Liberal Parrots: Caw! Bush Lied! Caw!

Articles

Thomas Carroll

Liberal Parrots: Caw! Bush Lied! Caw!
July 2, 2004

That’s right gentle UselessK readers, the liberal parrots have struck repeatedly right here on this very site. The oft-repeated charges against Bush bouncing around the Media have found their way here and I, for one, and extremely tired of the tedium of refuting them. I will, however, do what small service I am capable of and provide some actual evidence along with my reasoning (and maybe even a dab of Critical Thinking thrown in for good measure) as to why Bush was not only thinking clearly when he decided to liberate Iraq, but also that he did not lie.

Specifically, I am thinking of Michelle Malsbury’s article entitled Does The Bush Administration Do Any Critical Thinking?. The thing about this piece that really gets under my skin is the attention paid to “critical thinking” followed by the complete lack of said act. I don’t mean this to be personally insulting, it’s the truth. Take, for example, this point that Ms. Malsbury makes central to her thesis:

Fact, we (the US Intelligence community) had no evidence that Iraq was harboring WMD nor that there was the smallest connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden or the Al Queda terrorist group. So why did we go to war with Iraq?

She then goes on to suggest that two conditions must be met before Bush could have rightly decided whether or not war was warranted, he should have checked out these two points:

1. Is the evidence sufficient that we can make a judgment with absolute certainty?

2. Does one point of view show probability beyond a reasonable doubt?

*If these two questions can not be answered with certainty then one should reserve judgment.

That sounds great in the locker room…but how about on the field? When you’re sitting around the old playbook, the X’s and O’s go just where they’re supposed to and you always know the outcome. Once the ball is in play, you find out that the rascally old defense doesn’t necessarily fall for you pump fake. Instead they make it look like their going to rush you from the left and then suddenly come blasting right up the middle. The moral of this pithy sports analogy is simple: It’s easy to pontificate in some book on reasoning (i.e., in the locker room), but the situation is quite a bit different from sitting in an office analyzing intelligence and then making decisions that will affect thousands of lives (i.e., on the field).

There is obviously a lot of controversy over whether or not Bush should have put as much emphasis as he did on the WMD issue. The images of stockpiles of mustard gas and nukes have, thus far, proved to not be accurate. However, let’s bear in mind that the absence of proof is not proof of absence. This is not hair- splitting or parsing of the imparsible, rather this is a fact of life whether we like it or not.

So, back to the claim made by our critical thinker, Ms. Malsbury that:

…we (the US Intelligence community) had no evidence that Iraq was harboring WMD nor that there was the smallest connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden or the Al Queda terrorist group.

That’s interesting, because I have heard otherwise from any number of sources. These sources fall into two categories, those based on evidence prior to the Liberation of Iraq, and those based on evidence since Saddam’s ousting.

Let’s start with the WMDs prior to the Liberation. Bill Clinton himself believed Saddam had WMDs, as evidenced by a number of official pronouncements:

…during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Need more pre-Liberation evidence? How about a dose from the experts:

"Iraq continues to possess several tons of chemical weapons agents, enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers," said Jon Wolfsthal, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.

I hope we all agree that in the long, drawn-out, run-up to Iraqi Liberation, both Bill Clinton and experts from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace agreed that Saddam had WMDs (although they changed their tune just a little late).

Now onto the post-Liberation evidence. I willingly admit that we have not found metric tons of, well, anything. However, there have been at least a few reports that suggest perhaps Saddam wasn’t as innocent in the realm of WMDs as some would have us believe.

Exhibit 1: Sarin in roadside bomb.

Exhibit 2: UN inspectors uncover proof of Saddam's nuclear bomb plans.

Exhibit 3: A first hand account from an Iraqi.

Exhibit 4: Maybe they ended up in Syria.

If you need more you’ll have either go to visit MuD&PHuD or find it on your own.

Now, onto connections between al Qaida and Iraq. To start with, I would like to point out that there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam was connected to Terror. He sent the equivalent of 25,000USD to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. The only question is whether or not he was directly linked to al Qaida and whether or not he was directly involved in the attacks on 9/11/01 (for the record: to the former, yes and the latter, perhaps not).

Evidence that Saddam was linked to al Qaida:

Exhibit A: Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden.

Exhibit B: Terrorist training camps in Iraq.

Exhibit C: Various and sundry.

There is the evidence. Now back to the purpose at hand: Does Bush think critically? Well, it certainly looks like there was abundant information that appeared credible suggesting that Saddam was not only in cahoots with Terrorists (of all varieties) but also that he was at the very least developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Based on that information, Bill Clinton made the critical decision to do nothing. Based on similar information, George W. Bush decided to take the bull by the horns and remove a grave and gathering threat before Iraq turned into another North Korea (i.e., most likely nuclear and run by a nutjob).

I hope that my efforts have proved at least somewhat helpful in shining some light though an often murky discussion of Terror, WMDs, Iraq, critical thinking, etc., etc. It is my sincere hope that each and every one of you will at least glance over some of the articles for which I have provided links and, as always, make up your own mind.

------------

About the author: Tom is a conservative medical student in liberal New England who probably spends too much time paying attention to politics and never lacks topics for friendly discussions. Check out his blog MuD&PHuD. Email Thomas Carroll: mudphud11@yahoo.com

Tell a friend about this site!

------------