Galloway's angels.

How about a claim of WMD? That sounds like a big lie to me.

Yes, another great example of lefty lies. The left's claim that Saddam didn't have WMDs is so obviously untrue, and yet argued so earnestly, that there are undoubtedly poor souls so ignorant that they believe it. Thanks.

This article is such propaganda that it makes me sick to my stomach. I think I'll save a real comment on something when you guys stop playing with yourselves and actually wake up to the nastiness of what we are doing in the Middle East. Not that that will ever happen, judging from the idiocy of the remarks littering this waste of hyperspace; truly disgusting misinformation and nervous back-patting while the world goes up in flames. Bravo fools; I hope you are at least fooling yourselves into thinking everything's alright.

Hey Dave, did we ever find any of those WMD's like they said we would? How about the nuclear program? howabout being received with flowers? howabout an almost gone insurgency. fool.

You guys are great. These are all great examples of the way that the left tries to use lies and half-truths to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. What I particularly like about these last two examples is that they demonstrate how domestic partisanship is forcing the left to betray their traditional foreign policy. It would have been impossible to predict that after the Cold War the right would move to a foreign policy of promoting democracy and human rights abroad and that the left, having become the reactionary party, would adopt isolationism and know-nothingism.

Nameless person, yes, certainly we found a "nuclear program," like you mention, along with a WMD program. We found incontravertible evidence that Saddam intended to construct such a program. Luckily, he had gotten less far than we (or his own people or military, and nearly anyone else) believed, partially because he wished to exaggerate his own capability, or at least create ambiguity.

Surely if he's attempting to develop the weapons it makes more sense to attack before he completes them. Surely you don't want nuclear or biological warfare, right? Surely you don't want him to get the weapons, right? And surely you don't believe that extending the sanctions indefinitely, impoverishing the Iraqi people was the best option, right?

Posted by: John Thacker at September 19, 2005 5:17 PM

John: Don't you remember our lefty friends warning us about the tens of thousands of body bags we were going to need once Saddam unleashed his WMDs at us? It was foolish to take him on. This is a nice example of how the left, having had one argument discredited, simply turns around and makes the opposite argument. Being left means never having to say "I'm sorry."

I thought oj asked that trolls provide a name when they comment, so responses may be directed to them.

I agree with the unidentified poster above. Propaganda makes me sick to my stomach too, so stop your lying about the war. We aren't going to pull out of Iraq and allow all you aging hippies to relive your finest hour. Our troops will stay there until the free people of Iraq are able to police their streets and maintain an army to protect them from foreign invasion.

Iraq will become a democracy with or without your assistance, so if it's killing you dislike, stop giving terrorists fodder for their senseless violence. The president said you're either with us or with the terrorists. The choice is yours.

erp: OJ does make that request, but I'm going to relax that rule for this post. Our friends here are giving us valuable lessons on the heuristics of lefty techniques for subverting the truth, or even of denying that Truth exists. As such, it is fitting that they demonstrate the technique of anonymous argument and attack.

erp: where ARE those WMDs? Yes, I know...I'm "unpatriotic" for asking. Simplistic "you're with us or with the terrorists" thinking just doesn't cut it anymore. Oh - seen Bush's poll numbers today?

How about a claim of WMD? That sounds like a big lie to me.

anon: (you forgot to include the stuff about Halliburton and the Saudi Royal Family)

Oh. You mean these lies?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

* * *
Along with the "corroburating lies" told by our allies' intelligence dapartments?

See if you can figure out the correct answer to the only salient question in the debate:

The burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of WMD in Iraq belonged to ________.

(here's a hint, when it comes to national security, the POTUS gets paid to err on the side of caution)

How dare you attempt to refute Anonymous Coward's assertion by pretending to be citing Democrats' and Leftists' own statements. Everybody knows that you are just making all that up.

But you gotta love the way Saddam used the Big Lie to make all those Leftists you cite think he was dangerous, and how now they use the Big Lie to tell us all he was never a threat to anyone.

(And thanks for the list. That's just politicians. Imagine how long it would be if you included the Leftwing pundits and other yammerers. I'm fairly sure New Republic alone could provide a few juicy quotes from back in the 90s.)

oops. sorry folks. here's the LINK for the above litany.

(And, yes, I do actually know the correct spelling for corroborating. Preview, THEN post....repeat...)

John, what a tour de force and David, you're right. We couldn't make this stuff up.

Trollie. Bush too simplistic for you? You prefer the high-toned complexity of "Bush lied, [insert your favorite victim of Bush's genocidal policies here] died."

Bush had to made it very clear. He didn't say you're either with us or against us. He said, You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.

Trollie, you picked the terrorists. That's pretty darn amazing.

Everyone forgets about the sarin and mustard gas shells discovered last year.

True, there weren't enough to count as a "stockpile," but for the sake of accuracy the Left should change their "there were no WMDs!" cry to "there were only a few WMDs!"

PapayaSF:

What's amusing is that when OJ expressed agreement with President Bush's supposed comment that there would be "no casualties" in Iraq, the Left went absolutely berserk. But when they similarly stretch the language (which I think is permissible) in saying that there were "no WMDs," the contradiction goes unnoticed.

. . . when you guys stop playing with yourselves and actually wake up . . . judging from the idiocy of the remarks littering this waste of hyperspace . . .

Real persuasive rhetoric there. That's the way to win people over to your side. Just insult them crudely and they'll come 'round. Yeah, that'll preach.

Woah! Waitaminnit! Hyperspace? OJ, you dog you, you've discovered the secret of faster-than-light travel!

Has anyone else noticed that the unidentified folk-enemy/culture-traitor/trolls have declined to comment about the article concerning Raghead physical coercion of so-called insurgents? You know, not all of the Kamikaze pilots were what we would call volunteers, that being the kind of thing that criminal regimes resort to when justice closes in on them. To hear the lefty moonbats praise the suicide bombers one would think that the terrorists were directly decended from the heroes of Dien Bein Phu.

I agree that is best to sometime allow trolls to speak their minds so as to remove all doubt of their foolishness.

Write more slowly. Are we winning a war that's ignoble, or are we losing a war that's not ignoble, or (as I suspect you mean) are we winning a war that's not ignoble?

The last.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 20, 2005 1:38 AM

Two of the world's worst tyrranies are out of business, and fifty million people have been liberated. Iraq and Afghanistan are building the institutions that will allow them to become free modern societies. Oh, and a whole bunch of jihadis, secret police goons, and assorted thugs are being put down, by both American soldiers and the free people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those are all good things, Rick.

Here's a handy hint: if you find yourself siding with the tyrants and terrorists, rooting for the guys who crash airplanes into skyscrapers and won't let women show their faces to the sun, that's a leading indicator that something's wrong with you.

Rick: I make no claims to style, but I was aware of the ambiguity when I posted. As you suspect, I believe the last of your alternatives.

The bottom line is that nearly 1,500 body bags have been filled by Americans for what? It sure hasn't done anything to insure a constant and affordable supply of oil (and isn't that part of what this is all about?)
The real reason Mr. Bush took us into Iraq was to settle a family score with an old rival. Once a Texan, always a Texan.
Yee-Ha!
I'm lookin' fer the man that shot my paw.
Isn't it about time that Mr. Bush started runing the country like a country instead of the San Antonio Country Club?

JAG:

If personal revenge is the real reason, then was the oil the semi-real reason? The unreal reason?

You capture the leftist confusion so succinctly that I almost suspect it's a pastiche.

Is JAG the troll?

Speaking of JAG, it was a great TV show and we'll miss it at our house.

JAG and the anonymous troll have completely forgotten to mention that Prescott Bush played footsie with the Nazis! That's what the Iraq war is all about, dammit!

I blame Rossevelt and Ibn Saud. For everything.