From The Right

Weapons of Mass Deception
Home | Et Alia: Article Archive | Ideology Test | Primary Calendar | Letters

Weapons of Mass Deception
Authored February 9, 2004

While there is a disproportionate amount of hand-wringing about weapons of mass destruction and who was misled there is an underreporting of the true threat to the American public right now--the Democrat Weapons of Mass Deception.

The Fallacy of Pre-War Intelligence Focus

There is a lot attention that is going to discover the level of accuracy in the pre-Iraq invasion intelligence. Sadly this is damaging in a couple of ways. First, this ignores how badly Clinton destroyed the intelligence infrastructure. He gutted the funding and altered the rules governing the collection of data. By that Al Gore began running for President the intelligence community was nearly unable to tell us about our own weapons and status much less that of our enemies (Iraq, Syria, terrorists, PLO, etc.) or our quasi-enemies (France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.)

Second, the discussion currently about the level of pre-war intelligence denies the very nature of intelligence. The simple reality is that intelligence is not hard-core fact, but speculation, assumption, guesswork and deduction. (Hauntingly like the New York Times or network news, come to think of it.) Some guesses are close than others and that is usually determined by the strength of the intelligence infrastructure. The Democrats do not want it to be admitted, but the damage from the Clinton years to the military and intelligence of this country was so deep and long-term that infiltration of our enemies was nearly impossible. This makes our best intelligence difficult to be accurate.

Finally the pre-war intelligence discussion leaves the American people so woefully uninformed about other items of importance. The poor fools who blindly hate Bush for his (exquisite) foreign policy will never get the whole story. This leads to the very dangerous Weapons of Mass Deception.

Democrat Equals Myth

It all starts from the very small and innocuous sources. First there are university students and professors (history professors, no less) repeating patently false information that gets repeated as fact by other students. Exactly which party fought civil rights in the 1960's? The answer according to them is the Republicans. The answer according to history is the Democrats. Which party freed the slaves in the Civil War? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, though many in academia would not like that fact repeated.

Move to more contemporary times and you will find the pattern worsens. Were the Soviets violating the SALT nuclear treaties? According to the left the answer would be, "No." The USSR followed it in the strictest of interpretations and Reagan's Anti-Ballistic Missile projects would have caused the initial violation. The fact is that even Soviet officials now admit that they violated each treaty under the most lenient of interpretations. (That fact is not welcomed in history classes, by the way.)

So now to the present. Howard Dean, Gen. Clark and John Kerry have embarked on furthering the practice of creative history telling. They have now begun accusing President Bush of 'deserting'. Take this charge at face value and ask yourself how it is possible for any member of the military to be a deserter and receive an honorary discharge? Influence? Maybe, but then ask yourself upon what facts this charge rests. Bush as a youth did not show up to various scheduled training weekends while in the National Guard, is what the charge is. There are many guard and reserve units that hold very flexible schedules. All you need to do is call them and let them know that you will make up the time and it is acceptable. At certain points in an enlistment the soldier can simply choose that their time is finished and not return--as long as someone is notified. So, where did the younger Bush engage in "desertion"?

Keep in mind that William Jefferson Clinton did not even serve his obligated time. Not only did he miss his time but he never made it up! Have the resident mud-slinging Democrats forgotten this as they throw stones of desertion?

To Iraq or Not To Iraq, That is the Question

Another fascinating permeation of the truth that has begun to hit the election coverage is that Bush was wrong for going into Iraq. Well, prima facia this criticism is predictable simply because it comes from a crowd that thinks that Fidel Castro is a wonderful man. This comes from a political party that supports a Senator that made the argument in a post 9/11 world that Osama bin Laden is a decent person who helps the poor.

Let us pretend that there was no such creature as "weapons of mass destruction". Was it wrong to go into Iraq? No. Under the same principle that had our troops dying in Somalia and Bosnia, we should have been in Iraq years ago. Remember Slobodan Miloshevich? We deposed him with wide support from the world and his crimes were similar to those of Saddam Hussein. The difference is that Hussein has been engaged in his crimes for many, many years longer than Miloshevich.

Yet there was no protests from the Greens of the world. There was no stonewalling from France, Germany or Russia. There were hostile words from various religious groups (Russian Orthodox Church), the United Nations or leaders of insignificant nations (like Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri). Why did that not exist with regards to Bosnia and was expressed in spades with regards to Iraq?


Iraq paid off everyone who voiced out their "principled" opposition to the United States. The Friends of Saddam list shows us that. Close ties to Chirac (Patrick Maugein), French politicians (such as Charles Pasqua and Bernard Merimee), George Galloway (member of UK Parliament) and religious groups (like the Russian Orthodox Church), the Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet, the Companies of the Russian Communist Party (party of Putin), the leader of insignificant nations, Syria's defense minister (Firas Mostafa Tlass) and the list goes on and on. And who knows about the payoffs that are not on the books.

Weapons? You wanted weapons of mass destruction? "There were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons" say the useful idiots known as the media and their dedicated, loyal lemmings known as the public. Whatever did happen to those three ships that left Basra just days before the United States went in? Have we checked Saddam's previous hiding spots: Syria or Iran? Remember that hole that we found Saddam in? That very hole was so hard to find that our troops had searched past it many times. WMD can fit in holes smaller than that.

So, the useful idiots are now saying, "That does not prove that any exist. He didn't have the technology." Well, that is incorrect. We all know that is incorrect. We have seen him use them on the citizens of Iraq.

But the left doesn't want that to be remembered. Why let the facts get in the way of some good ole mud-slinging?

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that it was good to into Iraq for a whole host of reasons. But the Democrats will continue to distort history for their own ideological purposes.

That is why the Democrats are the WMD. They are the Weapons of Mass Deception.