stating that some 500 weapons of mass destruction have been found by coalition forces in Iraq, mostly sarin and mustard-gas agents, some of which "remain hazardous and potentially lethal."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
IMO they stay silent because a detailed inspection of these weapons would reveal that some of our allies (Germany, France & Russia) were instrumental in the development and manufacture of Iraqs WMD.
You may remember that this was true of Saddams artillery (ex. Super gun)
Bush and company do not want to rock the boat of our rickety coalition.
The Bush administration was keeping this information top secret hoping that someone would leak it to the New York Times...maybe then the story would be front page news.
Sorry, I have to disagree -- he's not even that smart.
The point isn't to change Alan's mind - the point is TO LET HIM KNOW we're paying attention. The dems like to believe we're too stupid to know what's going on. Sending Alan emails disproves that myth!
Arguing {discussion} with the Left is not even close to meaningful or useful. They are so full of lies that debate serves no purpose.
Except for the fact that they are usually not violent, they are as dangerous to society as any islamofacist terrorists. The non-violent part is important. Otherwise it would be just as appropriate to War against them as against bin Ladin.
As it is, cooperation is wrong, and the only realistic strategy is total defeat. Terms and working together can come only after surrender.
I think they should be delivered to the desks of our congress-critters and senators for them to ponder and decide whether they are lethal or not - a little hands-on exercise
Finally, a great analysis of this whole ordeal.
Recall how unmoved the media was when President Nixon found peace with honor?
Thank God President Bush knows enough to not use his presidency to please the media. But then again, thank God that the media is deflated of its former power and influence!
I don't think any politician is honest, so I guess I am on the side of the lefties.
...LOL. ...Nicely done!
Ha, ha, you got that one right. Apparently the libs are declaring that chem wmds have use-by dates on them. We'd like to test that assertion on them with the libs as willing accomplices. I'm sure that will happen (smirk). With this recent wmd announcement and the Hussein documents disclosures, two main pillars of the leftist assault on the validity of the war have been destroyed: to wit, there were no wmds, and Hussein had no connection to Al-Qaeda.
Now what is the left to do? Dodge, evade, equivocate, ignore, and as always move the goalposts.
To be fair to Alan, he is much more fair than most liberals.
Certainly you are correct in your assessment of why the Bush Administration hasn't trumpeted the discovery of chemical munitions or the CBNRE (chemical, biological, nuclear, explosive) research labs and/or stockpiles. This also accounts for the "these are not the WMDs we expected to find in Iraq" response from DoD regarding the 500 gas-filled rockets. Clearly Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney expected to find entire manufacturing complexes, and bunkers stacked high with newly manufactured gas and germ weapons (those that hadn't already been fired at our troops in the first phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom). The recent PBS production, "The Dark Side" suggests that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all believed that they had been "hornswoggled" by DCI Tenet and the CIA, and they may even have thought that their candor in acknowledging that the WMDs which were, in fact, found in Iraq were "not the WMDs we were after" would deflect press criticism on to (Clinton-appointee) Tenet and CIA (where the lion's share of the blame for that "intelligence failure" clearly belonged). Little did anyone in the Executive Branch realize that the notoriously inept CIA and their associates: Tenet, Clarke, Scheuer, Joe and Val Wilson would be transformed into the "heroes" and "whistleblowers", while the intelligence consumers they had so poorly served would become the "villains" in the drive-by media.
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.