The Duelfer Report raises several questions about the Left and the Iraq War.

The release of the Duelfer Report prompts me to ask three questions of the political Left.

The Duelfer Report (led by former UN Weapons Inspector Charles Duelfer) has concluded that Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of WMDs.  Indeed, Duelfer indicates that Saddam had not produced such weapons since the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, the Left has for over a year been carping about the fact that no WMDs were found in Iraq and since the release of this report has been drooling with delight.

This leads me to my first question.

Would you (the Left) have supported President Bush’s decision to enter Iraq had WMD stockpiles had been found?

Well, let us consider that one of the Left’s central arguments against going to war in Iraq was the fear that Saddam Hussein would use WMDs, be it against our soldiers, neighboring countries or even his own people.

The Left fully accepted the proposition that Saddam had WMDs and were still opposed to overthrowing Saddam.

If U.S. and Coalition forces had found stockpiles of WMDs does anyone honestly believe that the Left would not have found another reason to continue opposing the war?  Can anyone say Abu Ghraib?

It is worth remembering that in the weeks following the liberation of Iraq, the main criticism of the Left was not that WMDs had not been discovered but that the Iraqi National Museum had been ransacked.  The Left pilloried U.S and Coalition forces for not protecting the museum and its ancient cultural artifacts.  Of course, as it turned out, the ransacking was an inside job and not the fault of a U.S. and Coalition forces.  It was only after this story unraveled that the Left suddenly cared about WMDs.  It was only then that the Left began asking where the WMDs were.  Not long after that the Left then went a step further and then claimed that President Bush had lied about the existence of WMDs.

This leads me to my second question.

What did President Bush have to gain by lying about the existence of WMDs?

In his latest article, Eric Alterman of The Nation argues that,  “Presidents lie largely…for reasons of political convenience.”

So let’s see here.  Does Alterman mean to say that President Bush knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq but decided to enter Iraq knowing full well that no WMDs would be found?  Where exactly is the political convenience Alterman writes about?  President Bush is engaged in an election that many believe his challenger will win.  How is it politically convenient to lose an election?

People (including Presidents) lie not because of mere convenience but because they have something to gain.  To date, no one associated with the Left has provided me with a salient explanation as to why President Bush would lie about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.  For that matter no one on the Left has explained to me why Tony Blair, John Howard or for that matter John Kerry or Ted Kennedy would lie about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.    None of them doubted that Saddam had WMDs.  Why is it that the Left is unable to understand the difference between simply being misinformed and knowingly making declarations that are false?    

While Duelfer gives Saddam a pass on WMDs one should not be mistaken in believing that he gives Saddam a pass altogether.   Duelfer notes amongst other things that Saddam maintained dual use facilities, imported banned materials and manufactured unarmed aerial vehicles.  Of significant note are bribes made by Saddam to UN officials in the administration of the discredited Oil for Food Program.  These bribes also extended to private businessmen and government officials from UN member states such as France.  Duelfer even goes so far as to identify these officials by name.  One of the most prominent is Charles Pasqua, a former Minister of the Interior.

This now leads me to my third and final question.

John Kerry argues that America needs to gain respect in the world.  From whom should we seek respect?

The United States clearly has the support of Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and two dozen other countries with regard to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I would add that the United States now has the respect of Libya, which wisely decided to give up its WMD program.    

I suspect that Kerry and the Left are confusing respect for popularity.

Which leads me to believe that the Left wants the respect of France and Germany (the two pillars of the European Union) and the UN.  If so, let the Left be honest and say so.  But if that is the case why should we seek the respect of a country like France or an international organization like the UN, whose officials are accepting bribes in order to keep one of history’s most murderous regimes in power while impeding our efforts to rid the world of terrorism.

One can only come to three conclusions about the Left.  They would have opposed any decision by George W. Bush to liberate Iraq, Afghanistan or any other country.  They are prepared to cast aspersions on President Bush for the sake of casting aspersions whether by calling him liar or comparing him to Hitler.  But perhaps saddest of all is that they are prepared to believe all that is bad about America while believing that much of the rest of the world is motivated only by altruism.  If this is how they answer for themselves then heaven help us all.