by Big Dog on Aug 31, 2004 at 19:38 Political
There has been a great deal of discussion lately, given the charged political atmosphere, about why we went to war. The Democrats insist that George W Bush misled the public and manipulated intelligence information to attack Iraq. They further claim that he was unaware of what was going on because he did not pay attention to the intelligence that was then available. Then they say there is no credible evidence that Saddam had anything to do with supporting terrorists so why take the war on terror to him? Yes, poor Saddam, he is such a good guy.
John Kerry has stated that he voted to give the President the authority to go to war. He also stated that he would have done things differently. He would have us believe that he is better equipped to understand the intelligence because he spent four months in Vietnam and is a war hero. Interestingly, he is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and yet he has missed a number of briefings. This would lead us to ask how he could know anything close to that which the President was aware.
Senator Hillary Clinton beats the Democratic drum and marches lock step with her party in decrying the president?s actions and lack of knowledge with regard to the attacks of September 11th, 2001. She and her colleagues have been denouncing the President because he allowed the attacks to happen and then went to war based on the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Clinton and her toadies are trumping up the idea that the invasion was all about the oil and family honor. Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, any fool can see that.
Add Michael Moore, the man (if that waste of human flesh can be considered a man) that John McCain described as a disingenuous movie producer, and you have a real fiasco. Moore?s movie portrays the President as a person who misled the country to war. Moore, who was at the RNC last night mouthing two more months as Bush supporters chanted four more years, should be considered a member of the so called 527?s because of his blatant attempt to influence the election by lying in what I consider a 90 minute campaign ad for John Kerry.
Let us take a look at how smart those who criticize the President are. Let us look at their own words to determine how well they did with the intelligence. Let us just see how anti-war they were when they received and interpreted the information.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Is it just me, or did these two Senators state that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that they have ties to terrorists? I am a bit confused. How is it that George Bush was wrong with regard to intelligence and the whole WMD issue but these two stellar performers were making the same claims? Kerry?s first claim was in a letter to President Clinton so it was before George Bush was in office. When it was the Democrats then it was OK to interpret the intelligence this way and make claims about Saddam and WMD. But when a Republican President looks at the data and arrives at the same conclusion, AND ACTS UPON IT, then he is a war monger out for Iraqi oil.
I guess I should not be surprised by Kerry on this. He has stayed true to form and taken both sides of the issue. I guess he actually said Saddam had WMD before he said that he didn?t. Whatever way the wind blows is where you will find Kerry. I am surprised he has children given that he does not have any testicular fortitude.
Clinton? Typical actions on her part. She opens her mouth and stupidity flows out. Perhaps if she did something more suited to her with that mouth Bill would not have looked for lust in all the wrong places.
The Democratic party! A bunch of losers who can?t remember what lie they told last. They change their points of faster than anyone can keep up. Stevie Wonder will find Waldo before these people get any morals.
Print This Post