them what they are -- TRAITORS...
Why do elected Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail?...
[Mark Alexander] 12/9/05
is at it again.
Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President
George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,
insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are
even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no
substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans
off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other
words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious
matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and
their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed
Forces in the region in greater peril.
clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American
president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about
President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically
motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk,
however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term
lightly -- treasonous.
[Courtesty of The Federalist Patriot]
Morrison Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher
Federalist Patriot, the Web's "Conservative
E-Journal of Record" and now the most widely
subscribed Internet-based publication. [go to Alexander index]
all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of
an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who
challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell
the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid,
you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while
speaking to a high-school civics class.)
seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans
in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate
the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so
Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin,
you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis
and Pol Pot.)
Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence
to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy,
you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In
addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge
at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while
he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an
alibi and went to sleep.)
the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as
de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these
and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President
George Bush came to Washington.
bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What
was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed
they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists.
What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine
a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important
piece of Clinton-era legislation.
Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill
Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of
the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed
by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence
of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation
passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the
Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats
were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:
Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons
of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers
or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would
follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the
knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some
way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously
diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors
or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military
and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons
programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton,
two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question:
If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on
earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby
Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons
of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security
of the world."
Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam
from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security
of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq
is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risk 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."
Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified
Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction
again as he has ten times since 1983."
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. [Saddam]
is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons
of mass destruction."
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."
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. [Saddam's] chemical and
biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
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
Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle,
Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter
to Bill Clinton: "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
Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was
handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy
positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when
Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin
Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free
to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr.
Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was
the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks
prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to
the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much
of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were
clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam
has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the
President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We
have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I
will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority
to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without
question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons
represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "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,
his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary
to terrorists including al-Qa'ida 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. ... I can support the
President because I think it is in the long-term interests
of our national security."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam
Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there
is no question about that."
2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress
authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued
threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S.
Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the
national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability,
and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included
Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United
Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security
Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
Dick and Harry Ä what's your real agenda?
Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security
interests into political fodder by accusing the President of
the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President
had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only
a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his
office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation
for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed
Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part,
President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly
legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war
... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how
that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never
give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
He is much too kind.
In the end,
American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al.,
for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political
leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode
the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is
that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth.
For them, the end justifies any means. tOR
2005 Federalist Patriot