Democrats share the blame for Bush’s war

By DEROY MURDOCK

In the next few weeks, President Bush should deliver a speech along these lines…

My fellow Americans:

March 2007 marks the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom’s final outcome remains a mystery. But despite the chaos on TV every evening, and the challenges that emerge every morning, this effort has yielded plenty of good. America and its allies deposed a bloodthirsty despot who dispatched 300,000 of his constituents to mass graves. Saddam Hussein now occupies his own grave and no longer threatens his countrymen and neighbors.

Hussein’s general store for Islamofascist terrorists now is kaput, as is the Baathist state that had used and still possessed weapons of mass death, though in smaller quantities than we expected. While we never found warehouses full of WMDs, we did discover a vial of live botulinum, a seven-pound block of cyanide salt, 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin nerve agent, and 1.77 metric tons (3,894 pounds) of low-enriched uranium.

Also, if Baghdad’s elected officials can restore stability, a free and prosperous Iraq could inspire beleaguered Middle Easterners to demand as much from their governments.

What we have accomplished and are attempting deserves the thanks of international coalition forces that fight beside Americans in uniform. In turn, their valor and sacrifice of life and limb deeply move this grateful nation.

I also want to thank several brave Democrats who helped get us here today.

– “Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y., said while debating the Iraq War resolution in October 2002. “He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people.”

Hussein, Clinton added, “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.”

Clinton was correct. Saddam Hussein sprayed poison gas on his own people and sprayed cash on terrorists from the West Bank to West Street. After al Qaeda’s February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Saddam Hussein gave Iraqi Abdul Rahman Yasin a house and a stipend in Baghdad. Yasin built the bomb that rocked the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,040.

Clinton was absolutely right back then. I thank her for her leadership and for giving me the authority to unseat this butcher.

– “It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.”

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was justified in saying this. Hussein invaded Iran and Kuwait. He was a highly destabilizing force. Sen. Kerry was astute to recognize this danger, and I thank him for empowering me to neutralize this global menace.

– As then-Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said back then: Hussein had “violated the cease-fire agreement. The reality is that we can’t allow him to continue on the track he is. And I also believe that we can’t be secure, and the region can’t be secure, as long as he’s still in power.”

Sen. Edwards was on the money. Almost daily, Hussein shot at U.S. and allied military aircraft patrolling over Iraq. Regional peace likely was impossible while Hussein paid $25,000 bonuses to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers who blasted themselves apart on buses in Jerusalem and cafes in Tel Aviv.

I thank Sen. Edwards for his wisdom, and for his vote to unplug this thug.

These three, and 26 other Senate Democrats, joined 82 House Democrats to permit this conflict. Unreliable as it may have been regarding the scope of Hussein’s WMDs, they accepted the intelligence I honestly and sincerely shared with them. In March 2005, the Silverman/Robb Commission said it “found no evidence of ‘politicization’ of the intelligence community’s assessments concerning Iraq’s reported WMD programs.”

Let me thank these three Democrats, and the others who voted to remove Saddam Hussein, for their courage and support as America decided to liberate Iraq. What happens next over there is unclear. What we do know is that this is my war — and it’s their war, too.

(New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.murdock(at)gmail.com.)

13 Responses to "Democrats share the blame for Bush’s war"

  1. Doug Leonard  March 2, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    As the valley girls would say — gag me with a spoon!

  2. Ray  March 3, 2007 at 1:23 am

    Kaine listed the biggies. That is exactly the things that should be priority. Untill those items are addressed nothing will change direction, it will only get worse

  3. SEAL  March 3, 2007 at 9:32 am

    To think that Bush could coherently read a speach like that is to belive the world is flat. That is a stupid article, pointless, and a waste of time.

  4. Efox  March 3, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Yes Democrats went along with the war in Iraq.

    Some of them cared about the Hundreds of Thousands of Deaths Saddam was responsible for.

    Some of them cared about the Mass Graves.

    Some of them cared about Baathist Tactics, like chopping up children in front of their parents and throwing their body parts off a tower, before chopping up the mother and finally father, videotaping it all as an example to other disobedient Iraqis.

    Some of them cared about how Iraq never stopped firing after the cease fire, continuing to fire at American aircraft, set up scud launchers and attempt assassinations.

    Some of them cared about Saddam financing Terrorism, even if it was terrorism aimed at Israeli Civilians instead of New Yorkers and no blaming Israelis for being infidels in the middle of the great Islamic sea is not a valid counter argument.

    Some of them might have even cared if Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire by hiding rather than disposing of the many unconventional weapons they had and yes there were plenty of them and even one negated the cease fire agreement.

    One Binary Sarin Canister Means There Were Not No WMDs.

    One Binary Sarin Canister Means There Was At Least One WMD.

    500 WMDs Means there were 500 WMDs.

    2 Tons of WMDs means there were 2 Tons of WMDs.

    No, Implies None, Zero, Nothing. Nothing, is clearly false and repeating it enough times will not make it true, even if Goebbels said so.

    After the next election, if America decides to stick its head back in the sand, I am sure there will be many huge terrorist attacks in America and I am sure most of the victims, will be Democrats.

  5. Phil  March 2, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    I can’t tell whether this is actually sarcastic or not. Quick! More shovels! STAT!

    Anyone who seriously believes the good of Iraq ever crossed anyone’s mind in Washington is terminally deluding themselves. ‘Liberation’? I can hear Orwell rolling over somewhere. Anyone who was paying any attention knew at the time that the WMD excuse was a fraud. Any pol who uses the “I was misled” excuse is lying through their teeth.

    Saddam and Al-Qaeda (aka ‘The Toilet’ for short) were always enemies.

    “A destabilizing force”? Saddam was the only one holding Iraq together and keeping the religious factions from… well, doing what they’re doing now.

    The invasion of Iran? That was at the US’s bidding and with the US’s full support; a million dead, and the blood is on Washington’s hands. Saddam wouldn’t have been able to spray cash on anyone (or fill up those mass graves) were it not for weapons and money continually coming his way from, you guessed it, the good ol’ White House.

    Edwards is full of it. Those aircraft wouldn’t have been shot at if they hadn’t been violating Iraqi airspace in the first place. And those bombers? Resisting a brutal occupation. Regional peace was impossible, yes, but it was because of constant Israeli terrorism, not Palestinian resistance.

    It does bear pointing out that the Dems are just as guilty of complicity, but the rest? A load of BS almost worthy of a SotU address.

  6. Hal Brown  March 2, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    If Bush wants to make the above speech crafted by a media fellow of the conservative think tank, the Hoover Institution, Deroy Murdock, I am sure he’ll deliver the lines about the Democrats with his usual pouty panache, endearing himself to all his fantasy barbeque and beer buddies who fudged their way through high school history with CliffsNotes.

    .

    They won’t question the two complete falsehoods.

    .

    1) Hussein’s general store for Islamofascist terrorists now is kaput…

    There was no “general store” for Islamofascist terrorists in Iraq while Saddam ruled. That was Afghanistan. That’s why we invaded them after 9-11. Despite a public relations effort to come across as a devout Muslim, Saddam was a secular leader who feared the influence of radical Islamists.

    .

    Only since Saddam’s ouster has Iraq become a haven (a WalMart rather than a general store) for Islamofascist terrorists. And by the way, lest anyone want to draw the inference from the above spin-line, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

    2)… and still possessed weapons of mass death, though in smaller quantities than we expected. While we never found warehouses full of WMDs, we did discover a vial of live botulinum, a seven-pound block of cyanide salt, 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin nerve agent, and 1.77 metric tons (3,894 pounds) of low-enriched uranium.

    WMD stands for weapons of mass destruction, not death. The “weapons” desribed are hardly WMD. Except for the artillery shells, they aren’t even weapons.

    .

    a vial of live botulinum: if this was enough to poison a city water supply I am sure we would have been told. This could have been for the various medical uses this extremely toxic bacterium is used for.

    .

    7 pounds of cyanide salt: first there are different kinds of cyanide, second there are many conventional uses including rat poison, mining, electroplating, metallurgy and photography.

    .

    mustard gas artillery shells: as I recall these were old and probably useless

    .

    sarin gas shells: how many shells and how active? If there were many of them I think Bush would have made a huge deal out of this “find”. All I recall reading about was an unsuccessful attempt by insurrgents to explode “an old binary-typ” shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin.” (from Fox News 2004)

    .

    low enriched uranium: this is not even close to being a weapon

  7. JimZ  March 2, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    Yes, MOST, but not ALL Democrats voted for the war. MOST, but not ALL Republicans voted for the war. They are both collectively complicit, but not ALL elected members were complicit.

    Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was just interviewed on Democracy Now (uh oh, the Limbots are ready to hurl bile on me just for that). He said that back in the early days of the Bu$h administration, when he was walking through the Pentagon, a friend in the service pulled him aside into his office. He said (my interpretation) “there is a classified plan (from the Rumsfield chain) to invade and change regimes in 7 countries in 5 years. The countries are Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Iran” (I can’t remember the other one).

    If you read Paul O’Neil’s book “The Price Of Loyalty”, he confirmed that about Iraq early on.

    That said, yes, most of our elected representatives from BOTH parties were complicit, but they did NOT formulate the plan. With no plan, there wouldn’t have been anything to go along with.

    So, to me, the article does attempt to bring up the Dems complicity, but my argument is yes, but all they did was follow the pre-existing plan from BU$HCO.

    Interestingly, when asked if the gulag at Guantanamo Bay should be closed, Wesley Clark said “absolutely”, and that it’s very existence jeopardizes our relations with our allies and the rest of the world.

    Clark also said that Congress should IMMEDIATELY REPEAL THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT. He said this does not represent the America that he grew up with.

    Clark also said instead of spending all the time investigating Scooter Libby, we should have spent all that time investigating the Bu$h administration for the run-up to the Iraq war, and the falsification of intelligence. He mentioned that Pat Roberts (not by name but that’s who he was talking about), the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was supposed to thoroughly investigate the “bad intelligence” but has not done so. (Kansas voters, do you hear that?)

    Anyway, that is support for my argument the PLAN was what got all of this started. Sure Congress rubber-stamped it but many (but not all) were mis-led about the whole thing, and the secret plan to invade and cause regime change was classified & most likely not very well known at the time.

  8. KayInMaine  March 2, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Ahhhhhh yes, when all else fails…blame the democrats!

    The funniest part about this piece is that republicans back in the 1990′s were crying foul about going to war with Iraq or even launching a rocket at Saddam! Funny, how’ve they changed and still blame the democrats for something that many of us are saying today. I’m considered a traitor for not supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq, but oh! Back in the 1990′s the republicans of today were saying the same thing as I am.

    So Orwellian, don’t you think? The republicans have this way of changing everyday to make themselves feel better and to allow them to blame others.

  9. KayInMaine  March 2, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    Funny, the democrats who were on the Senate Intelligence Committee did not vote to authorize. Uh oh. They knew the “intelligence” was a big fat fraud. The End.

  10. Andres Fimbres  March 2, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    KayInMaine,

    I may be mistaken, but I believe my Senator, Diane Feinstein, was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and she did in fact vote for the war. In fact, I remember clearly when she said that despite 80,000+ phone calls, emails and faxes from constituents pleading with her to vote against it, she was privy to information that would could not allow her to vote no on the resolution.

    Although I wholeheartedly disagree with the intent of of the author (to further politicize an act of war), I do believe Democrats need to own up to their culpability in this mess. It is not enough to simply say “I regret” or “I’m sorry”. A genuine act of remorse can be nothing short of a concerted and strong effort to end this war and redirect the countries attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I can accept if they fail, I cannot, however, accept their cowardice in not trying because it is not politically expedient.

  11. allan hirsh  March 2, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    This article by Murdock, or whatever his by-line is, is pure trash. I thought Capitol Hill Blue was a liberal site, the first that broke the news about drinking in the White House. Now you publish this two wrongs make a right material. I guess you’d let anyone write an article. What about the one about Gore wasting jet fuel while you’re at it?

  12. Kaine  March 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    I agree Andreas. Our legislators ahousl do all they can now to correct their wrongdoing. They should be doing more than “non-binding” resolutions. They should be doing more than just trying to ridicule the President.

    -

    They need to stop funding or whatever it takes to bring our boys and girls home from their nightmares.

    -

    They need to repeal PATRIOT Acts I & II and they need to repeal the Military Commissions Act! And they need to do it all now!!

    -

    I think they also need to do a criminal investigation in to the events surrounding 911, to see who was really behind it. And they need to investigate the intelligence that was used to start this bastion of a war!

    -

    Until they start moving on the items I listed, I will continue to believe that they were almost all complicit in all of it. They need to show the world that they are going to make these changes and find the people that are accountable for 911 and the war in Iraq!

  13. JimZ  March 2, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Diane Feinstein = married to the defense industry

    (her husband is a bigwig at a defense contractor)

Comments are closed.