THE DEMS' WMD FRAUD (Rich Lowry)

Townhall ^ | 6/3/03 | Rich Lowry

[Elkiejg]

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N. sanctions on Saddam Hussein: "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Leveraging U.N. resolutions to support military action, the secretary of defense said: "The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration."

The officials argued that U.N. inspections weren't enough. "It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment," the president's national security adviser said of the U.N. inspections regime. "It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity."

The president's congressional loyalists stood behind him. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction," said a prominent senator, sounding a familiar theme, "but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."

"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description," said another hawk, taking aim at the split in the international community. "France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach."

Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war, perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry.

They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to "degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush administration.

The failure so far to find WMD in Iraq is a major embarrassment for President Bush, and congressional hearings into the intelligence prior to the Iraq War are welcome. But the post-Iraq debate shouldn't proceed on false pretenses: Everyone this side of famed Iraqi prevaricator Baghdad Bob believed that Iraq had WMD. In the run-up to the war, the United Nations, the "axis of weasel" (France and Germany) and high-profile Democrats all agreed about WMD.

The specific figures in Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. presentation about Iraq's unaccounted-for WMD came from U.N. inspectors. France and Germany didn't argue that Saddam had no WMD, but inspections could rid him of them. Clinton and Al Gore dissented from aspects of Bush's policy, but agreed about WMD. "We know," Gore said, "he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons."

The question was what to do about a dictator with ties to terrorism who for 12 years had defied the procedures set out by the world to confirm that he no longer had dangerous weapons. For the Bush administration, Sept. 11 meant erring on the side of safety, and so continuing to accept Saddam's denials and defiance wasn't an option.

As someone once warned: "This is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of the reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century." Even if the rhetoric was shrill, Bill Clinton had a point.

[Elkiejg]

ZING!! Life's a B*TCH when your words come back to hit you in the face isn't it?

[patriciaruth]

Ping.

A nice summary of Democrat hypocrisy.

We haven't found Saddam Hussein yet either. Does that mean he didn't exist?

President Bush's favorite method of dealing with opponents is feeding them rope and letting them hang themselves. So far, this has been a lot of fun to watch. They aren't all in the noose yet, but are getting bolder every day.

:-)

[onyx]

It's sick, how the democrats root against America.

It's sick, how the democrats choose to believe Chirac and his ilk over our own CIA, pentagon, military and president.

[Susannah]

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher.
Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998

[bart99]

I do wish that someone, womewhere would publish all these quotes and NOT let them die. It shows that there WAS a sense of unity among democrats and rebulicans when it came to Saddam and Iraq - andother rouge states (like north Korea, much less Iran and syria).

These quotes, which we see now and again, should be used in all marches, protests, arguments, congressional debates, etc (with proper credit to the "author") to cut through the hypocrisy and politicizing of the war and recognize WE ARE united.

Perhaps we could send these to Drudge and he can reserve a permanent place on his site for them. *shrug*

And, politics aside, the leadership of the United States is united on the issue.

Or could.... or should.... be.

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

[PogySailor]

Bump!

Nice article to keep in my pocket.

[randita]

If no WMD:

Why did SH kick out the inspectors in 1998?

Why did SH tell scientists to lie to the Blix headed bunglers?

Why did SH risk his power, his military and his life if he was in compliance with the dozens of UN Resolutions and the contract he signed in 1991 to end the Gulf War and didn't have anything to hide?

[hchutch]

I don't think the Left or the paleo-cons will answer those questions. To do so would be to admit that they have not been proven wrong.

Heck, we have themobile labs that Blix said did not exist.

[Grampa Dave]

Great post!

[Grampa Dave]

That was what the Rats said in 1998 when The Clintoons were the co presidents. Now this is what they are whining"

[Grampa Dave]

Our own Wolfstar posted a similiar thread yesterday about what these two faced rats said in 1998 versus now:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922014/posts

WARNING: Gathering WMD storm a crock. See what Clinton told nation in 1998...
CNN AllPolitics.com archives ^ | 6/2/03 (from 12/98 speech) | Bill Clinton


Posted on 06/02/2003 6:14 PM PDT by Wolfstar


Before anyone goes too far down the road of trying to bring down either the Bush or Blair administrations over questions about where the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are, a short detour into recent history is in order.


In December 1998, Bill Clinton addressed the American public from the Oval Office. His purpose was to explain why he ordered military action in Iraq. The following is a verbatim transcript found in the CNN AllPolitics.com archives. (Statements relevant to the current gathering WMD storm have been emphasized by Wolfstar in bold.) BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

[Mo1]

You also need to add

Why did SH have those mobile lab trucks

They sure weren't used as a hot dog vending truck ..

[Redbob]

The Dimocrats are NOT "rooting against America;" they are simply doing everything and anything they can to discredit or embarrass George Dubya.

They recognize clearly that his success hastens their demise, and they're clinging with their fingernails to every last hope of returning to power.

That's what all of this is about: Power.

And their lack of it.

[DollyCali]

Thank you. It is unfortunate that this material will not get wide dissemination. The ones that read & see it already know what a croc the rats are/were.

[hoosierpearl]

Thank you for the ping patriciaruth. This is a good article, a keeper.