Unfortunatley for them, all the cable networks cut away from their diatribes to cover something else, so NOBODY heard it.
After tomorrow night, they will be totally irrelevant.
After Monday's interim "progress" report on wonderful Iraqi "compliance", the only conclusion one can draw is that Iraq -- and Democrat backers -- have rather curious ways of defining "cooperation." Maybe Saddam, like his playmate Clinton on the meaning of "is", reserves unique definition for words.We hear ad nauseam that the President has 'failed to make his case.' That Saddam is, like Osama Mama Murray says of her darling namesake, really just the kindest, sweetest, gentlest lil' dictator you'll ever know. Don't believe me? Just ask the Kurds.
Saddam is, say Democrats, allowing the inspections process to move forward, so why can't bully Bush?
But is Saddam really cooperating, as Democrats assert?
Gee, let's see:
-- Iraq, says chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, hasn't "come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." The 12,000-page weapons report was a sham, a web of falsehoods and omissions, "a reprint of earlier documents," he said. They don't "seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number," he added.
-- Iraq's "cooperation" on process is a fig-leaf. Saddam still offers nothing on substance. "It is not enough to open doors," Blix told the U.N. Security Council Monday, adding that "inspections is not a game of catch-as-catch-can. Rather ... it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence."
-- Anthrax? "There are strong indications," said Blix, "that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date."
-- On Iraqi assertions that remaining supplies of deadly VX nerve agent were destroyed after Desert Storm, Blix says the U.N. "has information that conflicts with this account."
-- A Mustard gas precursor had been uncovered.
-- Iraq has thus far failed to produced scientists for private interviews. Kinda strange if, as Saddam claims, he's got nothing to hide. Blix noted, moreover, that U.N. inspectors have also been targets of Iraqi harrassment and intimidation.
-- Thousands of chemical warfare bombs have not been accounted for.
-- Construction of missiles with ranges beyond the 90-mile limit imposed by U.N. resolutions continues.
-- Iraq has refused repeated requests by inspectors to deploy a U-2 surveillance plane.
No 'smoking gun', granted, just freight-loads of semen-stained dresses with Butcher-of-Baghdad's DNA all over 'em.
No amount of proof will, of course, ever convince the 'With-Our-Souls-And-Our-Blood-We-Sacrifice-To-You, Oh-Saddam!' Democrats, who everyday sound more and more like Tariq Aziz.
Democrats want Bush -- not Saddam -- to be the issue here.
Some are even upbeat Saddam will beat the rap.
Iraq has had more than enough time to comply, says the U.S.
No way, say Democrats. Bush isn't being fair. Disarming is a big job, time-consuming -- not something a dictator can do lickety-split. Between torturing and hanging opponents, extracting confessions, running detention camps, chopping hands off, kidnapping, training terrorists -- c'mon, where's Saddam suppose to find the time? The Butcher is a busy guy. It's not like sonny boy Uday can handle the workload alone, you know.
Iraq, of course, denies there's any torture and killing going on. Okay, maybe just a little. Hey, it's not our fault, you see. If we torture and kill people, the U.N. embargo is making us do it, they say.
Follow the "logic" here:
-- Inspections have failed, so we need more of 'em.
-- U.N. resolution 1441 calls on Iraq to comply fully. Saddam's reply? The middle-finger salute. The French Vichy wannabes and the German Nazi wannabes call this "progress" -- hey, he could've launched chem or bio weapons that he doesn't have on Israel, right? Besides, anyone who hates Americans and Jews like Saddam can't be all that bad.
-- Saddam would've willingly allowed inspectors back in -- Bush's threatened use of force, backed by large-scale U.S.-British troop deployments to the region, has had nothing to do with it.
Democrats argue that the world will be a lot less safe without Saddam in power because if we remove Saddam from power the Arab world will get really, really mad at us even though they were really, really mad at us even before 9/11 which is why 9/11 occurred and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and even if he did Bush has not made the case that he did therefore it didn't really happen....
Confused yet?
As I noted several months ago, Democrats are in 'Defend-Saddam-At-All-Costs' mode, eerily similar to 'Defend-Clinton-At-All-Costs during the Monica mess.
Nothing Saddam has done, say Democrats, rises to the level of removal from office/Nothing Clinton did rose to the level of impeachment and removal from office.
Sure Saddam lied to weapons inspectors, but so what? All politicians lie/Sure Clinton lied to Ken Starr but so what? All men lie about their sex life.
Sure Saddam violates human rights, but so what? So do Iran and Syria and China/Sure Clinton had sex with Monica, but so what? All men do it.
Sure the Blix report was pretty scathing, but so what? Where's the 'smoking gun'?/Sure the Starr report was pretty scathing, but so what? Where's the 'smoking gun'?
Interestingly, Democrat leaders yesterday rallied around Saddam in much the same way Democrats rallied around Clinton at the Rose Garden after impeachment.
Where's the proof? demanded Tommy Daschle and Rep. Nancy Pelosi Monday.
Appearing jointly at the National Press Club in a "pre-buttal" to the President's Tuesday Address, Tommy and Nancy sought to undermine Bush, insinuating the White House lacks evidence to back up its claims that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction.
If you have the proof, let's see it, they said.
The onus is not on Saddam, but on Bush.
Benedict Arnold had nothing on Nancy and Tommy.
Anyway, that's..
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"