As the Democrats increasingly dissolve into by some sort of mass amnesia regarding the Iraq engagement and its origins, it’s worthwhile to remember that the proposition calling for the removal of Saddam was actually enshrined into U.S. law in Oct. ‘98 when Clinton signed The Iraq Liberation Act. This legislation changed the previous “containment” policy of the U.S. to one of: “Iraq regime change”. This measure passed in the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and by acclamation [unanimously] in the Senate. Yes even Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin and Boxer were in favor

After 9/11, and using essentially the same intelligence, that Clinton had handed to the incoming President Bush in Oct 2002, the Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution. The vote was 296 to 133 in the House with the majority of Dems [126 - 81] in opposition. In the Senate the vote was 77 ayes to 23 nays, with 29 Dems in favor and 21 opposed. There was no serious argument though against the WMD premise at either the UN or in the Congress, at the time of the Congressional War vote.

Firstly, no one disputed Saddam’s increasingly brazen, serious violations of the UN sanctions, which were the centerpiece of the cessation of hostilities in 1991.

In making the War case, Bush never claimed that Iraq had nukes. He never connected Saddam directly to 9/11. He obliquely alluded to an al Qaeda presence in Iraq. There was such a presence in the form of the beast Al Zarkawi and his agents. Iraq was also providing safe-haven to terror “all-stars” Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas. Saddam was also personally encouraging and supporting evil Palestinian terror bombers with generous “honorariums” to their family survivors.

Did he have WMD’s? Certainly he did. He had already used them against Iran and Kuwait! Did he move them to Syria or elsewhere? In retrospect it seems likely that he did. Did he have designs on acquiring nuclear weapons, including a plan, dormant or otherwise, to develop them domestically? Of course he did. Was Saddam going to become an increasingly dangerous threat, as he was able to more grossly circumvent the poorly enforced, and miserably corrupted UN sanctions. Certainly.

So there we have what they like to call “Bush’s War”, or to characterize same as “Bush lied, innocents died”. Right.

Of course, aside from the undeniable fact that there were other “small ball” methods to unseat Saddam; there’s another side to this engagement. How was it communicated, strategized and managed after its initial goal [regime change] was easily realized? Regrettably the answer is,,, poorly. And here the memory-challenged Left has every right to speak to the facts. I won’t go into them all here except to say that the single biggest blunder was the Administration’s clumsy course change, which left the original, legitimate reasons for the conflict in the dust, in favor of the lofty, ” promotion of democracy” formerly known as “regime building”, when the phrase is used in contempt, against Democrat policy. As in, “American shouldn’t be in the business of ‘regime building”.

Recent strides in this regard notwithstanding, that’s not why we went there, and they shouldn’t be ashamed of why we did. They shouldn’t attempt to peddle the same convenient amnesia, which duplicitous Democrats employ routinely.

Finally, to all Democrats who say this was, “the wrong war at the wrong time”; we have this question: “What would you have done instead?”

Note: The answer, “Rely on the UN sanctions and inspections”, does not pass the “giggle-test”, and therefore it is ineligible for serious consideration.

Related

Intelligence Committee Report: Bush’s Pre-War Claims Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information

Fred Hiatt, writing for the Washington Post, notes how Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, has been erroneously fueling the “Bush Lied” meme:

Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.

Despite the rhetoric of Rockefeller and other liberals desperate to hold on to the long-debunked notion that Bush lied, Hiatt points out that when you actually read the report, their rhetoric doesn’t match the report’s findings (emphasis mine):

[…] dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt also debunks the left’s claim that Bush misrepresented intelligence.

Read more from Blogs For Victory

Tags: Iraq in Hindsight

Trackback URI | Comments RSS