The Democrats Big Lie

Fox News ^ | August 8, 2003 | Frank Gaffney, Jr.

[rickmichaels]

Adolf Hitler once observed that it was easier to convince people of a "big lie" repeated often enough than it was to deceive them with a lot of small ones.

In their frenzied bid to displace President Bush in 2004, leading Democrats have evidently taken to heart this tip from one of the world's most successful propagandists.

[liberallarry]

And lay off the ignoramus part. You don't know me or my intelligence or lack of...typical liberal elitist....call someone names when your argument is weak.

You object to name calling but feel free to say things like

Tell your revisionist history to other dims

Why is that? Have you no concept of manners? It's a two-way street, bud. You treat me with respect. I return the favor. Otherwise, the mud flies.

And yes it is revisionist to say Bush was saying anything that everyone else wasn't saying about Iraq...that's the revision part and you know it.

No, I don't know it. More insults from you. Why do you assume I'm not serious? How rude is that? There a debate raging throughtout the world on this issue and yet you say everyone is in agreement. What planet do you live on?

[Noumenon]

I sent this article to the family with the following comment:

Ironic, isn’t it, that those liberals who are so quick to label people on the Right as Nazis have more in common with Nazis than anyone else.

[TomB]

But I also believe - and support - the idea that the Administration exagerated the immediate dangers

Your statement is very apropos for a discussion of the "Big Lie".

Here is what Bush REALLY said in the State of the Union:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Obviously, he is not stating the threat is imminent, but that it would be a mistake to wait until it is thus.

[185JHP]

They would like to sell the idea that their tyranny is so soft, fuzzy and nice, "you'll like it even better than freedom - that you're not qualified to handle anyway." They also like the conflation that the choice is left-wing dictatorship vs. right-wing. The real continuum runs from "not enough govt." to "too much govt." FReegards

[Wil H]

So who said this then?

Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region.

The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars:

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program, we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons. Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families.

And may God bless America.

---

This is the actual text of Bill Clinton's speech on December 16th 1998.

Where were you anti-war protestors then?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

You just nailed it.

[Stallone]

A liar is a liar.

Of course, you would know, chump.

Bush is an American of great character, resolve, a truly historic figure in the making of this great country.

The 'Rats continue to bury themselves in treason, corruption and incompetence.

We're on to you, and so is America. Your time has passed. Get lost.

[Gracey]

Try not to be a complete ignoramus

In typical DemonRat style. When you can't justify, you call names and you accuse, over and over and over and over again, until the big LIE is believed, just like the Left is trying to do to Bush right now.

[Varmint Al]

The Democrats FEEL that Bush lied. Remember, that for a Liberal, FEELINGS trump fact and logic every time!

[liberallarry]

Let me try to get to the heart of the issue.

Regardless of what Bush did or didn't say in the State of the Union of any other speech, most people believe we went to war with Iraq because of their WMD programs and connections with terrorists. The Administration made that case.

But I don't believe those were the real reasons. The neocons, and the Administration, believe that the principal danger to us lies not with Al Queda or Saddam's WMDs but with the entire Muslim world - a world mired in hatred, humiliation, frustration, and defeat and burning with a desire for revenge. Any weapons will do - boxcutters, knives, airplanes, anything. There's no direct defense possible. So we've decided to try to change the culture - or destroy it.

This policy will require continuous warfare and great expenditure for many years. It could not, and cannot, be sold honestly to the public. So the Administration emphasized WMDs and terrorists.

[liberallarry]

You're another fool. See posts #21 and #30.

[TomB]

Regardless of what Bush did or didn't say in the State of the Union of any other speech,

No, not "regardless". You made the specific statement that the Administration said the threat was imminent. It has now been shown that that statement was not remotely true. You now try to take the discussion in a completely different direction.

I'm sorry, but you have been discredited and I have no reason to believe that you have any clue what the "real reasons" for going to war were.

Your agenda was exposed.

[liberallarry]

Where were you anti-war protestors then?

If you want to have a serious conversation you'll have to forego the gratuitous insults. What makes you think that I am, or was, an anti-war protestor?

Regardless of what Clinton (the notorious liar and opportunist?) said - and I agree with all of it - I stand by my analysis as posted in #30.

The best evidence so far is that is that we will not find any chemical or biological weapons because Saddam had a dual-use system designed to manufacture and use these weapons quickly - not to store them. Nor will we find nuclear weapons. He simply didn't have the money to fund such a program of development or hide it if he did.

The Administration knew that. They were certainly aware that - free of restraint - he could develop these weapons in a short time but there was never any intention to free him from restraint.

The claim that Saddam was the only nation to use WMD is false. Iran used them. We used them. The Russians used them. In any case the distinction between WMD and other legal weapons - such as napalm, carpet bombing, and things like agent orange, or starvation and gas chambers - is questionable. Many, many thousands of innocents are killed with these things.

[liberallarry]

I'm sorry, but you have been discredited and I have no reason to believe that you have any clue what the "real reasons" for going to war were.

Then don't. Nobody's forcing you to - or even trying very hard to convince you.

[Eva]

The big lie is one of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, which Hillary follows very closely. These rules have been her Ten Commandments since she served the infamous socialist as an intern.

[TomB]

Then don't. Nobody's forcing you to - or even trying very hard to convince you.

No, what I am doing is exposing your lies lest anyone else be swayed by them.

[Poincare]

"I had to bomb that aspirin factory in - oops! - the wrong country on the same day Monica testified in court for reasons of national security."

It had to do with Monica, but not in the way that most suspect. As a result of the bombing of the aspirin factory Vernon Jordan made millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, when his client, the owner of the uninsured asprin factory, was awarded billions in damages from the U.S. taxpayer. (And Vernon Jordan perjured himself for the Klintons. What a deal!)

[Laserman]

Your claim that such a battle could not be sold honestly is absurd. I remember numerous times that President Bush told the American people that the war on terror would be fought in hundreds of places for many years and that it would be costly and drawn out. He emphasized that we would need staying power to see it through. This is EXACTLY how he "sold" it.

[TheDon]

I have come across many Freepers who have been sucked into this big lie on the Iraqi war, some on this thread.

[liberallarry]

That is the real fanasy, the words in the SOTU were "growing and gathering" threat, not imminent.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Can't you see they're all saying the same thing. Just playing with words. Is a threat "imminent" if it's months away? Or only "growing and gathering"? If it "growing and gathering" can it be contained with "a strong inspection system" and sanctions - or are these latter terminally flawed concepts?

By the way, what threat is Bush referring to when he talks about "growing and gathering"? I don't remember the context. I'll have to go back to the SOTU to see.