OK, clear your desks. It’s time for a quiz.
Which of the following made statements in the period between 1998 and 2003 that Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction:
President Bill Clinton
Madeline Albright, Secretary of State
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor
Democratic Senator Carl Levin
Democratic Senator Tom Daschle
Democratic Senator John Kerry
Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Senator Bob Graham
Democratic Vice President Algore
Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy
Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
Democratic Senator Jay Rockerfeller
Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton
Democratic Representative Henry Waxman
Dr. Hans Blix, United Nations weapons inspector
Yep, trick question – every one of these people and agencies made such statements. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton said something to the effect that she wanted to be certain so she did her own investigation. That’s also interesting because she now says she made a mistake, but it was George W. Bush’s fault. I might be willing to chalk it up to an old age memory lapse, but she has a record of lying. It only happens when her lips are moving, but they’re moving most of the time so, well…you know. “W” sure is wily. He managed to fool all those politicians, the Brits, the Germans and the French. Especially the French since they don’t trust America in the first place.
This summer General Ray Odierno was being interviewed by Charlie Rose and Rose brought up the subject of flawed intelligence. I believe he was hoping the General would say something damning about Bush, but Odierno stated emphatically that he absolutely believed that Saddam either had WMDs or a program to create them. In fact, he related that one of Saddam’s Generals, who he had come to know after the war, told him (Odierno) that he still believes that Saddam had a WMD program. Of course, we also now know that one of Saddam’s henchman admitted after the war that Saddam actually had a program to convince the rest of the world that he did have WMDs. If all of this were not enough let me describe another interview by Charlie Rose just this past week. Charlie was interviewing Mike Morell, former Deputy Director and Acting Director of the CIA, who made an astounding statement. He said that in the FBI’s interrogation of Saddam after his capture, Saddam stated that he thought he actually did have a WMD program. I don’t know exactly how to process this statement, but it is clear there was plenty of reason to believe that Iraq did have a WMD program. With this knowledge I believe it would have been malfeasance on Bush’s part to not invade Iraq.
Bear in mind, also, that Saddam had ignored 14 U.N. resolutions. By not acting the U.N. had just about rendered its sanctions and itself meaningless. Saddam had been stealing much of the money from the Oil for Food Program that was supposed to provide food and humanitarian necessities for the Iraqi people under the U.N. sanctions. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, uber leftist Noam Chomsky had been accosting any news-person he could find to charge that the U.N. sanctions were killing 5000 Iraqi children each month. Since no one in the media ever challenged him on those figures, I can only assume that they must have been accurate. On that basis alone it seems to me that Bush’s 10-year war (which ended those sanctions) must have saved 600,000 Iraqi children and Bush therefore is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, Obama got one for doing nothing, right? So I’m certain that anyone who saved 600,000 children should receive that award. Right?
Democrats characterized the Iraq war as the “bad” war and Afghanistan as the “good” war. Then, of course, under Obama both were described as being successful wars with good outcomes and Obama made all kinds of flowery speeches about how great things were as we slipped quietly out of Iraq and began to draw down troops in Afghanistan. Now things have gone south in Iraq and it’s back to being Bush’s “bad” war. In fact, now the Afghan war is bad, too.
Now let us suppose that Bush had not invaded Iraq. Where would we be today? Well, the U.N. after being stiffed by Saddam on all those resolutions would be rightly seen today as an ineffectual non-entity. It probably is anyway, but that’s a subject for a different time. What would the Middle East be like today? With the sanctions of a toothless U.N. falling apart would any reasoning person argue that Saddam would not have pursued WMDs – including the A-bomb? And would Saddam’s mortal enemy Iran have let that happen without seeking its own weapon? You know as well as I the answer to that. So feel free to send “Thank You” notes to George W. Bush c/o the RNC.
What the world does face now is Iran headed toward a nuclear weapon in 5 to 10 years. As I have pointed out in previous posts when they get the “bomb” they will use it. So tighten your seat belts folks, it’s going to be a bumpy future. Feel free to send “Thank You” notes to POTUS Obama c/o the DNC.