Joe Mariani

Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush
July 18, 2003

The double standards of the Left, when you can find any standards at all, continue to amaze the rest of us. Actually, it's a triple-standard, if you want to get technical... Liberals don't seem to allow themselves to be held accountable for anything they say at all. In the matter of Iraq, for instance, they claimed that the Iraqis did not want to be rid of Saddam (a nation of masochists, I imagine), that the coalition didn't have enough troops to take Iraq, that Saddam would ignite the oil wells and cause an ecological disaster, that Saddam would attack Israel and get the rest of the Middle East into the conflict, that the troops were "bogged down" in a "quagmire" after the first few days... you get the point. Post-Saddam, they blamed the coalition for protecting the oil wells and preventing an ecological disaster, suffered agonies over the thought that the Baghdad Museum was looted of 170,000 artifacts (actually about 30), and so on. Now they whine "where's the WMD?" as if President Bush spent 12 years hiding it and "where's Saddam?" as if he left Saddam to his own devices all these years. Are they really villifying the President for speaking the truth in a speech? If you interrupt their constant attacks on America and Americans to wonder aloud whether they even like this country, they scream "McCarthyism!" and "First Amendment!". They claim that attacking the country proves that they love it... though that makes me hope they never like me that much. I'll ignore their shameless lack of self-analysis for the moment, however.

The Left is desperately trying to "prove" that President Bush knew about the tragedy of 9/11 before it happened. Though the President had been in office only nine months, they want to hold him responsible for a plot that was YEARS in the making. (The al-Qaeda modus operandus seems to be a major attack every two years; we'll soon know whether our efforts have disrupted their operations to any great degree.) In any case... out of the dozens, perhaps hundreds of daily threats and problems faced by the nation, how is the President expected to pick one and say "This is it... here's the real danger"? The President is entirely dependent on his intelligence services to prioritise the potential dangers. (Perhaps we should elect Uri Geller, Dionne Warwick or even Miss Cleo. At press conferences, they could answer the journalists' questions before they're even asked!) In an effort to lay the blame for 9/11 on the Bush Administration, Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) said on 25 March 2002, "We know that there were several warnings that were given prior to the events of September 11th... People were calling in to the CIA and to the FBI, and they were giving information that was critical... There was adequate warning." Take note of this: the President is being berated for not acting when he had some intelligence, even though that intelligence was merely "people calling in".

The information upon which President Bush acted in Iraq was gathered over the last 16 years, by various agencies and countries. It started with the first use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein against the 1750 villagers of Balisan in April 1987 -- the beginning of the Anfal campaign. Documented use of chemical weapons by Saddam continued until the cease-fire he signed after the Gulf War in 1991, under which he was required to surrender all his stores of WMD, the means to make WMD, and the documentation regarding his WMD... all within 90 days.

Over the course of the next seven years, Saddam systematically deceived the UN inspectors sent in to document the destruction of his WMD stockpiles and production facilities. As documented by the last UNSCOM report on Iraq in October 1997:

61. ...Iraq has not been able to provide evidence of destroyed munitions. In August 1997, Iraq was asked to clarify the circumstances related to the declared destruction. Those data have not yet been provided.
63. Iraq declared that its VX project had failed and no large-scale production had ever been carried out. However, after the evaluation of Iraq's documents and the results of analysis of samples from alleged VX production and dump sites, the Commission recently obtained further sufficient evidence that Iraq had indeed succeeded in acquiring VX production capabilities. Given that, prior to 1995, Iraq completely denied the production of VX and attempted to eliminate all traces of such activities in order to conceal them from the Commission, this area clearly requires further verification efforts.
70. ...UNSCOM conducted eight inspections in an attempt to investigate critical areas of Iraq's proscribed activities such as warfare agent production and destruction, biological munitions manufacturing, filling and destruction and military involvement in and support to the proscribed programme. Those investigations, along with documents and other evidence available to the Commission, confirmed the assessment that the June 1996 declaration was deeply deficient.
74. Not all imports known to the Commission, including growth media for Iraq's biological warfare programme, have been reported by Iraq. Media unaccounted for is sufficient, in quantity, for the production of over three times more of the amount of biological warfare agent - anthrax - stated by Iraq to have been produced. Additionally, amounts of media declared by Iraq as "lost or unilaterally destroyed" is unsupported by Iraq's own documentation and by interview of Iraq's personnel.
126. There is incomprehension of why Iraq is persisting so strongly with both refusing to make the facts known about its biological weapons programme and why it is so insistent on blocking the Commission's own efforts to reach those facts.
Unless you're about to declare the entire United Nations a panel of liars, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, proven by his use of them and his own admissions. The documentation quoted above show that his known WMD stores and facilities were never destroyed as required. Saddam was also proven to have ties to terrorists. He was encouraging Palestinian suicide bombers by paying their families $25,000 to fuel the intfada (an Arabic word meaning an abrupt waking up from sleep or apathy). Saddam also had ties to Ansar al-Islam, an Iraqi terror group.

These are just a few examples of the evidence President Bush had for removing Saddam Hussein from power -- just some of the evidence that's available to the public. 9/11 showed us just how vulnerable we were -- and still are -- to a terrorist attack. President Bush realised that we couldn't sit back and wait to see whether Saddam's double threat of terrorist links and WMD would be combined for use against us. He even gave Saddam three more months to comply with UNSC# 1441 than it called for. Yet those on the Left don't seem to feel that it was enough evidence to act on, in contrast to their reaction to the minimal 9/11 intelligence. In THIS case, the President is being berated for acting when he had plenty of intelligence!

So which way do the Liberals want it? Do they want the President to act to protect us when he and his administration have sufficient evidence to believe a threat exists, or do they want him to wait, and wait, and risk another 9/11 -- perhaps with weapons more deadly than airplanes? As my father wisely said, "I'd rather have a President who acts a little too quickly than a little too late".

I don't think any of these attack-dog Left-wing Bush-bashers would agree, though.


Email Joe Mariani: CavalierX@yahoo.com

Comment on this column in the forum.

Tell a friend about this site!


Useless-Knowledge.com © Copyright 2002-2003. All rights reserved.