THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 17, January 23, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
LIBERAL MYTHS ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ
By Ray Thomas
There are several Liberal myths the Democrats keep promoting, although they know we know the truth. They
think that, if they keep telling the same lies over and over, people will believe them. And they're right, except
today we've got a way to refute them we didn't have before: the Internet.
Unilaterally?
The first myth, or lie, is that the United States of America acted "unilaterally" in Iraq. We did not. We had the help and assistance
of 45 different nations and active participation, with troops sent, from 30 of them. That's not "unilateral." What
they mean is that we did not have the participation of that irrelevant international organization, the United Nations, half of
whose member-states have regimes similar to that of Saddam Hussein, and many of them were making big money off Saddam,
and didn't want to see him go and have their deals exposed.
The fact is that we don't need the acquiescence of a worthless, unimportant, and irrelevant organization that
fancies itself a world government. We don't need the UN's approval in order to act to protect our sovereign interests.
I don't know why so many people who should know better keep saying we must involve them to "gain legitimacy." We
have legitimacy. We're a sovereign nation and have the right and obligation to protect our interests, whether or not an
unimportant debating society goes along.
If the United Nations wants to be worth anything, its member-states had better quit protecting dictators.
Bush Lying?
Another lie is that the Bush administration was lying when it said that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction." Truth is, Saddam was working hard to gain them, even if he didn't have them yet. Intelligence reports
from all over the world said he had them, and we, as individuals, are not privy to most of their findings. Our
European allies told us he had them and that it would be only a matter of time until it was proven for all the world to see.
The Bush administration wasn't lying; it was only acting on intelligence we weren't allowed to see. Bush was caught between the
need for secrecy and his wish to tell us what the U.S. government really knew. Saddam had WMDs all right, and programs in place
to make more. But, when he saw we were winning the war in Iraq, he shipped most what he had to other countries and made certain
that the rest were well-hidden.
Critics of President Bush and his actions in Iraq like to say finding evidence of programs in place to create such weapons isn't the
same as finding the weapons themselves. I maintain that we needed to stop Saddam before he got a bunch of them in place, since he
was not only a dictator, but psychotic and irrational as well. Any one of those programs could have produced WMDs at
any time. We had to act. If Saddam had ever gotten WMDs in sufficient quantity and with the means to deliver them, he would
be just insane enough to use them, at any time, against the U.S.A. and the rest of the world. He had actually used some of those
he already had against his own people.
No Connection With Terrorists?
The critics like to say that Saddam had no connection with terrorists or with 9/11. But he did. He gave $25G to the
families of suicide bombers in Israel. He trained terrorists. He housed them. He financed and protected them. He
had a dead jet plane shell in place to use in training people to hijack them. Isn't that enough? Maybe he had no
direct connection to 9/11, but he was promoting and financing terrorism all over the world. Somewhere there is
a connection, even if we can't prove it yet. Bush did the right thing.
Even some people on "our side" think Bush was wrong to invade Iraq and take Saddam down. I think if he
hadn't, terrorists would have had a far easier time of it. When we removed Saddsm from power, we removed a
powerful ally of terrorism, and eliminated an important source of their money, protection, and training. To not have
removed Saddam would have been stupid and criminal on Bush's part
.
It's Laughable
Every time anybody repeats these or similar lies to me, I get a good laugh because the lies are so
transparent. Yet the Leftists continue to repeat them, over and over, as if just the telling will make them true. It
won't, and they need to learn that. If we laugh at them every time they tell a lie, maybe they'll stop.
We've stopped Saddam Husssein, and put a serious crimp in Osama bin Laden's ability to wantonly kill
non-Muslims, thouhg we have yet to make a "crispy critter" of him. It's highly unlikely that he'll again be able
to kill thousands of Americans in one fell swoop. If he's still alive, he's been "marginalized," and it has been
made more difficult for him to even move about, much less initiate acts of terror. We look over his shoulder at
his every move, and we'll eventually get him, if we haven't already killed him.
Enemy of the World
Saddam is not just an enemy to his people. He's an enemy of the world and has been neutralized. Osama is also
an enemy of the world. He is now hurting, and we'll get him in whatever hole he's hiding, just as we did Saddam
-- if he's not dead already. It's not smart to take on the United States of America, if we don't have a Liberal in
charge of the executive branch of the U.S. government, as we did when Bill Clinton was in office. No, we now have
a real man in the Office of President, and our enemies didn't plan on that when they decided to take on the U.S.A..
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
The Middle East & the Arabs
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Copyright 2004 Ray Thomas
Reprinted with Permission of SierraTimes.Com
Reprinted from SierraTimes.Com
January 14, 2004
SierraTimes.Com
URL:
http://www.SierraTimes.com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VI, 2004
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page Two
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page One
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy