Special Report: Things That are Different Are STILL Not the Same
Vol: 28 Issue: 26 Monday, January 26, 2004
According to most newspaper headlines today, not to mention the lead-in to most news broadcasts, US weapons inspector David Kay says his conclusion was that there never were weapons of mass destruction in Saddam’s Iraq.
Canada’s National Post led with the headline, “Why Could We All Be so Wrong?” before explaining further in the body of the story that what Kay REALLY said was that Saddam HAD “a large number of WMD program-related activities,” but that he can’t find them now.
The new Democratic front-runner, John Kerry, leapt immediately on the bandwagon, taking what Kay almost said and adding his own twist.
“It confirms what I have said for a long period of time, that we were misled — misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war,” Kerry said on Fox News Sunday. “I think there’s been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception.”
That sound ANYTHING like what you are hearing on the news? Of course not. Kerry is lying. He condemns himself as a liar with his own words, either then — or now.
“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
“Without 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, Jan. 23. 2003
The San Jose Mercury news headline this morning screamed, “Inspector Says Iraq Weapons Risk was Exaggerated”, in keeping with the popular misconception that the administration deliberately exaggerated the risk.
What Kay ACTUALLY said, when asked whether President Bush owed the country an explanation for the gap between his warnings and Kay’s findings; “I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people.”
In point of fact, reading the copy, one finds that Kay reported, Iraq attempted to revive its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but never got as far toward making a bomb as Iran and Libya’. Reading further, one finds that Kay’s contention was that it was the IRAQIS who exaggerated the risk, not the administration.
“The whole thing shifted from directed programs to a corrupted process,” Kay said. “The regime was no longer in control; it was like a death spiral,” he said. Saddam was self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else. The scientists were able to fake programs.”
The Mercury News paraphrased Kay to make it sound like he blamed the United States. “Based on his team’s interviews with Iraqi scientists, reviews of Iraqi documents and examinations of facilities and other materials, Kay said the United States was also almost certainly wrong in its prewar belief that Iraq had any significant stockpiles of previously produced weapons of mass destruction.”
To begin with, that isn’t what Kay said. Secondly, if the UNITED STATES was wrong, it wasn’t alone.
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” – Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“I stand absolutely, 100 percent behind the evidence, based on intelligence, that we presented people,” — Tony Blair, June 2, 2003
“The discovery of chemical warheads prohibited under previous resolutions did not mean Iraq didn’t have more. [T]hose discoveries were actually the tip of the iceberg. – Hans Blix to the UN, January 27, 2003
Germany, one of the most vocal critics of the war, was, together with France and Russia, among the nations most convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, although they began denying it as soon as it became apparent the US was really going to invade Iraq.
“If we trust our [intelligence] services, and I do, then we know that there exist weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” – Friedbert Pflueger, Foreign Policy spokesman, German Christian Democratic Party, 2002
One of the reasons the Germans were so convinced was that, of 62 companies listed by Iraq in 1998 as supplying them with dual-use technology, 33 of them were German. The majority of the rest were French and Russian.
The list of liberal newspapers selectively quoting or misquoting Kay’s report is too long to go through, one by one. It would take all day just to read them all.
The comments from the presidential wannabes are somewhat more manageable, but they display the same total disregard for the truth. Howard Dean said yesterday that Iraq was ‘better off’ while Saddam was in power than they are today.
Appearing on “Face the Nation” in September 2002, the same Howard Dean said, “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.”
Dean also said in 2003, during an address to Drake University; “And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given.”
Not to be out-done in his criticism of America, General Wesley Clark charged; “What this administration has done is play politics with intelligence and really lean on the intelligence community to come up with the answers they’ve sought,” on NBC’s “Meet the Press yesterday. This administration has hyped the intelligence to get us into Iraq.”
A year and a half ago, Clark testified the exact opposite to Congress, urging Congress to remove Saddam and the threat he posed to America — unilaterally, if necessary.
“When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval. . . . There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” – General Wesley Clark, September 26, 2002
To listen to the media, the Democrats and the global press (especially in Europe and the Middle East) America LIED about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, defying all the evidence to the contrary. Keep that in mind. Few of America’s enemies make any distinction between US political parties.
When the Democrats say Bush lied, to the rest of the world, it means AMERICA lied. Unless there are two Americas, as the Democrats seemed determined to prove.
One is the evil, dishonest and criminal America, headed by the Republicans and the other is a kinder, gentler, honest America, headed by the Democrats. That might play well domestically to the partisans, but to the rest of the world, there is only ONE America. Guess which one?
The global media uses the statements of our government (which includes Democrats) to prove to their own constituents that America is loose cannon on the global stage and a nation worthy of global hatred and mistrust. Already, a number of Arab publications are quoting the Democratic presidential hopefuls as ‘evidence’ of American perfidy.
To listen to the Democrats today, the whole Iraq war, and the reasons for it, were ‘invented’ by the Bush administration as an excuse to grab Iraqi oil, feeding the world-wide anti-American machine that makes America the number one target of choice for terrorists around the globe.
With the exception of Joe Liebermann, every single candidate for the Democratic nomination was against what they are calling ‘Bush’s war.’
The battle cry, which basically says America is a criminal enterprise, rings out, not just from the candidates, but from the Democratic side of both Houses of Congress and pretty much every former official of the previous Democratic administration.
Either the Democrats are lying now, or they were lying before.
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed. – Madeline Albright, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” – Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” – Bill Clinton, 1998
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.” – Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — 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, Sept. 27, 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, Oct 10, 2002
There can be only one version of the truth. That is the version that is true. The revised versions now being advanced by the liberal left bear no resemblance to what they said was true when it suited their political ambitions at the time. Things that are different are NOT the same, no matter how many times they are repeated.
The evidence says that the current crop of presidential hopefuls will say or do anything to seize power, even if it hurts the country they claim to serve. When they made the statements listed above, they were looking at the SAME intelligence that President Bush was looking at when he made the decision to go to war.
Did something change between 2002, when Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Wesley Clark and John Kerry all warned of Saddam’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and when America went to war with Iraq?
Did they obtain and withhold new intelligence information that was not available to the White House? Or is this cynical political opportunism designed to seize back power, no matter how much damage it does to America’s credibility abroad? What does the evidence say to you?
Today, they are accusing the President of deliberately lying to the American public, suggesting Bush KNEW the intelligence (that they also relied on when making their previous public pronouncements) was flawed.
And that Bush KNEW information that the intelligence services of the United States, Britain, France, Australia, the United Nations own reports from Hans Blix did not.
And that, knowing more than all of them combined, Bush pressed forward with regime change. Worse, they are finding an audience that is buying it.
The repeated claim is that ‘regime change’ was a policy invented by George Bush. (The policy of ‘regime change’ came to being by an Act of Congress in 1998 and was signed into law by President Clinton in December of that year).
There are NOT two Americas. In the eyes of the world, there is only one. Currently, America has tens of thousands of troops in various places around the planet, putting their lives at risk so that Americans of all political persuasions can sleep safely in their beds at night.
Those troops are acutely aware of the risks they face, and they are equally aware that they don’t have the full support of either the American people or of all America’s leadership.
The politicians can SAY they support the troops. But you can’t support the troops and simultaneously claim those troops are being duped by the Commander in Chief into dying for nothing.
American soldiers aren’t blind or stupid. They are flesh-and-blood Americans who believe they are risking it all for a higher purpose than a sub-standard pay check.
That is why they are willing to face the risk. And their reason for making the ultimate sacrifice is being questioned by the same folks they went into battle to defend.
One cannot ‘support’ the troops while condemning their reason for being there in the first place as being based on ‘a lie.’ Who wants to fight, kill, or perhaps be killed, just to protect a lie?
Did we learn NOTHING from the Vietnam nightmare?
The rest of the world continues to look for reasons to hate America. The most effective spokesmen for the ‘America is the root of all evil’ chorus at the UN and Europe are the same folks who want America to trust them with their safety and security.
That being said, read with new eyes the description given by the Apostle Paul of the world in the last days, and apply his description to today’s headlines.
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, BOASTERS, proud, BLASPHEMERS, disobedient to parents, UNTHANKFUL, UNHOLY, Without natural affection, TRUCEBREAKERS, FALSE ACCUSERS, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, TRAITORS, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)
One can almost imagine Paul was given a vision of Campaign 2004 when he concludes, “. . . From such turn away.”