There's nothing new in the news this week. The rhetoric is the same and it has become quite stale. Some are digging themselves a very deep hole and it is not President Bush. People, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee, for the pot is nearly cooked dry and it smells up the house. Senator Bob Graham basically told the biggest lie this week when he said that we made a "pre-emptive strike on Iraq" because of their WMD's. He is also leading a campaign to impeach President Bush for his "misleading" of the nation on key points of the reasons why we went into Iraq. "If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton, that a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?", he said. Howard Dean is calling for an investigation, "I don't think it's OK to mislead people, whether it's deliberate or inadvertent. I thought it was fundamentally wrong for the president to mislead the American people on this uranium business." Senator John Kerry said the Bush administration suffers from a, "dangerous gap in credibility." Senator Carl Levin also wants an investigation in to the 16 words of the State of the Union Address. But Neal Boortz reports on his website that Mr. Levin made a Senate Floor speech On October 9, 1998 in which he said, "Iraq (has) attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear program contrary to its treaty obligations." Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Tom Daschle, and the rest of the 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates all put in their 2 cents worth. The Democrats have been having a field day with heir clams that President Bush misled us into war with Iraq. Basically, what all the Democrats are saying is a blatant lie - a much bigger lie than anything they are accusing President Bush of. President Bush did not lie, it's just that simple. He said the British had the evidence and the British still stand by that claim. What else do you want??? Yes, there were so-called "forged" documents that made the same claims, but there are other sources that make these claims. The President did not lie - he said it was the British that had the intel. Why did we go to war with Iraq? Oh, how quickly we forget. How quickly we can be spoon fed by the Democrats and their liberal media. Even my beloved Fox News has not seized the day to tell the truth. The "official" reason has been left out of the equation, by both sides, since this entire smear campaign. Let's go way back to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. (To read this resolution, go to the U.N. website and scroll down, the click on 1441.) This resolution, which was unanimously ratified by the entire council, states the Saddam must declare his weapons of mass destruction or prove that they have been destroyed. The document goes on to say, "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions..." The document then calls for the return of inspectors with total and complete access to all parts of Iraq. There is great detail in 1441 as to how all this is to occur. Iraq did not come through with the evidence Resolution 1441 called for. They did not abide by the rules set up in 1441 either. Iraq spied on weapons inspectors and knew every move they were making. Iraq did not make any attempt to prove their claims of having no WMD's. 1441 called for Iraq turning over names of scientists and biologists, which they did to some degree, but never fully. They never allowed the freedom required to interview these scientists in order to get the truth. On thing the media never covered, that still infuriates me to this day, is the fact that 1441 states, "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution..." Yet, Saddam and his son, Uday, continually made public threats toward America and President Bush throughout the final days the U.S. tried to reason with the U.N. Security Council. But issue was never taken with that. Saddam's failed compliance with many U.N. Security Council resolutions, especially 1441, was the reason we went to war with Iraq. Everything else was supplementary information. Everything would have been different if we had gotten the support of the U.N. Thanks to France and the "axis of weasel", that did not happen. Maybe, in the end, we are better off without the U.N. After all we have seen, I am quite suspect of the institution and I don't think that trust can be restored. Any level of trust for French President Jacques Chirac is out of the question and I don't think I can place much trust in Russian President Vladimir Putin. They have shown us what they are made of and where their true loyalty lies. It certainly isn't with America or with doing the right thing. I still think the war was just. Mass graves, stories of torture and murder, rape and abuse, the imprisonment of children, the enslavement of the Iraqi people, and the high life of Saddam and his sons are reason enough for me. I still believe America did what Love would do. I think we need to stay the course. I think we have a very noble military and I understand how extremely difficult their job has become. I also know that there is still much fear in the Iraqi people. They are terrified that Saddam is coming back. I also believe this was his plan all along. It is the very reason so many Iraqi's are terrified to come forward with the truth about the WMD's, where they are, and how close to using them Saddam was. Saddam had to truly hide his WMD's. I really think they went out of the country on those three cargo ships. I also suspect they went even farther on Russian military vessels during so called "war games" with India, in the vicinity if the Indian Ocean. The only way the WMD's would not be found in Iraq was if they were not there. Saddam knew America was coming. He planned his escape, made sure the best doubles, both body and voice, were safely hidden in Iraq, then he high-tailed it out of the country, with the assistance of France. His plan was to keep killing our troops, one or two at a time, until America was outraged, leaving Iraq with their tails between their legs. Saddam would then return to power and continue things as they were before, filling more mass graves with those who supported and assisted the Americans. Saddam still believes it will happen that way. If we listen to the Democrats and what they want to do in Iraq, letting the U.N. in with an international force, then we might as well run the red carpet out for Saddam. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find Saddam in a Paris apartment having a wonderful time, sending poor quality audio tapes into Iraq on a regular schedule, to keep the terror factor going in the country. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that Iran is leading these "guerilla" tactics that kill an American a day. Are the Iranians paying Iraqi's to kill Americans? And why have the Iranians secured outposts into Iraqi borders? The fact remains that things are better in Iraq than most of the media and the Democrats would have us believe. There has been no mass exodus out of the country. Jordan was prepared for that, yet, nothing has happened. The truth is - many Iraqi's who had been living in exile in surrounding countries have come home. You don't hear about that, do you? Something else you won't see: average Iraqi's interviewed on the street. The media does not want you to hear that. You don't see the Iraqis having cordial conversation with the American soldiers, much less thanking them or giving them gifts. Let's look at the calendar. The war began in late April, right? What is today? July 20th. Has that been a very long time to get a nation back together after a war and 30 years of a horrid dictator? We live in a country used to fast results and instant gratification. It isn't that way everywhere in the world. I think miracles have happened in Iraq and what we have accomplished so far constitutes a miracle. It all comes down to the fact that many want to slander President Bush so that a Democrat can reside in The White House on January 20, 2005. The DNC does not care which person gets the job, as long it's a Democrat. If that happens, Iraq will be given over to the U.N., North Korea will be paid off to be quiet and go away while they keep building their nuclear arsenal - despite what ever document they sign that says they won't, we will all get a big check in the mail while our taxes climb out of reason (but we'll be looking at that big check), the deficit will be paid at the expense of our military and intelligence agencies and our security will be flushed down the toilet. The Democrats will be bragging about all the wonderful things they have done, trying to make us believe we are safe, and then the other shoe will drop. How or what that would be, I do not know, but it would make 9/11 look like a cakewalk. I am exceedingly concerned about the fact that the Democrats are so positive that the WMD's do not exist. Where is their documentation that this is true? I want proof!!! Can they give me that??? Shortie 07-20-03 |
 |
 |
| HOME |
 |