jump to navigation

Understanding the Liberal Spin on Bush’s War in Iraq, Part II April 27, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in culture war, freedom, humanism, Iraq, liberals, lies, life, media, Middle East, news, peace, politics, socialism, truth, war.
trackback

Did President Bush really deceive the public about Iraq’s WMD? According to Senator Jon Kyl Bush no more lied than Bill Clinton did about Saddam Hussein WMD capability. In fact, the President retained Clinton’s CIA Director and all his information on Iraq. It was the same intelligence that convinced most Democrats and Republicans that Hussein was a threat to our security. Everyone was convinced Hussein had stockpiles of WMD. The question Senator Kyl raises is where did they go? Prior US Intelligence, UN Inspection reports, intelligence from other countries all pointed to Iraq’s WMD capability. This was also the consensus among many nations around the globe. Media coverage focusing on the latest pre-war UN inspections claimed Hussein’s WMD had been disposed of long before the war. However, other reports cast serious doubts about their actual destruction.

The most revealing report comes from Kenneth Timmerman of Insight Magazine. His investigative report entitled “Saddam’s WMD Have Been Found” points out a whole lot of details reported by the Iraq Survey Group and by Douglas Hanson, a veteran Army reconnaissance expert, details the liberal media (Moyers’ media) and politicians chose to ignore. There was equipment, mobile labs, labs in prison facilities, and other WMD making components scattered throughout Iraq. In his post-war interim report to Congress, Iraq Survey Group Inspector David Kay said Hussein had concealed much of his bio-chemical production and plans from the 2002 UN inspection teams. In addition to Hussein’s continued bio-chemical weapons production, Kay said he also continued development of long-range missiles. Large stockpiles of precursor materials used in making bio-chemical materials were also discovered. All part of his WMD program. As quoted in his testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee in 2004, all of the evidence found after the war proved Hussein posed a serious threat.

Since Kay’s reports, more evidence has been found. According to the State Department, NewsMax, Fox News, Scotsman, and others, the coalition forces has found over 500 bio-chemical weapons in Iraq. Most were old anti-artillery shells but there were a number of illegal missiles found as well. Biological and chemical materials production was also discovered. Records found after the removal of Hussein revealed the on-going production of WMD material like anthrax up to the beginning of the war. This was not a few abandoned mobile labs, but full-scale operations. In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph , Kay reiterated to reporters that large quantities of weapons materials were trucked into Syria just prior to the war. Syrian journalist, Nizar Nayuf, says he knows exactly where Hussein’s WMD are stored. The journalist claims they are being stored at three underground locations in Syria.

All good reason why Moyer’s reporters did not find stockpiles of WMD with the last pre-war UN weapons inspectors.

Relevant was the fact that up to the war Hussein claimed he did have such weapons and would use them. Defectors from Hussein’s regime concurred. Once Hussein realized Bush was serious about war, he allowed UN Inspectors in Iraq, but hid his WMD program. As he had lied in the past, post-war inspection proved he had again, but Bush who was not fooled.

While some of the above may be classified as circumstantial evidence, the shear amount of corroborating witnesses and evidence shows more than a reasonable doubt that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Yet, against all the incriminating evidence, liberals claim no hard evidence has ever existed to justify the Iraq war. Why? Why do media liberals like Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, and David Corn as well as liberal politicians continue to deceive the public about Bush, Hussein’s WMD, and the Iraqi War?

Over the years, I have found liberals are like the devil; they always use the same tactics to achieve their goals. The devil told Eve God lied to them, and the tactic remains the same. In the first half of the 20th Century, liberal Americans joined the global campaign of Stalin, Lennon and Khrushchev yet tried to prove their socialism was not really the same. While meeting with Communist leaders, their party plans were being formed. When the 60s era arrived, their writers claimed the socialist party was dead. Like their current accusations against Bush, they failed to tell America the Democratic Party had resurrected it.

From the beginning, American socialists have been outrageously opposed to war. Only two possible reasons exist to explain why. One, many of their earliest followers were Christians seeking to fight government backed corporate corruption and injustice. They knew Wall Street had grown leaps and bounds because of war. Everyone know it still is very profitable for some types businesses. Two, since collaborating with Russian leadership, they have sought to fulfill Khrushchev’s promise that America would be defeated from within. Read the linked list of communist objectives for America recorded in the records of the 87th Congress in 1963. (See Current Communist Goals) I refer to them because they show how successful their agenda has been.

I suspect the original Christian element of the socialist strategy served as a type of useful front organization to give it credibility. Who could question how beneficial unions have been to many American workers. Likewise, who can now question how much damage socialist liberals have wrecked upon religious freedom and moral decency especially through its legal arm, the ACLU.

Humanism was another global movement that gained a serious following in the 1930s. It was a new religion created by Unitarians, education philosophers like John Dewey, and the science community. Their stated dogma replaced the biblical God with a new Savior, scientific evolution. While eliminating God, they also replaced long held values and social norms, especially sexual ones, with the modern version, zealously defended by the liberals and their party. When ACLU founding lawyer, Roger Baldwin, was questioned about the compatibility of liberalism and socialism—he professed that liberalism adopts any thing that works, meaning socialism. During early 60s, the liberal democrats also adopted humanism and incorporated it into their party platform.

During the 1960s, the Democrat party became the clearinghouse for the humanist-socialist agenda in America. Their agenda was and is to make a nation after their own ideological likeness. To do so, they had to exorcise past tradition and its legal dominance in America–by tradition I mean religious references, social mores, moral laws and our nation’s covenant with God as written in the Declaration of Independence.

Now, they zealously seek to make President Bush appear an unprincipled liar simply because he actually represents what they oppose. He genuinely honors those founding ideals. He is a genuine Christian like George Washington, the first commander-in-chief. They accuse him of prosecuting an unjust war, Yet, people outside the U.S. accuse the liberals of aiding and abetting the terrorists, and last week Michelle Malkin published eleven letters written by soldiers in Iraq addressed to Senator Reid asking him (and his party) to stop doing the same.

As the old saying goes, ‘get real’ Americans. All the lies are about gaining political power and money in order to achieve ideological agendas. The mind-numbing barrage of accusations by Corn types is but a signal of liars stealthily lying.

If you must love lies, remember what Paul the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians: the devil’s spokesmen come “with all deception and wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe in the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” (1 Thes. 2: 10-12).

At least allow our troops the continued privilege to serve our founders’ ideal of freedom by giving the Iraqis a chance to securely live it. While you contemplate that act of justice, also contemplate giving the millions of unborn children the chance to experience the right you hold so sacred: the choice to live and the choice to choose to love the most fundamentalist of all fundamentals of political freedom—Truth.

Technorati Subscribe by Email Permalink

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Smokin Joe - April 28, 2007

Sorry couldn’t read it all, so you’d rather a Fundamentalist Christian from a 4th Tiered school be hired within Bush’s Administration rather than a top tiered Liberal-minded student (Or even a top tiered fundamentalist christian?)

I’m sorry if it’s somewhat an odd question and perhaps out of line, but you have views that drastically differ from mine, and I find that incredibly interesting (the beauty of this country). However I still find myself agreeing every now and then with you. Isn’t that odd, people with different opinions able to make gray from black and white.

Anyway, hope to come visit your site more often and hopefully have something a little more in-depth and mind-challenging to add to the ongoing conversations.

joe

http://smokinjoenews.wordpress.com/
(Perhaps a little more nonsensical, but I like to report all and any news I can from as many angles as I can)

2. Daniel - April 28, 2007

Thanks Joe for your input and the odd question. You made me think. After all of the research and writing, I must admit it hurts. : )

I have question for you. Are you looking for the job? Whether you are or are not, I think experience and proven ability is a little more important than the college one attended. I hear Bush hires liberals, secularist (if their any real difference), and Christians.

I appreciate the insights of people with other views.I think the problem with debate on American politics and some social issues is two totally opposing political ideologies/philosophies. The one our nation was founded on, and the new one I wrote about. The problem is not merely different views such as federalism v republicanism. That is supposed to be. It is the ‘war’ of those two camps that keep real needed change from occurring.

Hey, come back any time. I can alway use constructive criticism or ….

3. Smokin Joe - April 28, 2007

perfect, after reading over my question, it seemed pretty lazily put together compared to your nicely worded post. (kinda like someone asking you where the bathroom is after explaining to them how to stay alive in case of a fire hazard)

Anyway, i’ll definitely take your questions, well, into question and hopefully form a better query than the one I had before. Trust me, to me it made sense at the time hehe.

I think I just have to print out and read both your parts again. no one ever died doing extra research.

Thanks

4. in2thefray - April 29, 2007

Excellent post with back up and research readily apparent. All that and staying true to your core values packages an excellent article. I’m working on something along the lines of the various “isms” you lay out. Do you mind if I “ping” those points ?

5. Daniel - April 29, 2007

Ping away.

6. Charles Ayoub News Portal - December 23, 2013

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: