The M Files: Liberals Say There are No WMDs in Iraq Now, But...
Back in 1998, then President Bill Clinton launched a missle attack on Iraq "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Check out the full transcript on CNN.com. "Their (attacks) purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world." George Bush? No, that was Bill Clinton in 1998. "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." Bush again, right? Nope, that is still Clinton in 1998.
And then there's Hans Blix: "After March, April, May, etc., and over the summer, everybody would have lost patience.” we too, he said, referring to the U.N. weapons inspectors. That from this article on MSNBC. Now I ask you all, if Mr. Blix thought Saddam had destroyed his WMDs shortly after the First Gulf War, then why wouldn't he have said so when he was faced with the detractors who charged that he was too soft on Iraq. Why was he not morally opposed to the use of force against Baghdad when he told the U.N. Security Council his agency "did not want to continue inspections forever. Monitoring, yes, but not inspections."?
How about John Kerry and Tom Daschle? Here is Kerry in '98: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." And here is Tom Daschale: "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." So what happened since 1998? What happened to Daschale's resolve? Back in '98, "This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters." Get it all here.
Here is Mr. Clinton again (from the same source): "Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it." Where does Mr. Clinton believe these weapons went?
How about anti-war platform presidential candidate Howard Dean? On Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." This tidbit from the National Review's Jim Geraghty.
How about we stop the political theatrics? Anybody got a problem with that???
MATT
