"Hopefully this Buck won't stopone of the best damn MilBloggers to ever knock sand from his boots." -- The Mudville Gazette



It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.
-Thomas Sowell

With the Democratic Party in the midst of an all-out rhetorical offensive to abandon the Iraq War and signal a full retreat in full view of victory, perhaps it is time to revisit exactly how we got to this point just over three years ago. Some choose to characterize the buildup to the Iraq invasion as a Republican rush to war, though others view it in hindsight as a well reasoned and rational response to an impending national crisis cresting the horizon of the “hide and hope for the best” policies of previous occupants of the People‘s House.

My liberal critics have demanded a recount of the “manufactured consent” relied upon by the Bush administration to send the country hurtling toward what they saw as hostilities at the speed of sound bite. Regardless of your own political perspective, I invite you to test your historical knowledge of that crucial six-month period from pie in the sky dream to boots on the ground reality by correctly identifying the leading neoconservative ideologues behind the following public statements as they fervently -- perhaps recklessly -- argued the case for giving tusks to the toothless UN threat of “serious consequences” by pounding the drum for the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Thus, in the interest of fairness and balance, let’s play:

Name… That… Neocon!
(Answers to Follow)

1 "In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists... If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity."
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties...
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

2 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

3 “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

4 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

5 "There's no requirement to have any doctrine here [vis-à-vis preemptive action]. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense… Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary… When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval…

"…There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we… I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive… This is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this…

“…There's no question that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat.”

6 “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction… There is no doubt that [his] regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”

7 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

8 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."

9 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

10 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…
“…It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

11 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction…

“…Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

12 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction…

“…Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”

13 “I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."

14 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

15 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."

16 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

17 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.”

“[Saddam Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given.”

19 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

20 "I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons."

So there you have it. Scroll down to see how you scored:

1 President William Jefferson Clinton, February - December 1998

2 Howard Dean, Former Presidential candidate and current Democratic National Committee chairman, September 2002

3 Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), September 2002

4 Al Gore, Former Democratic Presidential candidate and weird-bearded blowhard, September 2002

5 Gen. Wesley Clark, Former Democratic Presidential candidate and sweater-wearing loser, September 2002

6 Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA), senior boozing, bloated Senate windbag, September 2002

7 Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), one-time Ku Klux Klansman and "Conscience of the Senate," October 2002

8 Sen. Patty Murray (D, WA), October 2002

9 Sen. John Kerry (D, MA), former Presidential candidate, October 2002

10 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D, NY), future Presidential candidate, October 2002

11 John Edwards, former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate with “better hair," October 2002

12 Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, October 2002

13 Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), senior House extreme makeover candidate, October 2002

14 French President Jacques Chirac, Head Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey, October 2002

15 Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA), November 2002

16 Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), December 2002

17 Sen. John Kerry, former Presidential candidate who by the way served in Vietnam, January 2003

18 Howard Dean, reformed screamer, February 2003

19 William Cohen, former Clinton Secretary of Defense, April 2003

20 Joseph Wilson, aka Mr. Valerie Plame, former Democratic Ambassador and incessant Bush critic, June, 2003

Scoring Table:
(15-20 points) You must be kin to Karl “Boy Genius” Rove!
(10-15 points) You’re a regular Rush Limbaugh redux!
(5-10 points) Don’t be such a Dick Morris!
(0-5 points) James Carville, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson are all eagerly awaiting your call!

Just in case you overlooked the obvious, this list was essentially a who’s who of the modern Democratic Party, and not exactly the guest list at William F. Buckley‘s birthday bash. It bears notice that the very same Democrats who saw the exact same intelligence President Bush saw, who drew the exact same conclusions, and who voted to go to war on exactly the same “pretexts” are now using the myriad difficulties we've expectedly encountered in Iraq as an excuse to play politics and rewrite history. Now there’s your scandal, liberal media.
"What was said before does matter,” Ted Kennedy droned into the Congressional Record last week. “The President's words matter. The Vice President's words matter. So do those of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and other high officials in the Administration."

I agree, Teddy. I also agree with you that your side of the aisle's words obviously do not.

As President Bush remarked the following morning on Veterans Day:

"Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. [And] while it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions, citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory."

Roger that, Sir.

American Citizen Soldier:
We Report, We Decide, You Read

Bonus questions for extra credit
Name This Neocan:

1 “I will not wait on events while dangers gather… I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.”

2 "If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long."

3 “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

Answers below:
(As if you don‘t already know)

1 President George W. Bush, January 2002
2 President George W. Bush, June 2002
3 President George W. Bush, January 2003

But but we were duped by that swaggering drawling stooooopid President of the United States. It's all his fault that we aped his lies. Lies I tell all lies! You know sometimes you're lucky you don't have to see this crap day in and day out non stop. Oh, great post btw. :)

You put a lot of work into this post - a goodie. I can't believe that nobody (the general public) noticed that the Democrats were backing the President until they heard some dissent, which made their little beady, political eyes glitter. It's like there's collective memory loss! It just infuriates me! Take care, Katy

They were backing the President until the election season. It infuriated me then because my two nephews were in harms way and they were playing games with their's and all of the other soldiers lives. My nephews are now home but it still unfuriates me. I paid very close attention in 2003 to what the President was saying and how other's responded. I recognized what they were doing...and I have never been so disgusted with politics in my life. Up intil that point I never walked the party line, but I am now a lot closer to that point.

Kennedy has always disgusted me (I also add McDumnutt to the list).

I totally agree with the other commenter...you did a great job with this post.

Take care and stay safe.

Buck Sargent,
Great post. As the two commentors above mentioned, you put a lot of work into this. I have been trying to find these wonderful quotes to point out to my "friends" who are dem's, and now I can show them. Talk about eating crow!
Watch your six and thank you for your service. I mean that!

Buck Sargent, I was reading Michelle Malkin and found this on her site. Cheney firing back at the Dems'. Salvo #2! BAMB!


Great Speach!

Buck Sargent, thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I have been working on gathering material for just such a post for a while now. I am so glad I was not alone. It actually terrifies me that so many people blindly follow "the Party" when they don't know who they are following any more. I got side tracked from this particular topic. You are a better writer than me anyway. Look up "Shadow Party." Look up this quote: The leaders of one of these shadow party organizations, MoveOn.org, jointly said of the Democratic Party following the 2004 election: “Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it….” And one last tidbit as a jumpboard:

"www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org Date: 11/15/2005 1:07:58 PM

Democratic National Committee

430 South Capitol Street, SE

Washington, D.C.

Phone :202-863-8000
URL :http://www.democrats.org

Related Profiles: Shadow Party, Democratic Socialists of America, Progressive Caucus, America Coming Together , America Votes, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy , Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Brennan Center for Justice, Center for American Progress, EMILY’s List, League of Conservation Voters, Media Fund, MoveOn, National Abortion Rights Action League , National Association for the Advancement of Colored People , People for the American Way, Project Vote, Service Employees International Union, Sierra Club, Thunder Road Group, USAction, Vote For Change, Working Families Party"

Socialism and fascism is alive and prospering in America. In the mid 90's they said they wanted their candidate on the Democratic Party ticket in 2008." They may succeed. If you dig a little you will find the number three financial contributer was Jane Fonda. What is most interesting and "scarry" is who is number "1" and his political history, nationally, and internationally!

Awesome videos! I hope you are able continue with the project and I look forward to the final product! Its sad that John Q. Public has no or very little clue about the good things that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are dong in Iraq, not just to complete an objective of 'winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi’s’ but dealing with the “non combatants” as fellow human beings…you can see it in the video, you care about the people. There are two things that are prevalent of our military: If you want the business end: you got it and you will pay dearly. If you deserve compassion: we’ll bend over backward to help and treat you like we would our own family. I wish you all the best and look forward to your updates. May God bless you, the troops and may God Bless the United States of America!

My guess for #1 is Bill Clinton. But recognizing a clear threat, and losing a war with that enemy are two different things.

Post a Comment

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed." -- Abraham Lincoln