Impeachment of Bush?

Now that I have a specific food blog, here, it's time to return to politics. Yep, we lost big on Tuesday and the talk of impeachment is in the air (and you thought it was the sewage plant across town!!!) Former Representative Liz Holtzman has a new book coming out laying out the case for impeaching the president. Sorry, but Holtzman and her co-author, Cynthia Cooper, are idiots. Even Nancy Pelosi, who will be the Speaker of the House, has backed off of the impeachment talk, and for a good reason - the president did not lie, and the votes of many Democrats to authorize war, as well as their statements on Saddams threat, should be examined more closely.

Two recent books, Richard Miniter's Disinformation, and Jossef Bodansky's The Secret History of the Iraq War, as well as a number of papers and columns, have repeatedly shown that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the West, particularly the United States. One of Hotzman's, indeed a standard claim of the left, is that President Bush lied about WMD's to lead us to war - this is patently false, and the reason Pelosi and other liberals no longer want to discuss impeachment is because they know the president was right. (More on the specifics of Iraq's WMD programs in an upcoming blog.)

Both Miniter and Bodansky lay out the reasons for the war, including in-depth analysis of the threat posed by Saddam's WMD - much of which was moved to Syria and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Indeed, just before the US invasion of Iraq, numerous convoys were seen making the journey across the border into Syria and Lebanon. More about this can be found here, here, and here. There's a lot more information out there, all you have to do is dig. So why didn't Americans hear more about his? The media. Mainstream American media has hated President Bush since the moment he entered the race, though they deny it. All one has to do is analyze how he was reported on over the last five years, however, and an anti-Bush bias becomes very clear. (and will be a blog topic in the future).

The Dems in the House and the Senate were all for going to war against Saddam initially, as these few comments from the liberal's "royalty" show:

John Kerry was very vocal regarding Iraq:

FOR OVER A DECADE, KERRY HAS CITED EVIDENCE OF SADDAM’S WMD . . . EVEN AS RECENTLY AS 2003

2003

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Defended Vote In Support Of Use Of Force In Iraq.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it’s not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we’ve learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation.” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

2002

Kerry Said We Owe It To US Troops To Be Informed Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Arsenal. “We owe it to America’s parents and our country’s troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.” (Faye Bowers, “Iraq’s Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting’,” Deseret News, 9/18/02)

Kerry Said Threat Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Is Real. “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 endof that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed toforce 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.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said Saddam’s Arsenal Of WMD Is Cause Of War. “As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Wished For Resolution More Focused On The Removal Of Iraq’s WMD. “The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq’s failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Said U.S. Should Make Clear We Will Not Be Blackmailed By Iraq’s WMD. “I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create to simply be ignored by this dictator.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

Kerry Described Iraq’s WMD As A “Real And Grave Threat” To The United States. “Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran and potential 2004 presidential contender, said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed ‘a real and grave threat’ to the United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)

There's a lot more, but it's clear that Kerry thought there was a threat. How did the Clintons feel? Well, let's see. Okay, never mind. I can't copy all of their anti-Saddam quotes, as there are too many, but there are an amazing number of quotes from Dems regarding the threat of Saddam here.

What I am trying to get at, and will expand upon later, is that even leading Democrats saw the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. Indeed, as of 2002, it was believed that he was a year away from a nuclear weapon. So why talk about "Bush lied?" Because the ultra-lib base of the Dems will believe it, and the media will push it, in order to get rid of President Bush, or at least cause enough rancor in the country to put Democrats back into power, and they were successful. That said, I do think new blood is needed at the Pentagon - the old way of thinking obviously was not working, however, we cannot leave now, as it would lead to the Vietnamization of Iraq. Contrary to what the Dems and media believe, Iraq is not Vietnam. Again, Cronkite and the media were to blame for playing Vietnam as a loss - we won the Tet Offensive, but you would never know it by looking at reporting from 1969.

Keep in mind, the media and veterans like John Kerry were able to lie to the point where a Democrat-controlled Congress cut off all spending and support for South Vietnam, which allowed the North to roll over the country. Several million more died because of this, yet the left still consider it a great victory. If we pull out now? It would all begin with Pelosi and Reid agreeing to impeach, and Rangel cutting the purse strings. Pelosi has backed away because, regardless of the pre-election rhetoric, she knows that the top Democratic leadership agreed with the President, and saw Iraq as a threat. Only after Americans were dying, photos came out of Abu Ghraib, and "insurgents" (terrorists) were seemingly gaining power, did those who backed the war change their tune. Unfortunately for them, their words are in the historical record.

When you are on the outside, it's easy to throw bombs and bitch about those in power. Once the reins are handed over to you, however, it's an entirely different matter altogether to govern well - and Pelosi knows it. Just ask Hamas.

And yes, I did serve - US Army, 1986-1994, so there!!!!