The bogus WMD argument of the left

Don Surber makes a point I have often discussed about what opponents of the war were saying before the war:

The WMD argument is tiresome and dishonest. Opposition to the liberation of Iraq in 2002 had nothing to do with WMD.
Consider the arguments in the debate over the war resolution the war on Oct. 10, 2002.
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., opposed the war because Saddam had WMD. He read from a CIA report:
"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a weapon-of-mass destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
This was similar to Sen. Bob Byrd's argument three weeks earlier that U.S. companies had "sold" Saddam a laundry list of chemical weaponry. He based this on a Newsweek report, which was wrong, wrong, wrong!
On the floor of the House, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-NY, said:
"Sure he has biological weapons. We gave them to him."
Oh? When? Where?
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., unleashed a string of insults at Bush, but not once did he argue there were no WMD. He argued the war would cost too much money and the like.

...
There is more.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more