Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Cheney’s Speech

The Administration has taken a pounding lately. For the last several months, it’s been clear the Democrats smell blood and wish to see it keep flowing. From the pathetic attempts of John Kerry to achieve some sort of relevancy to PA Representative Jack Murtha (who I had never heard of before last week) Iraq is the primary target. (Other senators have carried water for the judiciary, the economy, and the hurricanes.) I don’t personally see the problem in equating Murtha’s position on withdrawal with Michael Moore - they are the same position. Further, for Kerry to come out and challenge this is ridiculous to those of us who can still recall that he sat Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter in the front row for his acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

But that’s the essence of this issue. Kerry - who voted to authorize force in Iraq - again wants to be given a pass on the subject. He claims, as do others, that Bush lied. Indeed, so well that he misled the country - and John Kerry - into war. I find this position a bit amusing in its way. After all, John Kerry’s base has spent the last five years making fun of Bush, comparing him to an ape, and basically telling us he’s dumber than dirt. Yet how smart can Kerry be if he was misled by a man with the IQ of a bedbug? Not very. It’s offensive that the Democrats want to haul Bush before a tribunal (don’t think impeachment isn’t on their minds) regarding prewar intelligence, but they want to be forgiven for being misled by the President when they themselves had access to the same intelligence and came to the exact same conclusion as evidenced by their votes to authorize the use of force.

So it’s nice to see the Administration finally calling their weak hand. Vice President Cheney, as designated pit bull, has been giving speeches lately, and yesterday’s covered some important ground:

On the question of national security, feelings run especially strong, and there are deeply held differences of opinion on how best to protect the United States and our friends against the dangers of our time. Recently my friend and former colleague Jack Murtha called for a complete withdrawal of American forces now serving in Iraq, with a drawdown to begin at once. I disagree with Jack and believe his proposal would not serve the best interests of this nation. But he’s a good man, a Marine, a patriot—and he’s taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion.

...

What is not legitimate—and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible—is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

To my knowledge, Congressman Murtha has not said that, but many senators have, including both of the ones from my state. An earlier propagandist said “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and others are following that advice, to their dishonor. I don’t question Senator Kerry’s patriotism. He’s proven quite convincingly he has none.

It’s also important to point out - as often as necessary until it takes - that Iraq is not some sort retribution for 9/11. Rather it is the essential housecleaning that the Middle East and other havens of terror have needed for decades.

In a post-9/11 world, the President and Congress of the United States declined to trust the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who actually used weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians in his own country, who tried to assassinate a former President of the United States, who was routinely shooting at allied pilots trying to enforce no fly zones, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose regime had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts.

Although our coalition has not found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I repeat that we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did. We operated on the best available intelligence, gathered over a period of years from within a totalitarian society ruled by fear and secret police. We also had the experience of the first Gulf War—when the intelligence community had seriously underestimated the extent and progress Saddam had made toward developing nuclear weapons.

Finally, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam Hussein wanted to preserve the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted. And we now know that the sanctions regime had lost its effectiveness and been totally undermined by Saddam Hussein’s successful effort to corrupt the Oil for Food program.

This, in the final analysis, is the key. The post 9/11 world is a different place. It needs different policies. However much John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, and all those who suffer from BDS on the Left would like it otherwise. Grownups are going about the messy business of defending a nation and a civilization. Open and honest debate is not advanced by carping children who are only thinking of themselves.

Posted by Matt on 11/22 at 10:10 AM
(7) Comments • (1) Trackbacks • Permalink