“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, 2002
In July, the FBI released summaries of more than 20 interviews and casual conversations the agency carried out with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Aside from creating a more robust picture of the conditions that led up to the Iraq War, the discussions flagrantly expose Hussein’s motives in resisting U.S. pressure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Furthermore, they provide an informative lens into his psyche during the months leading up to the invasion.
According to The Washington Times, “The new documents paint a picture of the Iraqi dictator in the final years of his life as arrogant, defiant and often delusional.” At points throughout the interviews, Hussein would often insist that he was still the president of Iraq. He denied ties to the al Qaeda and insisted that “…Iraq does not have orphans walking the streets.”
While the aforementioned elements are offsetting, the most startling revelation was Hussein’s own admission that he purposely misled the world to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Even more alarming is the motivation he attributes to this self-proclaimed action. In the interviews, Hussein told officials that, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, he feared a nuclear-equipped Iran more than he did any reaction from the United States.
George Piro, Saddam’s FBI interviewer, wrote, “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.” Thus, the reason for Hussein’s intended deceit – a trickery that led to intense regional and global instability – was rooted more in political posturing and survival than it was in his narcissistic desire to exponentially increase Iraq’s power in the Middle East.
Importantly, this admission raises a number of red flags. Since 2003, American liberals have railed against the U.S. government, stating that former President George W. Bush purposefully misled the American people in his affirmations that Iraq possessed WMD. According to those on the left, Republicans used weapons-based rhetoric as an excuse to initiate military operations in the region. However, the release of these transcripts devalues this notion.
Teamed with the countless pieces of evidence contradicting Bush’s alleged purposeful deceit, Hussein’s own admission provides a basis for amplified understanding that sheds light on the bluffs and malfeasances that led the U.S. to invade. It is with this information that a more rational understanding of U.S. operations can be processed.
Considering Hussein’s weapons bluff, it is not surprising that the United States was led astray. When placing Iraq’s violently aggressive history and non-compliance into context, there was surely reason to believe that the nation was, indeed, illegally cultivating and harboring WMD. In fact, politicians were candid about their belief that Hussein did possess weapons in the decade preceding the Iraq War.
Prior to the commencement of military operations in 2003, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and others, from both sides of the political aisle, publicly stated Iraq’s threat to the international community. Following Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s and Hussein’s vocal hatred for the West, this caution on behalf of American political minds was fully justified.
However, when the war broke out, liberal politicians were suddenly less vocal about these dangers and, collectively, their tone changed dramatically in the years following its inception. Nonetheless, their prior warnings about weapons are well documented and corroborate the fears and insinuations that reinforced U.S. rationale in striking Iraq. On an episode of Larry King in 2003, President Bill Clinton said, “When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.”
In a 2002 speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Al Gore reiterated Hussein’s insatiable lust for weapons when he said, “Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.”
Hussein’s possession of WMD was universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike, as those individuals with access to privileged information – whether they were former presidents or members of Congress – all reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein either possessed or sought to possess dangerous materials. This, teamed with Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with the international community when questioning about said materials began, inevitably led to U.S. military action.
The historical record now shows that it was Hussein, not George W. Bush, who manufactured and allowed the fester the idea that Iraq possessed powerful weapons of mass destruction.
“Okay, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models. They only like the women who look a certain way. And on the 50th anniversary of Barbie, I really have something to say.” - Laura Ingraham on Meghan McCain
Laura Ingraham – your insidious attack on Meghan McCain exemplifies, with surprising potency, all that is currently awry within the Republican party. As a young conservative who is active in the movement, I find it increasingly difficult to respect those of you who confront differing opinions with negative language, devoid of any substantive content.
Rather than focusing on your take on the elements that comprise the heart of conservatism when responding to Meghan, you resorted to disrespectful and unfounded distractions (i.e. making fun of her weight, calling her a valley girl and insinuating she has no place within the party). Where are the words of encouragement, theories and other prescriptions for future GOP successes? Where is the logical presentation of ideas — or, at the least, a sensical list that explains why, going moderate, is not going to work for the GOP?
As we have endured losses in both the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 presidential election, one would think that a united determination to mend the party would be undertaken – especially by those of you who have the power to encourage a mass conservative populace.
With your millions of listeners, your star-power should be used for the good of the party. Instead, your attack on Meghan shows that you’re willing to use your notoriety to intimidate those who hold differing viewpoints. While you have surely done much for the movement, this particular instance makes it difficult for me (and I’m sure many others) to see you in the same light.
You called Meghan a “useful idiot,” but it is you and the others who share in these tactics who are the “useful idiots.” It was your choice to abandon logic in pursuit of ultra-liberesque, fourth-grade mockery — not Meghan’s.
Yes, the media are predominantly liberal. And yes, they target conservatives. But in this case, criticism of your words is well-founded. Surely we on the right have much to complain about when it comes to coverage, especially during political campaign cycles, but we cannot use the “media victim” card every time we make a mistake or say something off-color. Since you made your comments, you have continuously blamed the media. But, you’re the one who’s responsible. As conservatives, if we are going to hold ourselves to high standards of character and moral fabric, we’re going to be judged — especially by the media — that much harder.
Your words were flat-out mean and unnecessary. Liberals are giggling like schoolgirls, thinking, “Hey! Look at those Republicans. They lost the last two elections, their party is in disarray and the incessant infighting will enable us to Barack our way to the top again in 2010 and 2012!”
Wake up, Laura. Our nation and our party are at a great crossroads. The result of the latter will have a lasting impact on the fate of the former. As a conservative, I know the value of utilizing logic, statistics and when necessary – qualitative analysis – to verbalize and corroborate my theories and sociological viewpoints. I thought you recognized this value as well.
Since when do conservatives need to resort to such lowly tactics to make a point? We used to be the party of ideas. We never heard Reagan call his leftist critics “plus-sized” while he single-handedly toppled the Soviet Union. We certainly never heard Lincoln call Democratic slaveholders “valley girls,” (or whatever equivalent existed way back when) as he fought feverishly to restore the union.
Furthermore, as members of the ultra left have worked incessantly to push ideological diversity out of our schools and media, your comments aim to do the same, as you used body image and baseless insults to insinuate that someone whom you disagree with has no place in our party.
Laura, you don’t have the right, nor the privilege to decide who may or may not be considered a Republican. Our party will not progress until the ideologues who clog the system revert back to the sense and sound knowledge they once used to instill the conservative cause.
Additionally, how you can claim to care so deeply about image issues, while inadvertently making fun of a woman’s weight is practically unfathomable. I agree with Meghan: “There’s no place for weight criticism of women in 2009.”
All brands of Republican deserve a voice in the ongoing discussion about renewing the conservative cause. If we, as conservatives, are going to call out liberal attempts to squelch free speech, it’s important we do the same when we see conservatives waging baseless attacks on peers with whom they have ideological differences. If we want to fix the party, members must be held to higher standards of transparency and accountability.
If you want to intelligently refute Meghan’s comments, go for it. After all, I don’t agree with all of the points she’s been making. That said, 2006 and 2008 showed us that we need a renewal. If we don’t let everyone weigh in, we’re going to lose out on a vast marketplace of ideas. Sure, we may not like every ideal we hear, but to act as though each perspective we disagree with lacks merit is to truly damage our party’s growth and revitilization.
Talk about failing to learn life lessons. After battling for governmental control, Obama is making lofty decisions that stand firmly against the will of the American people. While he has experienced extremely high approval ratings for his performance these past three weeks, digging somewhat deeper into the polls showcases a substantive shift in public opinion. From climate change to corruption — to funding for overseas abortions — Obama and the Democrats are paving the way for future electoral defeat.
In an era when millions of Americans are suffering job losses and struggling to meet their most basic needs due to corruption and greed, Obama has pursued individuals who have defaulted on their taxes and evaded general responsibilities to serve in his cabinet. In no particular order there was Tom Daschle (“was” because he has now officially bowed out of consideration as a nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary), who failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes. Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (as per FOX News):
“Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I,” Obama said. He added that the “mistake” should not diminish the “many contributions” Daschle has made to the country.
Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of “chief performance officer.” Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it. And then there is Bill Richardson, who — according to FOX News — withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:
The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama’s promise to root out corruption. So far the only rooting that’s been done is for earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. a stimulus plan that calls for $600 million for government vehicles and funding for overseas abortions).
Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America’s new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes. The irony behind this clearly centers upon the fact that Geithner, a man who did not pay his own taxes in a timely manner, is going to advise President Obama on all things economy: government fiscal policy, and domestic tax policy, amongst other responsibilities. And I thought Gregory B. Craig’s (Obama’s White House counsel) defense of a presidential assassin was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration. Talk about one-upping one’s self.
Clearly, the American people should have some concerns. One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error. But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best. Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people.
Unfortunately, Democrats have a habit of complaining about Republicans so fervently that they eventually convince the people, through the liberal media, that Republicans are ill-equipped to lead (and some are, but it’s nowhere near the proportion of Democrats). Then, when they finally convince their way into office, they spend the majority of their time undoing every conservative regulation they can get their hands on, while failing to take the time to formulate their own policies. It’s the ultimate na-na-na-na-boo-boo, only the Democrats are willing to throw money at any problem that their undoing of well-meaning conservative policies doesn’t immediately solve.
Just look at Obama’s major decisions thus far. According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama’s first two executive orders. As for the first of these orders — the president’s decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions — 58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision.
And when it comes to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, 50% of the American public opposes, with 44% supporting his decision to close Guantanamo’s doors within a year. While his approval rating is currently high, the American people are already making it known that they disagree with his far-left agenda (these two orders are precipitating facets of his worldview).
Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task. They will protest in the streets when Americans go overseas to defend inherent freedoms, but when it comes to international infanticide, they sit on the sidelines and stand idle. At the least, you’d think they’d at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervantly before shipping funding off to other countries. Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.
Obama needs to get with the program. Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he’d never have a lobbyist serve in his administration right before backtracking and hiring a lobbyist, he should spend his time making meaningful and well-planned policy. We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn’t on the horizon.
