http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32290
Justification for war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 29, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Neal Boortz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
From where I sit, the anguish has been delicious. I can't tell you when I've had more fun. Watching Democrats battling Bush's surging popularity brought on by his success in Iraq is better than watching one of those old cliffhanger serials they used to show at the Saturday morning 50-cent movies.
Democratic Party leaders go to bed on any given night thinking they've finally nailed Bush with the stigma of failure or corruption, only to awaken hours later to find their charges dissolving in the acid bath of reality.
Right now Democrats and their leftist bedfellows are virtually wringing their hands in glee over the prospect that we may not find "smoking gun" evidence of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. They live in dread of that breaking news bulletin on Fox detailing the discovery of a cache of forbidden warheads.
When Cynthia Cotts of New York's Village Voice wrote: "Evidence is emerging that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may never provide a compelling justification for the war." you could almost hear her saying under her breath "please, God, oh please let it be so. I'll do anything! Just don't let them find the evidence."
Sorry, Cynthia. You're too late. We don't expect you to realize this, nor will it ever sink in to the logic-impaired consciousness of the social Democratic left, but the justification for the war in Iraq existed before the first American boot hit Iraqi sand. Full, complete, clear and concise justification was there – and that justification will not be affected by what we do and do not find hidden in Iraq.
We'll move slowly here, step by step. If you have trouble following this perhaps your sixth-grader can help you:
Prior to the commencement of military action against Saddam Hussein America, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United Nations knew of the existence of large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. In fact, this information was known prior to Saddam kicking the U.N. inspectors to the curb in 1998. Democrats should take note than none other than Sen. Tom Daschle spoke of our certain knowledge of the existence of these weapons and of the necessity of making sure they are destroyed.
Not only did we know that Saddam Hussein had these weapons, but Saddam himself had acknowledged their existence. Rather hard not to, really, when you're using them to kill tens of thousands of your own people.
Since we knew that Saddam had the weapons, and since Saddam knew that we knew, Saddam agreed with the United Nations that he would destroy his biological and chemical weapons arsenal, not because he wanted to, but because the alternative seemed unpleasant … for Saddam.
Not only did Saddam agree to destroy those weapons, but he also agreed to document that destruction and to present the evidence of that destruction to the United Nations Security Council.
Despite repeated demands and requests, Saddam steadfastly refused to provide even the most minimal evidence to the Security Council that he had destroyed those weapons. Finally, time ran out.
These are incredibly ugly weapons we're talking about. Small quantities of these chemical and biological agents could have been secreted out of Iraq in remarkably small containers, perhaps to find their way to a water supply in Dallas, or a shopping-mall ventilation system in Minneapolis. Just how much of a chance do we take?
OK. So you hate George Bush. You're convinced he stole the election in 2000. You think Michael Moore was far too kind during his Oscar's acceptance speech. So, can you put that baggage aside for a few moments to do a little role playing?
Put yourself in the president's place. You know Saddam had the weapons, and you know he used them against Iran and against his own people. Saddam promised to get rid of the weapons and to document their destruction.
Then, Saddam kicks the U.N. weapons inspectors out and refuses further cooperation. He then claims that he destroyed the weapons after the inspectors left, but he just can't seem to remember where he put all of the paperwork. When the U.N. demands an accounting of all the weapons we knew Saddam had, plus any new weapons he had developed, he responds with a 12,000 page re-hash of material the U.N. had 12 years ago.
So ... you're the man. You get to make the decision: Move in and eliminate the threat, or let this charade go on for a few years more?
What? You say you would give time for the inspections to work? Well, that's why we're glad that George Bush – and not you – is living in the White House.
Justification for war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 29, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Neal Boortz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
From where I sit, the anguish has been delicious. I can't tell you when I've had more fun. Watching Democrats battling Bush's surging popularity brought on by his success in Iraq is better than watching one of those old cliffhanger serials they used to show at the Saturday morning 50-cent movies.
Democratic Party leaders go to bed on any given night thinking they've finally nailed Bush with the stigma of failure or corruption, only to awaken hours later to find their charges dissolving in the acid bath of reality.
Right now Democrats and their leftist bedfellows are virtually wringing their hands in glee over the prospect that we may not find "smoking gun" evidence of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. They live in dread of that breaking news bulletin on Fox detailing the discovery of a cache of forbidden warheads.
When Cynthia Cotts of New York's Village Voice wrote: "Evidence is emerging that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may never provide a compelling justification for the war." you could almost hear her saying under her breath "please, God, oh please let it be so. I'll do anything! Just don't let them find the evidence."
Sorry, Cynthia. You're too late. We don't expect you to realize this, nor will it ever sink in to the logic-impaired consciousness of the social Democratic left, but the justification for the war in Iraq existed before the first American boot hit Iraqi sand. Full, complete, clear and concise justification was there – and that justification will not be affected by what we do and do not find hidden in Iraq.
We'll move slowly here, step by step. If you have trouble following this perhaps your sixth-grader can help you:
Prior to the commencement of military action against Saddam Hussein America, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United Nations knew of the existence of large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. In fact, this information was known prior to Saddam kicking the U.N. inspectors to the curb in 1998. Democrats should take note than none other than Sen. Tom Daschle spoke of our certain knowledge of the existence of these weapons and of the necessity of making sure they are destroyed.
Not only did we know that Saddam Hussein had these weapons, but Saddam himself had acknowledged their existence. Rather hard not to, really, when you're using them to kill tens of thousands of your own people.
Since we knew that Saddam had the weapons, and since Saddam knew that we knew, Saddam agreed with the United Nations that he would destroy his biological and chemical weapons arsenal, not because he wanted to, but because the alternative seemed unpleasant … for Saddam.
Not only did Saddam agree to destroy those weapons, but he also agreed to document that destruction and to present the evidence of that destruction to the United Nations Security Council.
Despite repeated demands and requests, Saddam steadfastly refused to provide even the most minimal evidence to the Security Council that he had destroyed those weapons. Finally, time ran out.
These are incredibly ugly weapons we're talking about. Small quantities of these chemical and biological agents could have been secreted out of Iraq in remarkably small containers, perhaps to find their way to a water supply in Dallas, or a shopping-mall ventilation system in Minneapolis. Just how much of a chance do we take?
OK. So you hate George Bush. You're convinced he stole the election in 2000. You think Michael Moore was far too kind during his Oscar's acceptance speech. So, can you put that baggage aside for a few moments to do a little role playing?
Put yourself in the president's place. You know Saddam had the weapons, and you know he used them against Iran and against his own people. Saddam promised to get rid of the weapons and to document their destruction.
Then, Saddam kicks the U.N. weapons inspectors out and refuses further cooperation. He then claims that he destroyed the weapons after the inspectors left, but he just can't seem to remember where he put all of the paperwork. When the U.N. demands an accounting of all the weapons we knew Saddam had, plus any new weapons he had developed, he responds with a 12,000 page re-hash of material the U.N. had 12 years ago.
So ... you're the man. You get to make the decision: Move in and eliminate the threat, or let this charade go on for a few years more?
What? You say you would give time for the inspections to work? Well, that's why we're glad that George Bush – and not you – is living in the White House.
