The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner

 

The Clamor About WMD in Iraq

July 19, 2003


Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) and many of the Democratic hopefuls for the nation's highest office have accused President Bush of either exaggerating the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, or, in some cases, of lying about the existence of WMD in Iraq and the immediate threat to the security of the United States.  Senator Byrd has been the most vocal critic and has, on numerous occasions, called for Congressional investigations into the matter.  The "king of pork barrel" from West Virginia has waved his shaky finger in disgust a number of times in the U.S. Senate as he has called the President of United States an outright liar.  The clamor about WMDs does, though, bring up a number of important items for discussion.

First, did the President of the United States lie or exaggerate about the existence of WMD in Iraq?

NO!  Nobody disputes that WMD existed in Iraq.  Neither the Iranians nor the Kurds who were gassed by Saddam Hussein would deny their existence.  The United Nations would not deny their existence.  Many of  those in the Democratic party who are now criticizing President Bush supported then-President Clinton just a few years ago when he discussed the dangers of Saddam Hussein and WMD.  Even Saddam Hussein would not provide evidence before the war in Iraq that WMD no longer existed there.

There is one area of hot dispute about WMD, fueled by liberals and the culturally elite media:  the attempt by Iraq to buy nuclear materials in Africa.  The report provided by British Intelligence of the attempt by Saddam Hussein to buy nuclear materials in Niger, which was included in the President's State of the Union address, has been used by individuals like John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Robert Byrd to call the President of the United States a liar and charge that his motivation, in this so-called fabrication, was to bolster his case that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the security of the United States.  Yet it is interesting to note that even today, the British government stands strongly behind this intelligence report.  This intelligence report, though, does not stand alone, for there have been many other facts released in the past by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Commission, and also numerous media reports about Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.  Add to all this the recent unearthing of the gas centrifuge from the backyard of an Iraqi scientist, and it is crystal clear in my mind that a real and immediate danger existed that Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain nuclear weapons.  Most weapons experts believe that once Iraq had been free from inspections, and with equipment like the centrifuge and other technology that it possessed, it could have developed nuclear weapons in three years or less.  For someone like Senator Byrd, obviously this was not an immediate danger.  I guess that in Robert Byrd's world, only when Iraq had developed nuclear weapons and had them aimed at the United States, would we be in immediate danger.

Second, where are the WMD in Iraq?  Except for the centrifuge, a couple of mobile labs, and thousands of pages of documents, no smoking guns have been found yet.  Iraq is a large nation and had twelve years to hide WMD, everyone knows that.  The real issue here is this:  if WMD are not found, was the security of the United States in danger?  My answer is yes.  To me, it is like the nuclear weapon issue in Iraq.  While not totally proven yet, the future partnership between Saddam and terrorists groups in bringing harm to the United States was the greatest danger of all.  There is no doubt in my mind that, because of the hatred that Saddam had for the United States, he would have, when the opportunity presented itself, provided either the money or the means (the WMD) to bring destruction on the United States.  Saddam did not possess the guts to attack the United States directly, but I believe he would have used terrorist groups to do his evil and then deny any linkage.  I am sure France, Germany, Russia, and many liberals in the United States would have believed Saddam just like they "believe" now that he posed no real immediate threat to our security.

Third, is it important that we find WMD in Iraq?  YES, but not to justify whether we should have gone to war or not.  We should have gone to war to prevent future mass carnage that the mass graves demonstrated clearly existed under Saddam Hussein.  We should have gone to war to prevent a future linkage between Saddam and terrorists that would have made 9/11 look miniscule in nature.  We should have gone to war in Iraq to prevent that situation from becoming like North Korea.  So why is it important that we find WMD in Iraq?

It is important to find WMD in Iraq because the credibility of the United States is at stake.  If intelligence reports in the future point to another immediate security threat to the United States, it will be more difficult to rally support from our true allies (like Great Britain, Spain, etc.  - I am not worried about ever getting France's support!) and from the vast majority of the people here in the United States.  Vietnam clearly illustrated that when the American people do not support a war, it becomes extremely difficult to carry on a campaign to its ultimate success, especially if the process becomes difficult.

This brings up a fourth issue.  To bring about true peace, stability, and prosperity to the people of Iraq and to prevent it from being a future threat to the United States and the world, the Bush Administration must continue to make the case that it will take time, that we will endure more casualties, but that the end product is much more to the benefit to the people of Iraq and to the people of the United States.

The President must try as accurately as possible to lay out a timetable for military occupation and the monetary costs for such a goal of peace and stability to occur.  This must be stated over, and over, and over again.  It will take a while for this to sink in for most people.  Liberals in the Democratic Party will still claim that it has never been stated, but they are just closed-minded to the truth if it does not fit within their dogma, especially as they criticize U.S. national defense policy.  Why is this so?  This is actually nothing new, for since the end of World War II, the liberal Democratic Party has consistently been critical of United States foreign policy, often siding with those who threaten the security of the United States.  Ann Coulter said it best in her newest bestseller, Treason: Liberal Conspiracy From The Cold War To The War on Terrorism, when she stated:

"The credibility of Democrats on national defense is now at stake as it has not been since McCarthy's day.  Democrats are now at the precipice of securing their reputation as the Chamberlains of our time.  In fact, today's appeasers are worse than Neville Chamberlain:  Chamberlain did not have himself as an example.  In the latest round of liberal demoralization techniques, they are once again rooting against America.  You would think the most destructive terrorist attack in the history of the world would call for something new, but liberals have simply dusted off the old clichés from the Cold War and trotted them out for the war on terrorism.  The only patriotic liberal in the world is Tony Blair, and he is in England."1

Ann Coulter's new book is a must read for all conservatives!  Buy it today!

The war in Iraq was the right thing to do.  We must continue in our efforts to bring peace and stability in that nation and in that entire region.  We need also to find WMD in Iraq, but we need to have patience in this process.  Is it not somewhat ironic that people like Robert Byrd were willing to give Saddam Hussein an infinite amount of time to prove that he did not possess WMD, and yet they only give this nation a small window of time to prove otherwise?  That clearly demonstrates to me that Senator Byrd and others like him clearly trust the word of someone like Saddam Hussein more than they do the President of the United States.

Yet, that should not be surprising.  The liberal Democrats in this nation have always blamed the United States first and have attempted to portray efforts of this country to help other peoples of the world and to protect our security as imperialistic and evil.  Fortunately for them, they live in the United States, where being naive or stupid is protected by the Bill of Rights.  Or perhaps Coulter is more correct, "Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason."  If she is correct, the most ominous danger lies within the boundaries of the United States and not from the outside.

1. Treason: Liberal Conspiracy From The Cold War To The War on Terrorism, by Ann Coulter, Crown Forum, June 2003, p.13.

 

Copyright © Copyright © 2020 by Kim B. Deffenbaugh & America's Voices, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Kim B. Deffenbaugh is an educator, poet and high school guidance counselor in Indiana who recently began writing political commentary and poetry.  His work is published at www.poetsforthewar.org and on America's Voices.  You can e-mail him at kdeffenba@americasvoices.org.

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner

D-Day inaugural
feature article

www.americasvoices.org
publisher@americasvoices.org
editor@americasvoices.org
webmaster@americasvoices.org

Disclaimer

Publishing Guidelines

Copyright © Copyright © 2020 by Americas's Voices, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio.  All rights reserved.

America's Voices, America's Voices University, americasvoices.org and www.AmericasVoices.org are service marks of America's Voices, Inc. a not-for-profit educational organization.