[url=www.sierratimes.com/03/06/09/article_jj.htm]Some of Us DO Care: A Response to Ann Coulter[/url]
By J.J. Johnson
Many conservatives may be making a grave political mistake as the 2004 election grows closer. Ann Coulter, like many others, has adopted the tactics of the previous administration by defending President Bush using comparisons, half-truths, and that tired-old weapon - "blame the other guys." As before, if these 'spin' policies are not looked into, Bush the son may follow the electoral path of his father.
Before we dive into how G.W may regrettably follow in daddy's footsteps, let me first explain that this author would choose George W. Bush again over any of the democrats in the field today. I am clearly NOT a liberal. This does not mean that I, or any other conservative, should be denied the right to make note of broken promises, and an inconsistency of statements regarding foreign and domestic issues. And if this conservative can see them, don't think the liberals won't use it against him in the next election.
Like Father
After that 'stunning victory' in Gulf War 1, President George "Read My Lips - No New Taxes" Bush stopped listening to his political base and decided to go against that campaign pledge and a key part of the GOP platform. I remember those days. Those republicans who cried "this is a real bad idea" were told to sit down, shut up, go sit in the corner, and thank God Bush is not a liberal.
This happened about the same time some unknown Arkansas Governor began to appear on the national scene.
The result was a campaign that included a partial GOP defection to a third party, followed by 8 years of Hillary Clinton's husband.
Like Son
Ironic, as the above mentioned female is now being plastered all over the airwaves as God's gift to carpetbaggers everywhere, the Bush and Blair administrations are now dodging questions about those Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that seemed to have vanished.
As well they should, but here's where the conservatives are taking that ride on the Clinton Spin Highway. In her article "We Don't Care", Coulter wrote: "...Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax, biological weapons and chemical weapons - so much so, that even Hans Blix couldn't help but notice them..." She then closed the deal by stating: "..But that wasn't the Bush administration's position."
This reminds me of the phrase. "Tell the people a (fill in the blank) long enough and they'll start to believe it. In the past, whenever the Clinton spin machine went to work, we conservatives could easily fire back with some damming quote made by the President himself. Such is the case here - in spades.
A excerpt from Bush's 2003 State of the Union Speech:
"..It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulin toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them..."
George W. Bush before Congress - Jan 28, 2003
Bush then went on to say: "... We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him..."
Hence, the Ann Coulters of the world will have trouble selling the line of "that wasn't the Bush administration's position. " unless he was reading someone's else's State of the Union speech.
Fact is, that was the Bush position about Iraq in the days leading up to this latest war. Things like 'liberation' and democratization came late in the game, only when too many began to question the WMD angle.
And it isn't a matter of IF Saddam had them, he MIGHT have had them, or we KNEW he had them. I don't mean to knock people from their psychosis, but possession of WMD's doesn't justify war, unless this nation would prefer to be at war with numerous countries at the same time, including some of our 'allies'. I have preached this before. Bush would have fared better pushing an "Saddam has direct ties to 9/11" angle. His administration would not have to deal with all these naggin WMD questions, and he probably would have gotten stronger support both at home and abroad.
As a result, the next time our government says "nation 'x' should get rid of their WMD's else we'll invade", we'll have a credibility factor of about zero. And if nation 'x' or 'y' does have those gawd awful WMD's, the best way to avoid a U.S. led invasion is to make constant threats to unleash their use on American soil if their demands are not met. North Korea is doing a pretty good job at writing the book on this doctrine.
If I were a democrat running a presidential election, I'd smile whenever Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz opened his mouth.