I'm delving into the political today, so those of you who are of the head-in-the-sand persuasion (even ostriches have more sense than that, actually) and don't want to hear the other side because your mind is already made up, regardless of facts, might as well just delete this now.

To those more on my side of the spectrum or at least moderate enough to want to learn as much from both sides as you can to make as informed a decision as you can: I hope this will be helpful.

Even as a conservative Republican (with some liberal bent), I haven't agreed with everything President Bush has done. The two hottest items are:

(1) His anti-abortion stance. That strikes me as letting religion play too important a part in legislative matters. To me it is merely a personal moral issue and a woman should be able to decide for herself whether she is willing to accept the pain and responsibility of bearing and raising a child. Our government should not interfere in such a personal freedom of choice. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to abort, short of religious dictums, and they should be respected.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely
exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive."
--C.S. Lewis

"Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing.
The one cannot be preserved if the other be violated."
--Calvin Coolidge

(2) Stem cell research should be allowed to continue, especially when not gleaned from a fetus and would never have resulted in one. Why anyone would want to stop research that could help millions out of debilitating diseases is beyond me.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same
God who has endowed us with sense, reason,
and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

"For good or ill, science will roll on. Whether it rolls
in the proper direction (in this case, proper bioethical)
will depend on our own ethical prescriptions and our
own humaneness -- and most prominently on the
humaneness of the scientific community itself."
--Ross Mackenzie

No, I don't know who he is, either, but it makes sense to me.

All right, enough about me. It was the latest diatribe, by the son of Ronald Reagan, that inspired me to do this piece .... a little like the last straw on a camel's back ... one more assertion that Bush lied and we should never have gone to Iraq. That may end up being true, but not for the reasons given by so many critics. If you think they are right in their assessments and what they are saying now, please take into consideration what they said when THEIR guy was in office!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and
the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat
posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens
there matters a great deal here. For the risks that
the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or
our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"Hussein has...chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger,
Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others, 10/09/98

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development
of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Strangely enough it continued under Bush but they won't admit it. These quotes were probably not reported widely, so they hope any who saw them have forgotten. It could be that most of these were said House and Senate speech periods so only die-hard C-SPAN watchers ever heard them.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated
his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may
be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, he continues to
redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover
of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles
that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush,
Signed by: Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL),
and others, Dec 5, 2001

"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 mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of
mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological
and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible to deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident Saddam Hussein retains
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 indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"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."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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. We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made
in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"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"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"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."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"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 ... So
the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Now, it's 2004 and they've all done a political flip-flop. What has changed to accuse their President of being a liar?

Seventeen UN sanctions about WMDs wasn't enough for them to finally act. After 9/11 the world was with us in sympathy and shock, but quickly turned against us when we decided to finally do something about it.

We now know why the main foes of Bush's plans -- France, Germany, Russia and even UN leader Koffi Annan -- were against going after Hussein because they all were doing business with the Butcher of Baghdad ... ILLEGALLY ... and didn't want to be found out. More than that, they stupidly did most of it on CREDIT and feared the loss of billions! Annan was smarter, along with an Englishman and perhaps others. They just skimmed cash off the top of the Oil For Food program. Most of the rest went to support an army and build gold-plated palaces.

Any wonder that Colin (properly pronounced as CAHLIN, and not colon.) Powell had to plead with the UN for almost a year for them to join us and follow up on their own resolutions? Under the same circumstances, I think maybe I would want to give my man as much time as possible to bury and/or ship all suspected items out of the country, too.

It took a while but our forces have now found a fully buried RUSSIAN jet out in the desert. Maybe some Iraqi's have finally decided they should step in and help us establish a new, more democratic system of government. We can only hope more (who might still be alive) will come forward and tell what they know about shipments and burial sites.

I guess I'm a bit of a conspiracy buff at times. In this case it's about the only thing I can think of to explain the carping, vicious criticisms from the left. Did they care sooo much about retrieving their lost power and care so little about their own country that they would encourage Bush with statements of agreement until he thought they all would fall in behind him when he took action and then hope nobody remembered what they said before and swallow the lies they are telling now? Frankly, as vicious and mean-spirited as they are, I can't believe they are capable of such Machiavellian subterfuge. But, then, is there any other reasonable explanation? Okay, just typical political change of stance to try and get elected and/or re-elected just by being contrary to the other side.

That is, of course, just a small part of the whole mess, but enough for now.

My thanks to all who stayed thru the whole presentation, for whatever reason. I'll try to calm down and find some more humorous and gentler items next time.

I'll leave with just one more thought. Don't for a minute believe the tripe about Jihadists, Iraqi insurgents and suicide bombers, etc., just following their religion to gain Paradise. The founder of Islam truly was a man of peace (after his 'holy' war to get established, of course) and they should follow this route instead.

"He deserves Paradise who
makes his companions laugh."
------ Mohammed

~ Bill (Golfputts@aol.com)

June 2004



Check these out:
TomCat's Morning

Okay, Who Did It?

Click the link and visit Graphics by Marilyn.
Graphics by Marilyn

And.......for many others, click the link for HOME.

Home: Writers' Summer 2004 Index