The Home of Atilla

“Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

Effective arguments for the War on Iraq (a must read)

Posted by Atilla89 on June 30, 2007

Great stuff from Frontpage by David Horowitz http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28944

Read it and weep moonbats!

Why We Went to War in Iraq

By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 29, 2007

When he was in office and responsible for protecting us, Al Gore was absent from the war on terror. As Vice President, he was part of an administration that failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut and ran when al-Qaeda ambushed US Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the UN inspectors back in; that failed to respond to the murder of US troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two US embassies in Africa by firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden when it had a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have prevented 9/11.

In short, to every act of war against the United States during the 1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse. By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat. As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack.

 

Yet, it is characteristic of Gore’s myopic arrogance that he would wag his finger at the Bush administration for its failure to anticipate the 9/11 attack. “It is useful and important to examine the warnings the administration ignored,” Gore writes in his self-referentially titled new book, The Assault on Reason. As if to underscore his own hypocrisy – he then adds: “not to ‘point the finger of blame’….” Of course not.

           

Like his Democratic colleagues, Gore sees himself as a restorer of “reason” to an America that is on its way to perdition thanks to the serpent in the Rose Garden. According to Gore, Bush is the arch deceiver: “Five years after President Bush made his case for an invasion of Iraq, it is now clear that virtually all the arguments he made were based on falsehoods.”

 

The First Big Bush Lie, according to Gore, is that the Bush administration went to war to remove Saddam Hussein’s WMDs or, as he puts it: “The first rationale presented for the war was to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” This familiar Democratic claim is itself probably the biggest lie of the Iraq War, rather than anything the president or his administration has said.  In fact, the first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change.

 

This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later.

 

Contrary to everything that Al Gore and other Democrats have said for the last four years, Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements that made up the Gulf War truce – and not the alleged existence of Iraqi WMDs – was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops to Iraq.

 

Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.

 

The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas” clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.

 

Even if these indisputable facts were not staring Gore in the face, the destruction of WMDs could not have been the “first rationale” for the war in Iraq for this simple reason. On the very eve of the war, the president gave Iraq an option to avoid a conflict with American forces. On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’ crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of Saddam.

 

If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the truce accords of 1991 and UN Resolution 1441. This would have led to Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMDs or WMD programs that Saddam may have had – without necessitating a war.

 

Ignoring – and distorting – the facts about how and why his country went to war, Gore repeats the slanders of the president – and therefore his country – that have become a familiar aspect of our political life. The charges are transparently designed to destroy the authority of America’s commander-in-chief, while his troops are in harm’s way – an unprecedented sabotage of a war in progress. In the course of repeating these charges, Gore adds one of his own, indicting Bush as a tool of the American ruling class who has manipulated the facts about Iraq in order to serve their hidden agendas: “It was as if the Bush White House had adopted Walter Lippmann’s recommendation to decide in advance what policies it wanted to follow and then to construct a propagandistic mass persuasion campaign to ‘manufacture’ the consent of the people to do what the ‘specialized governing class’ had already made up its mind to do.”

 

Of course Walter Lippmann never recommended any such thing. This is a gross misrepresentation of a Lippmann argument, which can be traced to Noam Chomsky and his Marxist screed, Manufacturing Consent. According to Chomsky, the term “manufactured consent” refers to a conspiracy of the ruling class to snooker Americans into war. This is a malicious misreading of Lippmann’s text.

 

In his book, Public Opinion, Lippmann observed that modern society had become so complex that only specialized experts were in a position to understand the implications of a given national policy. Because of this complexity, informed policy debates could not be conducted by the voting public but necessarily took place between specialized experts who were then supported by constituencies on both sides of the argument. In other words, Lippmann was already recognizing the role of what we now call “special interest”  and “public interest” groups in shaping the national policy debate. It was in this sense that Lippmann wrote that democratic consent was inevitably “manufactured.” Lippmann never recommended that rulers should organize a “propagandistic mass persuasion campaign” to deceive the public and manipulate the result. This is Chomsky’s perversion of Lippmann’s idea, which Gore merely repeats.

 

Even so, the argument that Bush manipulated the facts about Iraqi WMDs to pursue a war policy that was aggressive and unfounded is demonstrably false. Bush acted on the consensus of every major intelligence agency – including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the Jordanian – all of whom believed that Saddam had WMDs. In other words, he cannot reasonably be accused of inventing the existence of Saddam’s WMDs, although that is precisely what Gore and other demagogues on the left do on an almost daily basis. Since every Democratic Senator who voted for the war was provided by the administration with a copy the intelligence data on Saddam’s WMDs, the charge made by Gore and other Democratic senators that they were deceived is both cynical and hypocritical as well as false.

 

Gore’s charges continue: “We were told by the President that war was his last choice, when it was his first preference.” Was it? That depends on what one means by “first preference.” If what Gore means is that the president prepared for war with Saddam long before the war began, well, of course he did. It was his responsibility to do so. It is the Pentagon’s motto – and a fundamental doctrine of every strategist from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz – that if you want peace, prepare for war. By 2001, when Bush took up residence in the Oval Office, Saddam had already broken the Gulf War truce many times over. American pilots were engaged in a low-intensity armed conflict with the Iraqi military over the “no-fly zones” the truce had created. Clinton and Gore had allowed Saddam to get away with breaking the truce he had signed for two reasons. First because they were preoccupied with the fallout from Clinton’s affair in the White House; but more importantly, because ever since Vietnam the Democrats had shown no interest in deploying American troops to protect the national interest (and thus had opposed the first Gulf War).

 

In 1998, Saddam expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq. Why would he do so if it was not his intention to do mischief as well? Specifically, why would he do so if it was not his intention to develop the weapons programs – the WMD programs – that the Gulf truce outlawed and that the UN inspectors were there to stop? The terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed that Saddam’s mischief could have serious consequences – not because Saddam had a role in 9/11 – but because Saddam celebrated and endorsed the attacks, had attempted to assassinate an American president and had hosted terrorist organizations and gatherings engaged in a holy war against the West.

 

The only reason Saddam allowed the UN inspectors to return to Iraq in the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on the border of a country which was violating international law unless he meant to enforce the law. But the troops were there to go to war only if Saddam Hussein failed to honor the 1991 truce, not to slake the aggressive appetites of the president of the United States, as America’s enemies – and Al Gore – maintain.

 

Saddam’s offer to allow the UN inspectors to return to Iraq coincided with Bush’s appearance at the UN in September 2002. His message to the UN was that it needed to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant. If UN did not enforce the resolutions that Saddam had violated, the United States would do so in its stead. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore marked the occasion by publicly attacking their own president for putting such pressure on Saddam Hussein. This was the beginning of the Democratic campaign to sabotage an American war in progress, which has continued without letup ever since.

 

As a result of Bush’s appeal, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline to expire on December 7, 2002. By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons programs or “serious consequences would follow.” The ultimatum was UN Resolution 1441 – the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance. Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies – Russia and France – would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the reason the United States and Britain went to war without UN approval, not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures, which is simply another Democratic deception.

 

Since war was not the president’s preference – first, last or otherwise – the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House spent three months after the December 7th deadline trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the UN resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they – as Security Council members – had ratified and promised to enforce.

 

Virtually all of the claims that make up the core of the Democrats’ attacks on Bush’s decision to go to war – that he manipulated data on aluminum tubes to present them as elements of an Iraqi nuclear program and that he lied about an Iraqi attempt to buy yellowcake uranium – were never part of the administration’s rationale for the use of force, and were not mentioned in the Authorization for the Use of Force congressional legislation. They were political attempts to persuade the reluctant Europeans to enforce the UN ultimatum and international law. Even then, by offering Saddam an escape clause, Bush provided an alternative to war. If Saddam would re-settle in Russia or some other friendly state, the United States would not invade.

 

A third Democratic lie, regurgitated by Gore, is the famous accusation about the sixteen words Bush used in the State of the Union address on the eve of the war. According to Gore, Bush claimed “that he had documentary proof” that Saddam Hussein attempted to buy fissionable uranium from the African state of Niger. According to Gore the “documentary proof” was revealed to be an Italian forgery for which Bush failed to apologize. According to Gore, there was no inquiry into how this happened. According to Gore, the Niger claim was one of the key falsehoods on which Bush based the “rationale” for the war. Every one of these assertions is a distortion of the facts and false.

 

First, the Niger claim was not part of the rationale for the war. It is not mentioned in the Authorization for the Use of Force legislation or in UN Security Council ultimatum 1441, which constitute the actual reasons the United States and Britain went to war in Iraq. In his State of the Union address the president did not say he had “documentary proof” of an Iraqi mission to obtain uranium in Niger. He said “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Those sixteen words were all he said. Every one of these words, moreover, was true then and remains true today. The British did report that Saddam “had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” and they have stuck by their report, which – contrary to Gore’s malicious assertion – has indeed been investigated by a Senate Intelligence Committee, and has not been found to be false as Gore (and legions of unprincipled Bush critics) have falsely claimed. Moreover the forged Italian document – which was not mentioned in the State of the Union Address, as Gore falsely suggested – was quickly acknowledged by the White House to be forgery.

 

The Niger claim, along with the administration’s claims about aluminum tubes and Colin Powell’s February speech to the UN, which are falsely presented by administration critics as rationales for the war were all made more than a month after Saddam defied the December 7th deadline. They were not rationales for the war, but were strictly for the benefit of the appeasement parties in Britain and France. They were put forward as part of an attempt to secure a second Security Council resolution to reinforce the 1441 ultimatum. This requested by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, even though a second Security Council resolution would have been redundant. It was needed by Blair to respond to the attacks he was under from Britain’s anti-American left.

 

In January, weeks before Powell’s speech, 800,000 Britons – mainly Laborites – had descended on London to protest the war. This would have been equivalent to four million Republicans descending on Washington to protest Bush’s decision to go to war. If Powell’s UN speech was a “manipulation” of the facts to hoodwink the public, it failed miserably. It certainly did not persuade any of the leftists who poured into the streets of London to defend Saddam, and it did not persuade the French or Russian allies of Saddam to desert him. In America, the majority support for the war had long been in place, and for them Powell’s speech was superfluous. 

For Gore and the president’s Democratic critics, all these facts count for nothing. In their place is the great American Satan, George Bush. According to Gore and the Democrats America went to war for reasons that are either illegitimate or immoral or both. According to Gore, the sending of American troops to Iraq was an imperial aggression, orchestrated by the president and his advisors who manipulated the evidence, deceived the people, and ignored the UN to carry out their malign intent: “The pursuit of ‘dominance’ in foreign policy led the Bush administration to ignore the United Nations,” writes Gore, showing his utter contempt for the facts. What Bush actually ignored was the French, who built Saddam’s nuclear reactor, collaborated with Saddam’s theft of the “Oil for Food” billions, and threatened to veto any attempt to enforce international law or the UN ultimatum. Bush also ignored the Russians, who supplied two-thirds of Saddam’s weapons, helped him sabotage the UN sanctions, and refused to enforce the UN ultimatum. What Bush did not ignore were the 17 UN resolutions designed to keep the Middle East peace and protect the world from the consequences of its failure. Al Gore did that.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Effective arguments for the War on Iraq (a must read)”

  1. […] own task force recommended, that would have prevented 9/11. You can check out the rest of that post here. Video courtesy of […]

  2. Cromwell said

    This is tripe. Horowitz has been wrong about this war countless times. First off, Saddam didn’t kick out inspectors, we did. Look it up. Secondly, resolution 1441 gave him the chance to disarm. Horowitz said he didn’t. That would mean that we would find all those weapons, seeing as how they aren’t there it’s safe to say he WAS disarmed. Third, Horowitz says that everyone in the administration used regime change as the goal of the war, not WMD. This is total bullshit and easily refuted by simple google searches. You’re passing off misinformation from a known liar. Enjoy.

  3. Fingers said

    I see that this was posted quite some time ago, but I’d like to post this question anyway. According to the BBC, there is no evidence of “Al-Qaeda” existing before 9/11. The BBC also says that “Al-Qaeda” is a name given to the “organization” by the CIA. In consideration of these two points, I am curious as to how you think the BBC would responde to your claim that the Clinton Administration failed to act when “al-Qaeda ambushed US Army Rangers in Mogadishu.”

  4. Atilla89 said

    The statement “al-Qaeda ambushed US Army Rangers in Mogadishu.” is a reference to the battle of the Black Sea, popularized by the film, Black Hawk Down. I know for a fact that al-Qaeda existed before 9/11, the BBC has always been misinformed in regards to the middle-east (especially Israel). However the link between the militias and al-Qaeda is a bit harder show and it is confusing. This is the gist of it:

    The militias fighting the U.S. forces were affiliated to the Somali National Alliance. Now the SNA eventually became the core of the Somali Reconciliation and Restoration Council (SRRC), which was formed in 2001. Hussein Aidid who formed the Mogadishu-based Transitional National Government (in response to the SRRC) believed that the SRRC was full of Islamists. He assrts that the SRRC has strong links to Al-Itihad Al-Islami which has alleged but most likely solid links with al-Qaeda.

    I hope that confusing paragraph has answered your question.

  5. sgrass said

    Once again, it appears that no matter how many facts and how much logic is used, as in the above article, the left will continue to choose to walk in their blindness (as proven by many of the comments already posted). Trying to reason with liberals is about like trying to convince an army of mindless robots that they will rust if they stay outdoors during a rain storm. The lack of common sense, logic, and reason only proves which party (the dems)embrace the fascist, marxist, communist, socialist ideologies that are spurted from their leaders’ mouths. “Let’s convince the people to hate anyone with an opinion which opposes ours (thiers). Then, let’s disarm the people, suppress religion, force people to conform, ‘redistribute’ the wealth, establish more government programs to spoon-feed the masses (instead of teaching them to take responsibility for themselves), socialize healthcare, give government control over the nation’s largest corporations, and then take the liberties of the people away – one by one.” Research the policies of your own liberal party and compare to that of the marxists, communists, nazis, and socialists- YOU are the fascists. Wake up.

    Per Merriam-Websters online dictionary:
    Main Entry: fas·cism
    Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
    Date: 1921
    1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
    — fas·cist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often capitalized
    — fas·cis·tic \fa-ˈshis-tik also -ˈsis-\ adjective often capitalized
    — fas·cis·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb often capitalized

  6. [quote]The militias fighting the U.S. forces were affiliated to the Somali National Alliance. Now the SNA eventually became the core of the Somali Reconciliation and Restoration Council (SRRC), which was formed in 2001. Hussein Aidid who formed the Mogadishu-based Transitional National Government (in response to the SRRC) believed that the SRRC was full of Islamists. He assrts that the SRRC has strong links to Al-Itihad Al-Islami which has alleged but most likely solid links with al-Qaeda.[/quote]

    This is both a logical fallacy and a sloppy use of a source. The following is of course assuming your above stated affiliations have historic basis (I cannot say either way. I have not looked into this subject, so I can only assume you are truthful).

    To say the militias who fought* U.S. troops in Mogadishu, who where part of an organization (SNA) which eventually became part of another organization (SRRC) which has ties to another organization which has ties to Al-Qaeda is, quite obviously, impossible logic.

    Look at it his way. When you and I were 15, me and my friend Dennis beat you up for stealing my girl. Now, we go separate ways. I make a new friend in college, James. James, however, is close friends with Amy. Amy has her own friends of course, and she is friends with this guy named Frank. Now, this Frank you know. He stole your girlfriend and humiliated you badly. You are tired of being treated like this and want revenge. You and your friends plan to beat him up, but Frank is big and strong. Just by chance, my former friend Dennis also goes to your college, and you see him for the first time since our little fight back when we were 15. This is your logic: Today, Frank is friends with Amy, who is friends with James, who is friends with me, who was in the past a friend of Dennis. Dennis therefore is pretty much Frank, and you decide to beat him up, seeing that Dennis is much more of a pussy than Frank, and because Dennis and Frank are in league against you.

    How does Dennis=Frank? Dennis was friends with me in the past, but now I’m friends with James, who is indirectly connected by friends to Frank. According to you, Frank, Amy, James, me, and Dennis are all in league against you, which simply cannot be true. Dennis could not have been in league with Frank against you, because you hadn’t met Frank yet, and Frank hadn’t met you. The logic just doesn’t work.

    Another example. Osama is an accepted member of the bin Laden family in the past. Today they reject him. The bin Laden family has close ties with the Bush family. George W. Bush is an accepted member of that family. Thus, George W. Bush has close ties with Osama bin Laden.

    What? That doesn’t make any sense? Well, your logic doesn’t either.

    [quote]Research the policies of your own liberal party and compare to that of the marxists, communists, nazis, and socialists- YOU are the fascists. Wake up.[/quote]

    You are using terms you don’t understand. Get an education first and come back later.

    First off, communism and fascism are extreme opposites. Communists/Marxists and Fascists/Nazis hated each other. In fact, Communists were among those persecuted under the Nazi regime along side Jews, Jehovah’s Witness members, and Gypsies.

    Marxism dictates that everyone should have economic and social equality. It preached an end to sexual and racial discrimination with the goal of creating a genderless, classless society.

    Fascism preaches the superiority of a single group over all others and thus inequality.

    The only similarity that I can see is that both systems de-emphasize the individual. Marxism promotes seeing oneself as a member of a collective society and not as a independent member of society. Fascism promotes seeing oneself as part of a greater race or nation rather than a unique individual.

    Fascism is a far-right phenomena. Communism is a far-left phenomena. NEVER anywhere in the world have communists and fascists ever sung the same tune. They are radically different ideologies.

    So, if you’re going to accuse the pussy liberals of something, accuse them of being filthy hypocrites or communists/socialists (this last one if they aren’t Democrats, hypocrite still applies though). Democrats, on the wide political spectrum, are actually closer to the right than the left. Of course, Republicans are even closer to the right than the left than the Dems. Real ‘leftists’ include such disparate figures like Stalin (authoritarian/left) and the Green Party and Gandhi(libertarian/left). Hitler/Thatcher/most politicians in the U.S. today (authoritarian/right) with people like Ron Paul and Milton Friedman taking the last quadrant (libertarian/right).

    * “fought” is the best word I think can be used in this instance, as it was U.S. troops who moved offensively against them. To say U.S. soldiers were ambushed, as if doing nothing, can be seen as an insult to the U.S. soldiers who suffered or died in the attempt to take out a brutal leader)

  7. My site. said

    Look at this….

    Sweet site dude, check out mine when you get a min……

  8. Wow I’m actually the first comment to your amazing writing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: