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