Hugh Hewitt Mega Ping!!
Posted on 07/02/2003 12:39:00 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
This past Sunday, James Carville mocked the discovery of buried uranium-enrichment equipment in the backyard of Shukur Ubaydi – a key leader of Iraq's drive to obtain nuclear weapons prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Carville derided the centrifuge parts as looking like "a carburetor some redneck would have in his garage."
NBC's Russert did not challenge Carville on this astonishing display of partisanship dressed up as ignorance, but the statement revealed a great deal about Democratic strategy on the WMD debate that has already begun: Deny the relevance and importance of every piece of evidence, and assert that nothing has been proven.
The centrifuge? A redneck's carburetor. The mobile bio labs? Could be agriculture-related. The movements of al-Qaida operatives through Baghdad? Saddam may not have know about them. The Kurdish terrorist camp? Saddam didn't control that area. The unmanned aerial vehicles that could fly hundreds of miles? They couldn't fly from Baghdad to D.C., so they were no threat.
The pattern is now clear, and Carville underlined it by dismissing the most damning evidence yet of Iraq's danger to the world. Despite a decade of inspections and six months of Iraqi denials of illegal activities and Iraqi promises and guarantees of full cooperation with U.N. inspection teams, Iraq was discovered to have been concealing the key components of the most dangerous weapon system of all. Late in June, the CIA removed the photos of Carville's carburetor from its website after warnings were voiced that the pictures could provide too many details to nuke-hungry enemies of the U.S.
No word yet on whether all photos of carburetors have been deleted from the Web.
The partisan attacks on Vice President Cheney over his warnings that Iraq might try to reconstitute a nuclear-weapons program have continued even after this announcement of the find of the buried materials. One wonders what a reconstituted program would look like? If the other materials secreted by Saddam around the country are unearthed, will that satisfy critics? Of course not. The critics cannot be satisfied because they cannot admit the key points: Saddam never complied with the U.N., and would never have complied with the U.N., and had Bush not acted, eventually Saddam or his sons would have unearthed the centrifuges, reproduced them by the thousands, and pulled a North Korea.
That is the bottom line: The U.S. now has hard evidence that Saddam intended to obtain nukes some day – that his regime never did and would never have become a compliant participant in international schemes designed to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.
More discoveries will certainly follow, as will Democratic denunciations of their relevance. This is an excellent display of the basic Democratic disability: The party of the left is incapable of taking threats to American national security seriously.
Clinton ignored the nature of the threats posed by al-Qaida, North Korea and Iran, and his actions against Iraq were insufficient to disarm or topple Saddam. In other words, he failed in his primary duty to protect and defend the United States. Bush has not yet succeeded on all fronts, but his seriousness cannot be questioned, as the Taliban and Saddam have learned.
Faced with that clear truth about the president, Democrats have decided to mock the threat in addition to the man. In doing so they announce to the electorate a key truth that the electorate cannot forget: The Democrats cannot see threats, and lacking the ability to see them, lack the ability to defend against them. In other words, Democratic fecklessness, as best expressed by their principal political strategist James Carville, could get you killed.
That will be the issue of 2004, and every other issue pales in comparison. The Democrats cannot be trusted to defend the country because they cannot be trusted to take threats to the country seriously. Call it the carburetor test. And we have James Carville to thank for making the issue obvious.
This needs to be shouted from the roof tops every day.
Interesting how the left dismisses materials that a terrorist could use to make a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, the left goes into hysterics over every part of a handgun or rifle that a citizen may own. Suddenly, every little part portends sinister things -- they talk about "pistol grips," "light triggers," "high-capacity magazines," "bayonet lugs"(?!) and "flash hiders" as if these items will assemble themselves and go out shooting people all on their own. Build a nuclear device -- no big deal. Affix a bayonet to your rifle and it is like it is the end of the world.
.
AFTER
Bump!
The process of becoming a leftist requires you to adopt a convoluted worldview in which you come to see your own country as the principal problem of the world.
Their utopian vision simply won't tolerate a successful America, Bill Clinton did everything he could to weaken our country from within, and that's the kind of president the left wants again.
"That will be the issue of 2004, and every other issue pales in comparison.From http://www-cgi.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/carville.james.html:The Democrats cannot be trusted to defend the country because they cannot be trusted to take threats to the country seriously.
Call it the carburetor test.
And we have James Carville to thank for making the issue obvious." - Hugh Hewitt
.
(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)
Most Dems are also more concerned about politics than civic security. So many American cities are basket cases because Dems operate on
victimhood philosophies ("It's not my fault")
wishful thinking (as in "I wish all the children would do well in school")
no concept of personal responsibility or consequences.
See you after the Fourth of July! :o)
Excellent article. This sentence just about says it all, although I would add twho things. First,even if they were to see an actual threat for what it is, we can count on them taking no meaningful action against it. Second, if the evidence of the threat is ambiguous, i.e. subject to more than one interpretation (e.g. the "dual use" arguments in response to evidence of WMDs), we can count on them accepting the benign interpretation (Carville's reaction is a perfect example of this second point).
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.