« A Good Mother and a Good American | Main | Romper Room Radicals »

November 16, 2005

Shameless Dems and the Big Lie Tactic

Posted by Dave Blount at November 16, 2005 6:41 AM

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Many people are disappointed that Bush only recently started responding to the absurd charge that he lied about intelligence in order to bog us down in a frivolous war. The accusation is itself a lie, and so ludicrous on its face that the President's natural response seemed to be to roll his eyes at the childishness of moonbats and then get back to fighting the terrorists.

After all, everyone believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and most grownups still do. If I take a banana, and hide it behind my back — or bury it in Syria — would you believe that the banana had never existed? Even if there were people around to testify that I had used the banana to poke them in the eye?

Assuming for one demented moment that Saddam never had any WMDs and was never a threat to us. Does any sane person believe that Bush knew this, but went to war largely over WMDs anyway? If he really wanted to attack Iraq just for the hell of it, and knew they had no WMDs, wouldn't he have placed emphasis on some other reason to invade, such as stopping the genocide, or the fact that Saddam had repeatedly violated the agreements under which the Gulf War had temporarily ended?

Unfortunately, the Big Lie technique — based on the notion that "people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it," and perfected by Joseph Goebbels— is more effective than you might think. Democrats shameless enough to employ this underhanded propaganda tactic have been able to cause the President real harm in the court of public opinion — to the delight and strategic benefit of al Qaeda.

So as the President has belatedly come to realize, we are forced to confront the preposterous allegation that the whole war we're fighting against al Qaeda in Iraq is a waste of time because it is based on Bush's "lies." Norman Podhoretz rolled up his sleeves and performed this task admirably.

As Podhoretz documents, there was an overwhelming consensus in the international intelligence community that Saddam definitely had a substantial arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and was probably well on his way to establishing nuclear capability. No credible person can deny that this consensus existed. (No, I don't count Harry Reid as a credible person.)

Podhoretz also includes a few quotes that should help to remind Democrats of the pitfalls of trying to rewrite recent history when their past words are on record and readily available.

Bill Clinton:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Madeline Albright:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Sandy Berger:

He [Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Nancy Pelosi:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Bob Graham:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Carl Levin:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Hillary Clinton:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Jay Rockefeller

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Al Gore:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

More Gore:

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

John Kerry:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Ted Kennedy:

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Robert Byrd:

The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.

Clearly, these people understood the potential threat posed by Saddam only recently. Now many of them want to portray the war as an illegitimate waste of money and lives. It must have occurred to even the dimmest of them that a US defeat to al Qaeda in Iraq would be absolutely disastrous for America, for Iraq, for the Middle East, and for the entire world. In the immediate term, the demoralizing effect on our troops would be obvious to a child.

But the Democratic Party has come to be dominated by people so despicable that they would eagerly sacrifice the best interests of our troops, our country, and civilization itself for a chance to slip a stiletto into George Bush from behind.

Democrats have proven that you certainly can fool some of the people some of the time. But the chances of anyone they have failed to fool voting for their thoroughly execrable party in the foreseeable future are slim.

To see some stirring speeches by prominent Democrats on the necessity of taking out Saddam Hussein, check out the video Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq currently featured at

Hat tip: Bergbikr