moonbattery.gif


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


November 16, 2005

Shameless Dems and the Big Lie Tactic

Joseph_Goebbels.jpg
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 GOP.com.

Hat tip: Bergbikr

Posted by Van Helsing at November 16, 2005 6:41 AM

Comments

Great post, spot on. All we can hope is that enough people will see through it all an reject the Dems even more. They're way out in a limb using an absolutist position that is based on lies. Pretty dumb strategy if you ask me, but then again, dumb people are their voting base.

Love your site, I check it everyday, and will encourage others to do likewise.

Posted by: MG3 at November 16, 2005 9:42 AM

OT: Babs Boxer's Book Sucks Hilariously

She is a moonbat, and the book is hilariously bad.

Posted by: V the K at November 16, 2005 10:28 AM

Nice, but you left out an important point.

Those quotes predate Operation Desert Fox in late 1998.

That was the largest air raid ever carried out by US forces and used practically all cruise missiles in the Air Force inventory. There was actually a bomb shortage in the military afterwards -- much like the bullet shortage the Army's experienced in the Iraq War.

Desert Fox targeted all known and suspected WMD plants and stockpiles.

And it wiped them out.

Here's what CIA Director George Tenent -- testifying on behalf of the Bush administration told Congress on February 7, 2001:

“We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox (December, 1998) to reconstitute its WMD programs."

In fact, there are 24 or more speeches on file from the early days of the Bush administration from senior administration officials -- including the Secretaries of Defense and State -- claiming Iraq did not have a WMD program nor any WMDs left.

But, then, after 9/11, the Bush administration claimed that Iraq had suddenly created a WMD program out of the ashes.

But we know that President Bush has been caught twice using FALSE information to sell the war when NEW information existed proving his points false.

FIRST: The "16 words" in the 2003 state of the Union speech. Bush and Co based the existence of an Iraqi nuke program on FORGED documents the Brits had gotten. The CIA already knew they were forgeries at the time -- and known for months. Bush continued to use them as "proof" of a nuke program until they were forced to publicly retract the claim.

SECOND: Bush and Co claimed an al Qaeda connection to Saddam. This was based on an interrogation of an al Qaeda prisoner. But a CIA report -- declassified two weeks ago -- shows they figured out early on that the statements were actually "disinformation" and not valid. But Bush continued making that connection in speeches for at least eight months after the CIA told him it was wrong.

There is no evidence that either of these CIA corrections were ever shared with Congress BEFORE the war.

Posted by: Denny Hix at November 16, 2005 1:29 PM

Ooops there Denny:

Democrats, Circa 2002

-- Former Vice President Al Gore: "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow."
-- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.): "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Gore, In 2002: "We Know That [Saddam] Has Stored Away Secret Supplies Of Biological Weapons And Chemical Weapons Throughout His Country." (Al Gore, Remarks To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, 9/23/02)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Acknowledged Iraq Breached The 1991 Armistice Agreement By Refusing To Destroy Its Stockpiles Of Weapons. REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] based on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.): "We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Remarks At Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, 10/27/02)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): "Saddam's Existing Biological And Chemical Weapons Capabilities Pose Real Threats To America Today, Tomorrow." ROCKEFELLER: "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. … [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Believed Saddam's "Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction" Represented "An Unacceptable Threat." KERRY: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)


Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) Warned That -- If Left Unchecked -- Saddam Would Continue To Increase His Unconventional Weaponry And Even Develop Nuclear Weapons. CLINTON: "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) Said Saddam Was A "Terrible Danger" To America Because Of His "Vigorous Pursuit" Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. SCHUMER: "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) Claimed To "Understand The Grave Danger Posed To America ... By Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Hands Of A Reckless Dictator Like Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the Iraqi people and threat and instability to his neighbors throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. ... I understand the grave danger posed to America and the whole international community by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a reckless dictator like Saddam Hussein." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) Announced In 2002 That Within Five Years Saddam Would Possess "Tactical Or Theater Nuclear Weapons." BIDEN: "My view is if five years from now Saddam Hussein is in power, left unfettered with $5 billion to $7 billion a year to pursue his weapons, he will be a grave danger to us, in the sense that he will intimidate the area and we will be unwilling to go after him because he'll have tactical or theater nuclear weapons." (CNN's Larry King Live, 10/9/02)

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Simply Stated: "There Is No Question That Iraq Possesses Biological And Chemical Weapons." DODD: "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressional Record, 10/8/02)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) Felt Saddam's Chemical And Biological Weapons Posed "A Considerable Threat To Us." NELSON: "Well, I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons. And the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us." (CNBC's "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) Listed The Weapons At Saddam's Disposal: "Ballistic Missiles, Anthrax, Sarin Gas, VX And Smallpox." BAYH: "Today, Hussein already has ballistic missiles, anthrax, sarin gas, VX and smallpox, and he could someday soon have nuclear weapons at his disposal. As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt conviction that we cannot." (Sen. Evan Bayh, Op-Ed, "Bayh Justifies The Need For Using Force Against Iraq," The Indianapolis Star, 10/10/02)

Posted by: Vonster at November 16, 2005 2:42 PM

What is so amusing of Denny's post is his complete trust in American munitions performing 100% flawlessly. Lets forget when the media started reporting all the misses from the Patriots against the SCUDs. Or the Serbian bombing campaign that got the PRC embassy because of incorrect coordinates. Or that Sudanese factory that got cruise-missled because of some bogus soil samples said it made WMDs.

Go back to the sandbox Denny. Rality says some munitions will miss. Reality also proves intelligence can be wrong or incomplete.

So to make the assertion that Desert Fox destroyed all of Saddam's WMDs is to lie.

Posted by: Anna at November 16, 2005 3:36 PM

Vonster proves my point! Thanks!

The 2002 quotes show the President's sales plan.

Remember, Congress only had access to info that the President allowed them to see -- and I cited two examples were Bush supressed accurate intel so he could use bad intel that pushed the war.

And Anna, some munitions do miss. But unleashing several dozens times the amount of explosives used in all of WWII in a country smaller than Texas -- didn't leave many targets.

Even the Bush administration agreed on February 7, 2001:

“We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox (December, 1998) to reconstitute its WMD programs." -- then CIA Director George Tenent testifying before Congress.

Not to mention the President's own report from March 31, 2005:

"On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government
asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons
program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production
facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of
this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And
not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.
While the intelligence services of many other nations also thought that Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction, in the end it was the United States that put
its credibility on the line, making this one of the most public—and most damaging—
intelligence failures in recent American history."

Has to hurt more when it's coming from the Bush administration, huh?

Posted by: Denny Hix at November 17, 2005 3:42 PM

100% flawlessly?

You need to read a little about "Desert Fox."

If only 50% of the weapons hit their targets, the WMD capabilities would have been gone.

In fact, the Air Force and Navy complained they ran out of targets, but still had to bomb something. So they went after conventional targets for the last day of the fight.

Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 17, 2005 3:44 PM

Dear blond60@gmail.com [aka Ronald Reagan], do you have sources for your assertions on Operation Desert Fox?

"Operation Desert Fox was a perfect example of the uselessness of strike operations. Iraqis have told me that the WMD destruction and movement started just after Operation Desert Fox, since after all, who would be so stupid as to start a bombing campaign and just stop." -- Bill Tierney, UNSCOM Inspector 96-98, Counter infiltration in Iraq 2004.

And go back to read what I wrote. Denny's statement presented a case of 100% destruction of WMDs by PGMs. Which is a fallacy. Or better yet, where did the 20 tons of chemical weapons Jordanian intelligence discovered last year come from? Or the 1.7 tons of radioactive material airlifted from Iraq this June come from?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20154

Posted by: Anna at November 17, 2005 4:57 PM