Abu Wabu

Bad News For Idiots Dept.
Via The Anchoress
As I've said here before, the left has never been honest about the intelligence that a) prompted President Clinton's decision to make removing Saddam from office an official policy of the United States government and b) prompted the decision by President Bush to act on that policy after 9/11 through Operation Iraqi Freedom. To believe the left's lies was to believe Iraqi WMDs never existed, that there were no connections between Saddam and al Qaeda, that Saddam was not on the brink of developing nuclear weapons, and that Saddam was contained as a threat to the United States.

From the moment the Democrats decided to lie to the American public for political gain (about Bush, of course- it was less than a year before the 2004 election!), fabulists and rank opportunists like the treasonous Wilson and Plame laid siege to the truth from every angle, all of their lies supported and inflamed by the Democrats and the MSM.

So it's not surprising that I learn from today's Post that proven liar Jay Rockefeller, Democrat chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (which would more accurately be called the Senate Selective Intelligence Committee) tells us that "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," when in fact the report says exactly the opposite:

But dive into Rockefeller’s [Intelligence Committee] report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.”

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.[,,,]

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” [Emphasis mine]

As much as that Rockefeller quote supposedly reflected the Democrats' official position on Saddam at the time, all they had ever done about Saddam, indeed terrorism in general, for that matter, was huff and puff, even after the disasters which took place on Clinton's watch. But having seen the same intelligence the Clinton White House, the UN and "allied" governments had seen over the years, after 9/11 Bush decided it was time to act on it, and Rockefeller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, who fought in Vietnam, John Edwards, Henry Waxman, Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Sandy Burglar, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi and others all agreed. At least until they decided that by lying about it, they could possibly win in 2004. They didn't, of course, but they finally prevailed by the same tactic in 2006.

But while others are making hay out of the fact that the WaPo has called Rockefeller and the Dems out on their lies, I'll point out that they did so only grudgingly and remain insistent that the Rescue of Iraq was a catastrophe.

True, the Rescue of Iraq has been an historically horrific endeavor by the standard of today's radical leftist idiots, who require zero casualties, zero deaths and defeat for America in order for it to be termed anything other than a gigantic failure, and who attempt to demonize anyone who disagrees as hypocritical warmongers because they haven't suited up for duty there (this includes the Bush twins, just so you get the level of idiocy we're talking about here) .

In fact, the Rescue of Iraq is a noble undertaking that has freed tens of millions of souls from Saddam's murderous brutality and is showing the "Arab street" that al Qaeda is not just a weak horse, but a dead one.

The question left unanswered by all this is, why is the narrative changing now? The Anchoress offers her thoughts, but I will reserve my judgement for another time.