Sometimes we just want to “believe’ it sooo badly we overlook the obvious and start chalking up events to reasons that “fit” with an agenda, or point of view. Take the fine actor Will Smith’s recent comments on the views of other people in other places around the world. He put forth that since Barack Obama started his ‘run’ for the Presidency peoples views toward America have started to change. He holds that those people now view America in an improving light. While I can’t deny that peoples views of America ARE steadily improving, the truth is that this change occurred well before Barack Obama ever hit the worlds political stage. It began, if fact, several years ago with the pro-America, pro-Bush leadership that was elected in Germany, France, even recently in Italy, as well as elsewhere.
And the views on involvement in Iraq has steadily changed too, with the enlightenment of the electorate of those countries upon discovery of the old “anti-Bush”, “anti-America” leaderships personal involvement with corruption and their underhanded dealing with Iraq and Hussein in various business deals that went against U. N. Sanction. If you kept up with the news at all I know you’ve heard of the ‘Oil for Food’ scandal… which explains the reason behind those countries security and intelligence forces supporting the invasion, while the leadership did not. And now, beyond all expectation and proclamation by those that opposed it, we are winning! Things are going, not Bush’s, but OUR way. Democracies way. AMERICA’S way.
We are building a friend and ally in a part of the world where we so badly need one… yet people still wish to turn back the clock and undo the good that has been, and continues to be done. Everyone should certainly know the value of freedom to mankind. And they must realize that that freedom comes with a price. A price best paid on foreign soil in my humble opinion. Free men cannot remain free if unwilling to do what is necessary to guard and protect that freedom. Those “right’s” that we so cherish become meaningless when left unprotected from those that would allow no rights at all.
It appears that many staked their politics to the position that President Bush ‘lied’ to get us to war. That this is somehow something that all came to be on President Bush’s watch. Actually, that in itself is the lie, and I’ve ample evidence presented below that well indicates the seriousness of others views toward Iraq, and our very legitimate reasons to invade, … all well before President Bushes election in 2000.
I’d also like to note here that the misconception of this somehow being a way to “get their Oil” is borderline…, no not borderline, IT FULLY WELL IS delusional. Had we just “wanted their oil” we could have easily gotten it (and at a far far less cost then that we’d have known we’d have to pay) by just allowing the removal of the U. N. Sanctions that we ourselves pressed for and supported. We could easily have dove deeply off into that before mentioned ‘Oil for Food’ program, had that been our reason and desire… But it wasn’t. We went to war, not for any “fact” that Saddam had WMD’s, or any known connection to al Qaeda (which, as you’ll see, there was), but because the threat of what would or could happen was just too great to ignore… especially in light of what had happened on September 11, 2001. Saddam was no friend of peace, and he had more than proven his capability to do harm. And desire us and others harm he truly did.
Also one would do well to remember, that even without any weapon of mass destruction on hand, he still had all of his scientists, all of his laboratories, all of his command and control, AND all of the raw ingredients to produce one. And how many more than one would be too many? …Yes, even just one.
Was Saddam a threat…and was that threat real? Let’s let those that came along before George W. Bush answer in their own words:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 (years prior to Bush becoming President)
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 (years prior to Bush becoming president)
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 (almost three years prior to Bush becoming President)
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 (almost three years prior to Bush becoming President)
“[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:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 ( over two years prior to Bush becoming President
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 (two years prior to Bush becoming President)
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 ( a year prior to Bush becoming President)
Well, that’s the view of the leadership of our country before Bush’s election. And that is very telling… but what about the view from the top of the Democrats side of things after the election? After all, these people, as the top leadership of our country, are privy to most every bit of the classified information that is presented to the President… very little is withheld from the bunch incase of some drastic circumstance, you know. Here’s the words from those that were ‘in the know’:
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“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
“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.” – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“[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 is miscalculating America’s response to his 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
Well now, that is from the horses mouth one might say. And this group, as associated as they were with the past administration, would certainly recognized having the proverbial wool pulled over their eyes.
I know, your probably making excuses why all this doesn’t matter, or relate to what’s happening now… But the story persists that Bush lied about a bunch of things, and supposedly the Democrats where in a position to find out. And they put together a commission to do just that. Ran by Jay Rockefeller I believe. And we have heard time and time again about this and that, and what supposedly “proves” this and that about Bush lying to us all… but, can you believe what you hear? Apparently not! Read below what an editor for the Washington Post has to say about that report… and the truth it revealed.
“ Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt will no doubt upset liberal bloggers with his Monday column underscoring something the rest of the national media elite hasn’t exactly underscored: that the “Bush lied, people died” line doesn’t match what Democrats on the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence found and some media outlets forwarded. For instance, on Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams announced: “In a long-awaited report, the Senate Intelligence Committee today concluded that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials exaggerated and misrepresented the intelligence about Saddam Hussein and his possible connections to al Qaeda in making the case for war in Iraq. Most of the Republicans on the committee notably and sharply disagreed with some of the report’s findings.” But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq‘s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq‘s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
Hiatt concluded that the problem was not that Bush overstated the intelligence as much as the intelligence was so off-kilter, which is a danger for a President of either party.”
Tim Graham, newsbusters.org
It’s easy to draw a line in the sand on a particular side of an issue, especially when it seems to be the “popular” side. But it would do you well to remember that often history puts things into perspective and people often find that the side they chose ends up being on the wrong side… and history (and TRUTH) stays around for a good long while once the dust settles. Get all the facts before you nail the door shut on Bush and the current administration. Once upon a time in Europe, Churchill, you might recall, was thought to be the “evil” one…