This could be a one or two sentence column if it weren’t for the need to supply supporting evidence. The facts no longer count simply because winning political power matters more. The facts don’t create our divide, political ideologies do and these ideologies drive what propaganda we might choose to call facts…
People in this country don’t raise questions for the purpose of finding answers or truth anymore. They raise questions for the sole purpose of raising suspicions aimed at discrediting their political opponents and winning elections by default.
The most discouraging part of writing a political column today is that when you read reader mail, as I do, you quickly learn that people prefer to invent their own reality to support their political agenda. Though it happens on both sides of the aisle, Democrats seem to have perfected the technique.
Liberals believe that Bush "lied" us into the war effort in Iraq. They believe that Bush blamed the events of 9/11 on Hussein, even though Bush stated unequivocally on September 20, 2001, only 10 days after 9/11, "americans are asking, "Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda."
Liberals believe that Bush left the war on terror when he moved the war beyond the borders of afghanistan. But Bush said from the start "There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries." (a simple reality known to be true.)
Liberals believe Bush under-estimated our enemies and led us into a quagmire without consideration for the difficulties that lay ahead. But again, Bush stated from the start "Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success."
a year later, Liberals interpreted Bush’s statements concerning an Iraqi threat as an immediate imminent threat of nuclear holocaust. Today they accuse Bush of inventing a case against Hussein, as if one needed to be invented.
On September 12, 2002, Bush instead said this "Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself."
There was no debate as to the truth of these statements. There was no need to invent any case against Hussein. as Bush stated, "Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself."
Liberals accuse Bush of single handedly seeking regime change in Iraq on a false foundation of bogus–manipulated--overstated intelligence. Yet Congress and the Clinton administration had passed legislation in the late 90s, making regime change the official U.S. policy on Iraq, using all the same arguments later used by the Bush administration seeking Congressional authority to use force to effect that policy. Congressional authority he received.
after listing one by one in great detail, the numerous ongoing violations of 16 broken UN resolutions, Bush concluded not that Hussein posed some immediate imminent nuclear threat to america, but rather "The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming."
He concluded, "The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: The Saddam Hussein regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble, and this is a risk we must not take."
In a post-9/11 world, few disagreed….
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "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."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Yet what are these same people saying today? More importantly, now as our troops stand in harms way on the basis of aLL these statements from aLL of these national leaders, supported by U.S. and international intelligence reports, almost aLL of which agreed with these conclusions, why are they saying it now?
Is it a memory lapse? No… It’s because the facts don’t count - Winning in the next two election cycles does.
On September 20, 2001, Bush spoke to the world. Read the transcript and show me the lies…
On October 11, 2001, Bush spoke to the world again. Read the transcript and show me the lies…
On September 12, 2002, Bush again spoke to the world. Read the transcript and show me the lies…
The facts are, Bush didn’t lie--he didn’t manipulate any intelligence reports (two investigations have already concluded such). He didn’t exaggerate any threat. However, the press and liberals did. He didn’t blame Hussein for 9/11 and he didn’t say america was about to be attacked by Hussein with nuclear warheads.
Do the facts matter? They do to me… What WMD?
If the facts supported liberal claims, I’d be first in line to lynch any administration who intentionally misled our troops into harms way for political purposes. as it is, I am the first in line to lynch those who make such outlandish accusations without adequate foundation, further emboldening our enemies and endangering our troops in that process.
If the facts matter to you… Use the links provided to read the transcripts yourself.
Then read the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee Report, which investigated in depth the pre-war intelligence concerning Iraq. a report demanded by Senate Democrats, intended to help in the 2004 election. The evidence wasn’t there and it didn’t help the Party. In fact, if you read the full report for yourself, Democrats are not helped at all by this report.
Do I have criticisms for the Bush administration? absolutely! Criticisms founded on facts. If we can ever get past the partisan nonsense, I’d love to address them.
Honest dissenters in search of the truth can find it in this column and the links provided. all others, asking already answered questions for the sole purpose of raising unwarranted suspicions, should be lynched along with their callused leaders. These people are more of a threat to american peace, security and unity than the terrorists themselves.