L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 240, September 28, 2003
Exclusive to TLE
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."
Of late, callers to talk shows run by Republican whores have been pointing out that Saddam Hussein did not, in fact, have ties to Al Qaedasomething President Bush repeately stated was the case. In a brazen attempt to rewrite established history, the Republican whores have begun to dare their callers to tell them when or where the Bush Administration ever said Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda.
It isn't just one whore, either, but rather the entire bordello: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, and others have now all decided to cover for Comrade Bushtalin's lies via the popular Bart Simpson Method, e.g., "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!"
Unfortunately for President Bush and his whores in the media, the Internet exists. A simple Google.com search turned up a Web site at http://www.lunaville.org/WMD/ALQ_uggab.aspx specifically devoted to the Administration's quotes regarding Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda.
Some choice words, just from President Bush:
9/25/2002: "The war on terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that isI can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."
10/7/2002: "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
Again on 10/7/2002: "We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence."
10/14/2002: "We need to think about Saddam Hussein using Al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind."
10/28/2002: "This is a person who has had contacts with Al Qaeda."
Again on 10/28/2002: "He's got connections with Al Qaeda."
10/31/2002: "This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."
11/1/2002: "We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda."
I could go on at length, citing not only Bush but Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice among others. Clearly, President Bush attempted to galvanize the country to war based in part on linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda.
That the Republican whores are now claiming that he did no such thing is an outright lie, provable in mere seconds with the help of the Internet. Rush Limbaugh proves once again (to the surprise of no one who consistently employs both halves of their brain) that the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is utterly insignificant. Indeed, the whores have taken a page directly from the Clinton playbook: when called on your lie, tell them you never said it.
There is, of course, the pesky matter of Saddam not reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, a fact at odds with Bush's 2003 State Of the Union address. In that particular case, the whores had at least one point: nobody thought the non-War in Iraq was directly related to nuclear weapons. By that point, Bush's rhetoric about Saddam/Al Qaeda ties and Weapons of Mass Destruction(TM) in general made any specific irrelevant.
And speaking of WMDs ... just where are they?
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Colin Powell went before Congress, the United Nations, and the people of the world. He swore blind that the United States had hard, irrefutable proof of the existence of WMDs in Iraq.
There can be no Clintonesqe denial of these facts by the Republican whores.
Now, pause for a moment and consider: you're the President. You have absolutely damning evidence, so much that you can afford to send your Secretary of State around with pictures, pointing to items in them, and claiming that they are WMD laboratories. You know that this is all you need to go to warno one in their right mind will oppose the idea.
You are also in command of an enormous, powerful, militarythe most advanced and well-trained in the entire world. The electronic weapons at your command are so effective and precise that when you do go to war, civilian casualties are so few as to be insignificant. Your intelligence with respect to prosecution of the war is extraordinary.
How, then, could you possibly lose the WMDs you used as an excuse to invade?
Logically, the moment your Secretary of Defense bursts into your office with the satellite photos of the WMD labs, one of your primary concerns is that they not be lost. Firstly, they are a clear danger to the security of the nation, so you need to make certain they're confiscated at the first possible opportunity. Secondly, it's the proof you need to silence all critics of your war.
Logically, you'd say something like, "Don, tell the boys at the Pentagon to train a spy satellite on those labs. Keep them under surveillance round the clock. If anything connected with those labs moves so much as an inch, I want to know about it. I don't care if you have to send up a goddamned shuttle just to hover over it, if you have to. But we've GOT to know where those WMDs are. If we lose track of them, I want your resignation. You understand me, Don?"
But this didn't happen. They had pictures, and then they promptly lost the labs.
This can only be accounted for in one of two ways: either there was monumental incompetence on the part of the Administration for not keeping track of weapons that are now still at large, or the weapons never existed in the first place.
If you're keeping score, President Bush repeatedly lied that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. He lied that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program.
It's an awfully good bet he was lying about the WMDs, as well.
President Bush has repeatedly lied to the American people to justify a war for which there was absolutely no need in terms of national defense. If you're a conservative Republican, President Bush has betrayed you. Not only is he nothing more than a socialist in Republican clothing (just examine any of his myriad Unconstitutional policies for proof of this), he has engaged the United States in a war based on lies and deceit.
And his whores in the media are covering for him, the same way Bill Clinton's media whores lied for him.
What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? The Republicans are in power at the moment, and the Democrats aren't.
Flight From Eden by Kathryn A. Graham. In a near-future dystopian United States, a small group finds an unusual way to overcome betrayal, capture, torture and death in order to resist tyranny and free their beloved nation. The sequel, The Liberation, is expected to release in summer of 2004