Friday, November 11, 2005

Bush Lied: Two Questions for the Democrats

It seems that there are those Democrat Congress persons who have decided that they should perk up their base by latching on to one of the extreme left's favorite memes: Bush lied, people died.

I will not spend time regurgitating the questions or any answers to their arguments, something that simply leads to "he said, she said" and allows the mantra to continue. Instead, I have two questions for the Democrats:

1) If Bush lied, what was his motivation for going to war?

We know that the extreme left believes war was about oil, or personal vengence for Saddam trying to assassinate his father or some other strange idea, but I have yet to hear from any of the Democrat Congress persons (is that PC enough?) what they believe the motivation was. If Bush lied us into war, surely he must have had a reason other than the stated reason to do so. I note that, even with the continued push to discredit pre-war intelligence and decisions made on this intelligence that I have not heard or read one legitimate "motive" for such an excursion from any Democrat.

Which brings us to the second question:

2) If Bush lied us into war for an ulterior motive, what was the motivation for the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force?

It is interesting that these folks seem very intent in distancing themselves from the intelligence question. For all intents and purposes, these Democrat Congress people had access to the same intelligence. There is a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a House Committee on Intelligence who see even more intelligence information than their basic congress counterpart. They routinely ask for and receive reports, memos and even first hand briefings with information from a multitude of intelligence agencies and sources. These committees consist of both Democrat and Republican members. These committees also provide information to their non-committee congress members.

Since the members of these committees all voted for the use of force and had access to the intelligence information (not simply provided by the President or any of his cabinet members, but directly from the agencies, directors and department heads to name a few), we must assume that, contrary to their current mantra that they were some how "duped" into approving the war, that, in all actuallity they had the same information that was somehow exculpatory in the case for war against Saddam and they deliberately ignored it or hid it in favor of promoting the decision to go to war.

In which case, I believe that it is appropriate to ask, if the President had an ulterior motive for going to war based on the "Bush lied" meme, what was the motive for the Democrats to approve the war? It certainly couldn't have been anything so specious as, say, National Security? Terrorist Connections? The fear of WMD in the hands of terrorists when intelligence on said terrorists indicated they were actively seeking WMD and had tested chemical weapons on animals in Afghanistan? Information that had Al Qaida and Saddam making contact over many years?

It couldn't be any of these things, could it?

Maybe they said yes because they were afraid for their political careers, being exposed for liars because they had just spent a decade continuously talking about Iraq's WMD and the danger of Saddam Hussein, approving the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and supporting President Clinton whenever he authorized the bombing of Iraq targets?

Or maybe, as they now seem to be claiming, they were duped. Maybe they were so stupid that, not only could the President give them a speech and a presentation that would convince them to go to war without asking any questions. Maybe they were also too lazy to read intelligence briefings, ask for and get intelligence information or briefings, talk to the members of the intelligence committees to get their input.

Hey, maybe these folks have stock in Halliburton and Exxon-Mobile? Maybe they approved the war because they were hoping that their stock would double in value? Maybe the Democrats have friends in Halliburton and Exxon who work at or own Halliburton or Exxon stock that they were planning to assist getting rich by prosecuting a war that would cause oil prices to soar and give them an in to oil fields and businesses in Iraq for future profits?

Particularly since Exxon-Mobile was allowed to merge under Clinton (a Democrat)after receiving a special waiver so they would not be prosecuted under any anti-trust laws and Halliburton received the most ever contracts with the government under Clinton (a Democrat). Both of these were done under extraordinary circumstances. Halliburton was even awarded a contract in 1997 even though Dyna Corp had under bid them, over turning the competitive bidding process because Halliburton already had the connections, resources and experience working with the DoD. At least, that was the reason given by then President Clinton.

Anyone could look at a dirth of information and decide that there was an ulterior motive. I for one do not believe that any person, neither the president nor any congress person had an ulterior motive for approving the use of force against Iraq. However, if the Democrats in congress persist, then I think it is fair to ask them these two questions:

If the President lied, then what was the motive for going to war?

If the President lied, then all congress members who voted to go to war are liars. What was their motive?

Any chance a Democrat congress person would answer these questions?

Oops. That's three.

No comments: