AliasHombre
Cadet
"The War on Terror is barely two years old, and already the two statesmen mainly responsible for waging it are in the dock. The grim media interrogators, our self-appointed 'representatives,' fire questions at them. The opposition parties sling mud at them. And one can't blame it all on the Left: Britain's Conservative Party is trying to conserve its prowar stance at the same time that it pillories Blair.
"Since Vietnam, things have had a way of working out this way. In that conflict, the 'moral' castigation of America mounted, Nixon found himself in the Watergate dock, and finally all U.S. forces were yanked from the arena — setting the stage for the boat people, the 'reeducation centers,' and the Cambodian holocaust. Along came smiling Jimmy Carter, proclaiming peace on earth, only to be stunned by evidence — the Iran hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — that there were still bad guys out there unimpressed by all that American 'niceness.'
"A couple of years later Israel tried to wage a war on terror in Lebanon, but after a few months it found itself in the dock over the Sabra and Shatilah massacres. Forgotten — actually, hardly anyone ever cared — was the PLO's brutal occupation of southern Lebanon; now all the rage was Israel's alleged sins. Meanwhile, the war's one significant achievement — the exile of Arafat and his gang to Tunis, creating breathing space for Palestinian moderacy — was forgotten, too; and in 1993 an Israeli Labor government revived the PLO, brought it here, and plunged Israel into its ongoing nightmare.
"Reagan, in the 1980s, had to deal with calumny and hysteria over Pershings in Europe and a tough anti-Soviet line, until — whoah, the Soviets collapsed. The open, undeniable brutality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the threat to oil, made it easier — relatively — for Bush Sr. in the first Gulf War; Clinton's status as a beloved Democrat made it easier for him in Bosnia and Kosovo.
"But the general pattern has been that democratic leaders who wage war on terrorists, totalitarians, enemies of freedom, are guilty until proven innocent. Never more so than now, when alleged intelligence failures, alleged deceptions, are all the rage. The Free World turns in, snarling, upon itself.
"Meanwhile, ricin shows up in the U.S. Senate. Eight flights from Europe to the U.S. get canceled in one day because of intelligence tips that they'll get blown to bits. Bombers kill forty in Moscow; seventy in twin attacks in Kurdistan. A bus bombing in Jerusalem hardly registers anymore. Ho-hum, I never promised you a rose garden. But Bush and Blair are in the dock, and grim committees are searching every cranny of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did."
Let me reread this: "Bush and Blair are in the dock, and grim committees are searching every cranny of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did." There is no effort to get Arafat or any of these other terrorist leaders into the dock, other than by George W. Bush. We got Saddam in the dock, and everybody is worried about whether he's going to be treated fairly. Everybody is worried whether or not his civil rights are going to be protected. Everybody is worried whether or not he's going to be humiliated. He's a former head of state, blah, blah, blah, blah. Bush and Blair are in the dock.
Now, this gets to the thing that bothers me the most about this — including Bush's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday. I don't know why Bush did it, but he was made to look like a suspect. He was made to look like a suspect in a crime, and I can tell you when all this started, my friends. It all started with old David Kay announcing no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That's when the poll numbers started plummeting. That's when the Democrats started flexing their muscles and that's when somebody told John Kerry, "You know what? You can be a hero now and you can bring Vietnam back to prove it, because Bush is going to be in the dock."
Never mind the successes. Never mind the genuine reasons for doing this. Never mind the war on terror. We don't have any weapons of mass destruction. Never mind that on February 4th, 1998, Bill Clinton said, "One way or the other, we're determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. This is our bottom line." Never mind that on February 17th, 1998, Bill Clinton said, "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 program. "
Never mind that (Clinton Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright said on February 18th, 1998, "Iraq's a long way from America but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risks 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." Convenient, isn't it, how all of these ex-Democrats get away with having never said any of this? Well, they're escaping any scrutiny for having said it, much less thought it. Why? Because they didn't really do anything about it. They launched.
In fact, one of the funniest moments in the past two weeks was Bill Clinton and that off-the-record-behind-closed-doors-everybody-knew-about-it meeting with the Democrats in Washington, and the Q&A with the press afterwards. The press wasn't even supposed to be there because it was "off the record" and nobody was supposed to know anything about it. [As member of the press:] "Mr. President what about the weapons of mass destruction?" [As Clinton:] "You know, we launched that missile attack on there, and there's no way of knowing if we got 50% of it, 10% of it, more than that there's no way of knowing."
Bill Clinton trying to lay the groundwork that his little missile assault on over four days may have wiped out the weapons of mass destruction. Never mind the fact that there would have been a worldwide poison cloud floating all over the place had his weapons hit weapons of mass destruction. Never mind the fact that Sandy Berger said February 18th, 1998, "Saddam will use those weapons of mass destruction again, and he has ten times since 1983." Never mind that in a letter to President Clinton on October 9th, 1998, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, among others, said, "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." Yep, Kerry signed that letter.
Never mind that Representative Nancy Pelosi on December 16th, 1998, said, "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's made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Never mind that Madeleine Albright said again on November 10th, 1998, "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Never mind that in a letter dated December 5th, 2001 to President Bush, Bob Graham signed, along with others, this phrase, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs, reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of illicit missile programs to deliver longer range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
And I go on. I've got Carl Levin, September 19th, 2002. I've got Al Gore. Let me give you a couple of Al Gores. September 23rd, 2002, two comments. "We know that he stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq searched for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. There's every implication there that we should take Saddam out of power," stated so by Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002.
Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 2002: "We've known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Here's Kerry again, October 9th, 2002: "I'll 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." John Kerry — and it goes on. I've got another page and a half of these.
Here's John Kerry on January 23rd, 2003, just over a year ago: "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He's a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. Now he's 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." So, Bush and Blair in the dock. Bush is a suspect - and everybody wants to know why he was so bad on Meet the Press.
Have fun!
"Since Vietnam, things have had a way of working out this way. In that conflict, the 'moral' castigation of America mounted, Nixon found himself in the Watergate dock, and finally all U.S. forces were yanked from the arena — setting the stage for the boat people, the 'reeducation centers,' and the Cambodian holocaust. Along came smiling Jimmy Carter, proclaiming peace on earth, only to be stunned by evidence — the Iran hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — that there were still bad guys out there unimpressed by all that American 'niceness.'
"A couple of years later Israel tried to wage a war on terror in Lebanon, but after a few months it found itself in the dock over the Sabra and Shatilah massacres. Forgotten — actually, hardly anyone ever cared — was the PLO's brutal occupation of southern Lebanon; now all the rage was Israel's alleged sins. Meanwhile, the war's one significant achievement — the exile of Arafat and his gang to Tunis, creating breathing space for Palestinian moderacy — was forgotten, too; and in 1993 an Israeli Labor government revived the PLO, brought it here, and plunged Israel into its ongoing nightmare.
"Reagan, in the 1980s, had to deal with calumny and hysteria over Pershings in Europe and a tough anti-Soviet line, until — whoah, the Soviets collapsed. The open, undeniable brutality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the threat to oil, made it easier — relatively — for Bush Sr. in the first Gulf War; Clinton's status as a beloved Democrat made it easier for him in Bosnia and Kosovo.
"But the general pattern has been that democratic leaders who wage war on terrorists, totalitarians, enemies of freedom, are guilty until proven innocent. Never more so than now, when alleged intelligence failures, alleged deceptions, are all the rage. The Free World turns in, snarling, upon itself.
"Meanwhile, ricin shows up in the U.S. Senate. Eight flights from Europe to the U.S. get canceled in one day because of intelligence tips that they'll get blown to bits. Bombers kill forty in Moscow; seventy in twin attacks in Kurdistan. A bus bombing in Jerusalem hardly registers anymore. Ho-hum, I never promised you a rose garden. But Bush and Blair are in the dock, and grim committees are searching every cranny of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did."
Let me reread this: "Bush and Blair are in the dock, and grim committees are searching every cranny of what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did." There is no effort to get Arafat or any of these other terrorist leaders into the dock, other than by George W. Bush. We got Saddam in the dock, and everybody is worried about whether he's going to be treated fairly. Everybody is worried whether or not his civil rights are going to be protected. Everybody is worried whether or not he's going to be humiliated. He's a former head of state, blah, blah, blah, blah. Bush and Blair are in the dock.
Now, this gets to the thing that bothers me the most about this — including Bush's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday. I don't know why Bush did it, but he was made to look like a suspect. He was made to look like a suspect in a crime, and I can tell you when all this started, my friends. It all started with old David Kay announcing no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That's when the poll numbers started plummeting. That's when the Democrats started flexing their muscles and that's when somebody told John Kerry, "You know what? You can be a hero now and you can bring Vietnam back to prove it, because Bush is going to be in the dock."
Never mind the successes. Never mind the genuine reasons for doing this. Never mind the war on terror. We don't have any weapons of mass destruction. Never mind that on February 4th, 1998, Bill Clinton said, "One way or the other, we're determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. This is our bottom line." Never mind that on February 17th, 1998, Bill Clinton said, "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 program. "
Never mind that (Clinton Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright said on February 18th, 1998, "Iraq's a long way from America but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risks 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." Convenient, isn't it, how all of these ex-Democrats get away with having never said any of this? Well, they're escaping any scrutiny for having said it, much less thought it. Why? Because they didn't really do anything about it. They launched.
In fact, one of the funniest moments in the past two weeks was Bill Clinton and that off-the-record-behind-closed-doors-everybody-knew-about-it meeting with the Democrats in Washington, and the Q&A with the press afterwards. The press wasn't even supposed to be there because it was "off the record" and nobody was supposed to know anything about it. [As member of the press:] "Mr. President what about the weapons of mass destruction?" [As Clinton:] "You know, we launched that missile attack on there, and there's no way of knowing if we got 50% of it, 10% of it, more than that there's no way of knowing."
Bill Clinton trying to lay the groundwork that his little missile assault on over four days may have wiped out the weapons of mass destruction. Never mind the fact that there would have been a worldwide poison cloud floating all over the place had his weapons hit weapons of mass destruction. Never mind the fact that Sandy Berger said February 18th, 1998, "Saddam will use those weapons of mass destruction again, and he has ten times since 1983." Never mind that in a letter to President Clinton on October 9th, 1998, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, among others, said, "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." Yep, Kerry signed that letter.
Never mind that Representative Nancy Pelosi on December 16th, 1998, said, "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's made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Never mind that Madeleine Albright said again on November 10th, 1998, "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Never mind that in a letter dated December 5th, 2001 to President Bush, Bob Graham signed, along with others, this phrase, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs, reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of illicit missile programs to deliver longer range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
And I go on. I've got Carl Levin, September 19th, 2002. I've got Al Gore. Let me give you a couple of Al Gores. September 23rd, 2002, two comments. "We know that he stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq searched for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. There's every implication there that we should take Saddam out of power," stated so by Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002.
Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 2002: "We've known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Here's Kerry again, October 9th, 2002: "I'll 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." John Kerry — and it goes on. I've got another page and a half of these.
Here's John Kerry on January 23rd, 2003, just over a year ago: "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He's a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. Now he's 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." So, Bush and Blair in the dock. Bush is a suspect - and everybody wants to know why he was so bad on Meet the Press.
Have fun!
