We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions

 

The Propaganda War Continues
by Raymond Green, SupportNoSpin.com
25 July 2003

Does the media remember that the Taliban also offered very little resistance militarily?  Were they not a threat to the US either?
Saddam Hussein


Recently, the Washington Post reported that "the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States."
 
In recent weeks the left's media machine has raised the awe-inspiring argument that our overwhelming military victory was mere evidence that Saddam posed no threat to the US. After all, how could he attack us if he couldn't defend himself?
 
Add this to the media's spinning a factually correct statement Bush made in his State of the Union speech and it would seem like Bush is in somewhat of a disaster, politically.
 
That is, if you believe the same people that made it look like we were losing the war a week after the first shots were fired, the same people that state without a doubt that Cuba has a marvelous health care system, the same people who ought to just create an entire section in the so-called Newspaper of Record for corrections and misstatements, and the same people that admittedly doctored photos of our soldiers to make it appear they were pointing their guns at civilians.
 
So what if an intelligence report says Saddam may have been more apt to distribute his weapons (that don't exist and Bush mislead us about, mind you) to terrorists if backed into a corner. Is that any reason to appease him? Thank God Reagan didn't take that approach with the USSR. Prior presidents did, however, and see where that got us?
 
As for Saddam posing no threat because we barreled though Iraq (although media reports after a week lead people to believe we may not be as tough as we thought, calling the military effort a "quagmire" and reporting that we didn't have enough troops to eliminate the "unexpected resistance"), let's rewind a little bit. I understand that Adult Attention Deficit Disorder has taken this country hostage, but let me recap something that's become "ancient history:" The Taliban also offered very little resistance militarily. Were they not a threat to the US either?
 
The State of the Union speech was indeed factually correct (something liberals can't comprehend for obvious reasons). There was evidence that Saddam attempted to buy uranium in Niger and Bush accurately attributed the statement to British intelligence. Granted, the one piece of evidence that was cited (though not the only piece of evidence utilized by the Brits to come to that conclusion) was in fact forged. Tough luck. Bush cited existing British reports. Even with that single piece of evidence discredited, however, the British still stand by their allegation. Bush's statement was factually correct. And who are people that twist the word "is" and commit or aid and abet acts of perjury to attack a president on technicalities of truth?
 
The left supports sending troops to Liberia but opposes our troops dismantling the Baathist regime in Iraq. They accuse the Bush administration for not being properly prepared for a war with “dedicated” and "surprisingly resistant" Saddam loyalists, but when it turns out they were wrong (as we've grown accustomed to) they use the ease of military victory as evidence that Saddam posed no threat to begin with. On the one hand, they report that the weapons of mass destruction still MIA means Bush hyped evidence about their existence and on the other hand use intelligence reports that assert WMDs did exist to convince us that their very presence was the reason we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place (i.e. when backed into a corner he'll share them with terrorists). They bomb Iraq on the eve of Clinton impeachment hearings and later claim Iraq posed no threat to US security. They cut intelligence-gathering methods and in the years following attack the Bush administration for failed intelligence material.  It seems you can have your cake and eat it too.
 
Arguing about classified intelligence is like arguing about the existence of God: The irrefutable evidence is unattainable except to a select few. At least conservatives stick to the same story.
 
Some would believe that President Bush is in the midst of a political disaster. I believe just the opposite. Democrats stooping to such low levels of blind hypocrisy displays who’s on the defense. The truth will come out eventually, and as always the left will be wrong again.


Email Raymond Green

Send this Article to a Friend