A matter of integrity

[Tigermike 3,711]

Interesting, well written article.

A matter of integrity

Mona Charen

January 30, 2004

With David Kay's testimony on the fruitless search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the time has come for an accounting.

In a more reasonable environment, politicians and opinion-makers would absorb the new facts and make the needed reforms. Reasonable people cannot avoid the conclusion that our intelligence agencies were badly mistaken.

But are the Democrats reasonable? Their preposterous interpretation of events has become mainstream. It goes as follows. No stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq therefore: a) George W. Bush knew that there were none to be found and took the nation to war on false pretenses.

Let's examine the logic. The Democrats claim that Bush wanted war in spite of the fact that there were no WMDs. Why? To put himself in political jeopardy when this fact was discovered? And if he knew that there were no WMDs, why did he speak about them so often and so forcefully? Also, how many times must we remind the Democrats that the president never argued that the threat was "imminent?" He urged, to the contrary, that it would be reckless to wait until a threat was imminent.

But the most amazing thing about the Democrats' argument is its glaring disregard of very recent history. Everyone -- the Democrats, the French, the Republicans, the Clinton administration, the Russians, the United Nations Security Council -- believed that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. It wasn't disputed by anyone. Here is a small sample of quotations from leading Democrats on the matter:

"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." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We 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 program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others, Oct. 9, 1998.

"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, Dec. 16, 1998.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 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, Oct. 9, 2002.

Two more points. I find much to criticize in the CIA, but it's too easy to make the agency the fall guy for what is, let's be honest, a truly weird development. Saddam used WMDs on Iran and the Kurds; he threatened to incinerate Israel with chemical weapons; he chased the U.N. inspectors out of his country; he refused to provide proof that he had destroyed the weapons he once had, though providing such proof would have staved off an invasion that spelled the end of his reign. The whole thing is so improbable that it cries out for alternative explanations. Perhaps he has secretly shipped the weapons to Syria or the Bekaa Valley. Perhaps he really believed that the weapons existed but his underlings were lying to him.

In any case, we know that our intelligence services have become risk averse and overly dependent on "national technical means" -- i.e., satellites, phone intercepts and other listening devices. But nothing in the spy world can replace human beings. One lesson of this episode is that we'd better rush to train Arabic, Farsi and Urdu-speaking officers.

But it is purest cant to suggest that President Bush misled anyone. Kay took pains to note that Saddam's regime was continuing to pursue nuclear and other weapons. It was only a matter of time, he estimated, before nuclear material and corrupt nuclear scientists met and shook hands on a deal. And that was one of the chief reasons President Bush thought it prudent to act now and not wait. It is those who opposed the war, not those who supported it, who have a lot to answer for.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.html

[TitanTiger 21,237]

Oh geez...introducing logic and taking into account all the facts in context again. When will you learn that is no rebuttal to emptyheaded screeds during an election year?

[DKW 86 7,899]

Oh geez...introducing logic and taking into account all the facts in context again. When will you learn that is no rebuttal to emptyheaded screeds during an election year?

I agree with Titan on this one. Since when is a Dem ever held to his word?

That has never happened in Modern History and it will not happen now. Ask Zell Miller where someone who challenges the Dem Hierarchy goes. You can never challenge a DEm on anything. They will always weasel out of responsibility.

I really do laugh when the Dems talk about "inclusion." The only Blacks running for Pres. are totally unelectable. The only other ethnicity, Jew, is Leiberman and his campaign is over too. Some inclusion.

We, the Reps, have put Powell and Rice into the highest positions in US history. Powell would be Presidient if not for his wife. Rice could easily become VP and then President some day. But youy see, they are electable, and therefore, not welcome in the Party of Jim Crow, Bull Connor, Yellow Dogs, and the KKK.

I am a Rep because I actually know the Yellow Dogs that "only need one lever to pull when I vote" Dems.

[Tiger Al 0]

This is a terribly written article because it's based on this overly simplistic thesis:

But are the Democrats reasonable? Their preposterous interpretation of events has become mainstream. It goes as follows. No stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq therefore George W. Bush knew that there were none to be found and  took the nation to war on false pretenses.

Then, to further misrepresent the truth, she supplies those preposterous quotes that were taken out of the context that they were presented and tries to make them say what she wants them to, minus their context. MDM and others posted these before, I'm assuming whenever their originator first mass-e-mailed them. If you think that the context doesn't influence one sentences meaning, then let's have a Bible discussion and see what happens.

She then moves from partial truth to flat-out lies:

he chased the U.N. inspectors out of his country;

UN inspectors were WITHDRAWN by the UN at the behest of President Clinton prior to Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

he refused to provide proof that he had destroyed the weapons he once had, though providing such proof would have staved off an invasion that spelled the end of his reign.

He provided the UN with over 12,000 pages of documents pertaining to disposal/destruction of WMD's. Hans Blix said that they were incomplete, but felt that through interviews it would be satisfactorily completed.

Her last closing salvo indicates that she is in dire need of chemical dependency rehabilitation:

It was only a matter of time, he estimated, before nuclear material and corrupt nuclear scientists met and shook hands on a deal. And that was one of the chief reasons President Bush thought it prudent to act now and not wait.

We didn't go to war because Bush said that in a few years Saddam would make a deal with corrupt nuclear scientists. We went to war because Bush said Saddam represented a clear and present danger. He said Saddam was an imminent threat to the us here at home as well as abroad and an imminent threat to his neighbors RIGHT NOW.

The time for bait-and-switch, backtracking and excuses is over.

[War Eagle 96 10]

The time for bait-and-switch, backtracking and excuses is just beginning.

I disagree, just watch Kerry's campaign as it progresses this year. The time for bait-and-switch, backtracking and excuses have just begun.