http://www.counterbias.com/481.html
Al Qaeda to Democrats: We Love You!
Those who are against extremely rational preemptive strikes had their way prior to 9/11, and now should just shut up regarding Iraq
December 6 2005
Counterbias.com
by Ted Baiamonte
R E P U B L I C A N V I E W
The most tragic fact of American political life is that we have Democrats. America is involved in a world war and yet Democrats still haven't figured out who the enemy is. A recent count of critical words used by major Democratic leaders shows that for every 100 words used to be critical of the American Commander in Chief, zero words were used to be critical of the enemy, who is, by the way, Al Qaeda. And, Al Qaeda is very thankful for the Democratic support as they prepare nuclear, chemical, biological, suicide bomber, sniper, and IED attacks against all of us.
Here is the relevant part of a recently intercepted 6,000-word letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy in the Al Qaida organization, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaida's top man in Iraq: "However, despite all of this I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of the battle is taking place in the battle field if the media."
The thrilling fact for Al Qaeda is that American Democrats and their mainstream media allies are printing 100% coverage against Bush and nothing against them. The Democrats have succeeded politically to the point where Bush now has only a 36% approval rating, while intellectually, Democrats look as goofy and deadly as ever. Their political attack has succeeded by accusing Bush of being dishonest about WMDs as the reason for going to war. But here are the facts:
1) There was a natural tendency to believe that Saddam had WMDs or could have them again quickly because he had them and used them in the recent past.
2) When Bill Clinton left office, having had eight years to listen to the CIA and perhaps thirty other domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, he talked openly about whether Iraq would use WMDs in the run up to the war. He said, "I'll guarantee that he'll use the arsenal."
3) Hans Blix, the main UN weapons inspector, never found WMDs but assumed Iraq had them based on the incredible lengths to which Saddam Hussein went to impede the investigation.
4) The whole United Nations Oil For Food program that impoverished Saddam was put in place to pressure Iraq into disclosing its weapons, but Saddam would still not disclose that he had no weapons. It's hard dealing with a madman, and harder still to predict his next move.
5) Recorded conversations just before the war began show that Iraqi Generals thought they would be called on to use WMDs. If Iraqi Generals didn't know the truth, it is unlikely that Bush would have.
5) The American Military, which protects its own, has its own intelligence capability, and they went into battle fully equipped and prepared for WMD counter-attacks.
6) Immediately before the war, the CIA director was asked how certain he was about WMDs in Iraq. He said it was a "slam dunk" (according to Bob Woodward).
7) Joe Wilson was persuaded from his trip to Iraq that Iraq was not buying or trying to buy "yellow cake" from Niger but the CIA, for whom he worked at the time, was not convinced by Wilson, and neither was the bipartisan Senate Select Committee which also analyzed his findings.
8) Other investigations by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Robb-Silverman group concluded there was no cherry picking of intelligence or pressure to manufacture it as needed by the Administration.
9) The Democrats, by law, saw all or most of the intelligence prior to the war. They always had the option to reject it, ask for more of it, or to refuse to fund the war. Now, like little children they want a "do over," and they want to pretend they were not integrally involved in the run up to war.
The facts are surely ironic here in light of how well the Democrats have avoided them in their successful political attack against Bush, but what is more ironic is that WMDs were never the main reason for going to war, just the most public one. WMDs were used to capture the attention of a public that mostly doesn't pay attention, and when it does, gets confused enough to vote for Democrats and Republicans in the same election, and then proudly proclaims it is an act of electoral independence.
The real reason for the war was that after 9/11 Bush didn't want it to happen again, and thankfully it didn't. On 9/11 we were already at war with Iraq over the "no fly zones" and through the UN Oil for Food program, which was slowly strangling that country. Since Iraq was seemingly a thousand times more inclined to, and capable of, attacking us than Afghanistan, it made perfect sense to strike preemptively. Those who are against extremely rational preemptive strikes had their way prior to 9/11, and now should just shut up regarding Iraq.
An even greater irony in the scummy, but politically successful, Democratic attack is that in truth it no longer matters much why we went into this war or the Vietnam War or any other of our wars that necessarily started under a cloud of partisan democratic confusion. What matters two thousand times more is that if we lose in Iraq, Al Qaeda gets the oil, and civilization collapses.
The Democrats have tons to say about history because doing so happens to be working for them at the moment, no matter how irrelevant. But when asked what they would do if actually elected to office to make history, they do what their current standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, does: they hide under their desks in absolute fear that being forthright and honest would cost them too much politically.
Recently, the Chairman of the Democratic Party was on Meet the Press where he was gently and politely asked, by the liberal host Tim Russert, about how it is that the Democrats have no positions at a critical and pivotal time in human history. The Chairman acknowledged that it was quite true about not having any positions yet, but he added that they were working on it and when they came up with something it would be based on honesty. When gently pressed about whether they would let us know their honest positions this year, the Chairman replied, "in 2006." The liberal host (Tim Russert) quietly, quickly, and politely moved on to the next question.
It almost makes you cry, doesn't it? The Democrats are half of the political culture in America; yet they launched a scummy, intellectually meaningless, but successful political attack about Bush's honesty while not being honest enough themselves to present their positions on the future of their own country or Western Civilization. They are, by default, sending a huge and encouraging valentine to Al Qaida which has written that the Democrats will soon do for them what they did for the communists in Vietnam and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
The greatest irony of all is that our CIA was incompetent and mistaken mostly because Democrats had always hated it, and stripped it bare of any real capabilities. Why? The CIA had been a very effective Republican anti-Communist organization while the Democrats always had a pronounced sympathy for Communists. In fact, Oleg Kalugin, the head of the KGB in Washington during the cold war period, has written that of course he looked among the liberals when the wanted to recruit spies in Washington. After Republicans defeated Communism, Democrats insanely continued to resist American freedom and the promotion of it around the world, and do so to this day. A neutered CIA has always been the Democratic policy, but that doesn't stop them from audaciously exploiting the deadly results of their own failed policy.
So why can't there be a Constitutional Amendment against the existence of the Democratic Party whereupon the Republican Party would split into two thinking Parties with legitimate disagreements?
And, all this is to say nothing of the traitorous affect the Democrats have on our troops in the field who heroically fight, bleed, and die out of a believe in their mission: a mission which Democrats are seeking to undermine.
