Posted on: Wednesday, July 16th, 2003 by Nina May
Nina May’s Daily Radio Commentary
Every time I hear a democrat claim that President Bush deceived us about Weapons of Mass Destruction being hidden in Iraq, I think of my son's 8th birthday. Isn't the mind a wonderful thing . . . two totally unrelated issues are drawn together on one common thread. While we were passing out party hats and serving ice cream, almost five years ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee was sending a letter to President Bill Clinton containing a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.¯
The letter goes on to say, Despite a brief interval of cooperation . . . Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA. . . . Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.¯
It further states that they are happy the Security Council is taking action, but doubt that Saddam will heed the message. They also said . . . More deeply, we are concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.¯ They then urged President Clinton to take action by saying . . . After consulting with Congress and the US Constitution and laws, [we urge you] to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program.¯
So . . . what happened to that program that they and the UN were so convinced existed in 1998? Are they now saying it was a lie then and there was no threat from Iraq posed to the American people? Did they lie to the American people like they are claiming President Bush did by including a 16-word intelligence phrase about uranium sales from Niger to Iraq that is still being confirmed by British Intelligence?
This letter to President Bill Clinton, in 1998, constitutionally authorizing him to attack Iraq was signed by 27 senators, including . . . Chris Dodd, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Tom Daschle, Daniel Inouye, Mary Landrieu and . . . John F. Kerry.
And in December of that same year, details emerged revealing Iraq's con-compliance with getting rid of its WMDs. Clinton responded by saying, Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting the sites, they restricted their ability to obtain necessary evidence, and they tried to stop the UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and preventing Iraqi personnel from answering their questions.¯ He pointed out that Iraq had failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors. Documents that they obviously all agreed existed.
At the time of his statement, there were 15 U.S. warships, 97 aircraft . . . 70 aboard the USS Enterprise, and more than 12,000 military personnel in the area near Iraq. The ships were within easy striking distance of Baghdad, and were carrying more than 300 cruise missiles. So why did we have that much fire power in the area if we weren't seriously concerned about what Saddam was up to? And as history will remind us, on the eve of the Impeachment vote against Clinton, for lying under oath and breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution, he orders a military strike against security targets in Iraq to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison or biological weapons.¯ So, let me see if I understand . . . there WERE nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in 1998, and one strike by Clinton destroyed them ALL? Amazing.
Clinton goes on to explain the timing of the attack stating that while it is true there are many other nations that possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, with Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly . . . unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops . . . civilians, and Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.¯
He went on to justify his unilateral, preemptive attack on Iraq by saying, The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.¯ He then outlines, in detail, the failings of Iraq to comply with the UN inspectors, and the decision he made to attack them, militarily, hitting innocent civilians, and projecting the imperial powers of the United States on this poor, defenseless country. Oh . . . sorry, we never heard any of that rhetoric from the left when Clinton dropped bombs did we?
This was about weapons of mass destruction that every Clinton liberal believed existed in Iraq, who now insist were never there. What is it with liberals? Can facts change that quickly to justify an attack to hide one President's indiscretions, but then vaporize when another President relies on the same intelligence to do precisely the same thing but for entirely different motivations? Remember . . . and we must continue to remind Clinton liberals who love to readjust history to suit their needs . . . September 11, 2001 occurred after 8 years of winking and nodding at terrorist acts and eviscerating our CIA and overseas intelligence ops. The CIA, FBI, NSA and other security agencies were riddled with Clinton appointees that had not yet been replaced on September 11, including the new head of the CIA. The vast majority of the intelligence that President Bush was receiving, was from Clinton holdovers. Are we to assume that they deceived the American people with the same mischievous intentions that they trashed the White House, stole the w¯ keys from computer key pads, and totally rewired the phone system so that it cost taxpayers millions of dollars to sort out the mess and clean up their vandelism?
Any lack of verifiable and accurate information that President Bush was receiving or not receiving at that time has to be placed on the door step of Clinton's intelligence sources who, for eight years, continually lied to the American people about everything from the nuclear program in North Korea, to the secrets being sold to China.
But when there is proof that comes out of Iraq, that there are, or were, weapons of mass destruction, the Clinton liberals deny it and say that it is not enough to justify the liberation of those people. They ignore the pictures of the gassed Kurds, and the buyback plans for the nuclear waste barrels that the citizens were dumping out and using to store their food and water in. We have Iranian diplomats confessing that these weapons are now being sold on the black market because many were smuggled out . . . probably during the negotiating process with the UN and the world community. They have found mobile units with traces of biological weapons. Think about it . . they are developing weapons that are so powerful, even a few grains can kill you. Do you think they are storing them in a way that a few grains will be escaping? And what about the chemical experts they have captured that have verified, that yes, they were responsible for the production of such chemicals?
So what is it? Are there weapons or not? Was Clinton lying once again to cover himself and dropped bombs on innocent people to distract from his indiscretions? What about the silence from the usually vocal war protesters could be heard around the socialist circles of the world back in 1998. And are all these senators who signed that October 9, 1998 letter, seasonal in their concern for the safety of America and the world? Do they only rally to the cause of defeating tyranny when a fellow democrat is in power? Can they be trusted again? So who is being deceptive now?
But I think a very important question to ask every one of the democrat spokesmen who blindly follow the talking points they are handed is . . . ok, what do you want us to do? Let's say there are no WMDs . . . if that is your big issue. Let's say that Clinton, the democrat members of the US Senate, and even the current administration were all lying about the weapons of mass destruction. Let's just have a do-over. Let's invite Saddam and his sons back in, let's reopen the prisons and roundup all those little kids we freed and put them back in the blood-soaked chains. Let's rehang the people from the meat hooks and plug in the plastic shredding machine. Let's rebury all the victims of his tyranny back in those mass graves, let's put all the ammo back in the schools were we found it and reinstate all the Republican Guard so they can now round up every person who waved at a US soldier, held and American flag, received a piece of candy or played soccer with one and have them all shot.
Let's pull all the Iraqis off the USS Comfort and take out their IVs and remove their bandages and send them home. Let's unplug the information system that for the first time brings real news to the people, and gives them the freedom to think for themselves. And let's disband the diverse group of leaders who for the first time will provide democratic representation for all Iraqis.
Oh, and for all the liberal democrats who had no problem with Clinton doing exactly what Bush is doing, I want you to visit the homes of each one of the brave men and women who lost their lives to liberate these people and tell them they died in vain. Tell them that we are replacing the people they died to liberate, under the same tyrannical rule and shutting the door to their future and freedom. I want these compassionate liberals to look these grieving parents in the eye and tell them, because they don't think we have moved fast enough to discover weapons, that they agreed were there before, that their son or daughter died in vain, because according to liberal democrats, it was only about the weapons.
Clinton stated in his address to the UN on September 21, 1998 that, First, terrorism has a new face in the 1990s. Today terrorists take advantage of greater openness and the explosion of information and weapons technology. The new technologies of terror and their increasing availability, along with the increasing mobility of terrorists, raise chilling prospects of vulnerability to chemical, biological, and other kinds of attacks, bringing each of us into the category of possible victim. This is a threat to all humankind.¯
Well I guess it is not that big a threat now, even though we have proof in the way of a gaping hole in New York City, a scarred Pentagon, and over 3,000 lost lives. Perhaps a bigger threat to mankind is a political party that is so consumed with power that it will do anything, say anything, believe anything, even if it means allowing murderous dictators to roam the earth and threaten our very existence, while claiming they want them destroyed, only if they are the ones doing it. The democrat party has become so desperate, so duplicitous, so riddled with hypocrisy that the only cause they have in any election is to destroy who is in power, at any cost, get elected, spin and destort history with double standards by denying they did or said what they did to get to power. Gee . . .that sounds a lot like tyranny.
Articles by Nina May
Previous Page :: Main Page