Everything You Need to Know About Iraq, WMD and GWB Vindication

    It's year six of the Obama Administration. It seems so long ago that the previous embattled president limped across the finish line having been beaten down for five years over cascading failures that all seem to lead to a common source: No weapons of mass destruction were found during the time we were fighting and occupying Iraq. Eventually Bush and his administration were forced to admit that it appeared as though all of the intelligence was wrong.

    It's important to point out a few things to keep the record straight. First of all, nobody in the Bush Administration "LIED" about WMD. This may come as a surprise to brainwashed Democrats and Low Information Voters, but the fact of that matter is that all you need to know is what was believed and the definition of "lie". To lie, one must knowingly make a false statement. Everyone believed Saddam Hussein had WMD. For starters, he not only had WMD, he USED them to kill 5000 men, women and children in 1988. In 1998, Bill Clinton called Iraq "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." If you watch the video below, you'll see that calling Bush a liar for selling to the world that Iraq had WMD or was an imminent threat to be a nuclear power would be calling some of the most powerful Democrats of the past decades liars too:

In addition, many of these claims by Democrats were made in the 1990's while George Bush was only a Governor, so the liberal accusations that Bush was the one behind these beliefs is nonsense.

    The second point to be made is that the war with Iraq starting in 2003 was an internationally, LEGALLY justifiable war. In fact it was simply a continuation of the Gulf War that began in 1990:

• 8/26/1988 UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 620 condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons (WMD)
• 8/2/1990 UNSCR 660 condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and demanding immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait
• 11/29/1990 UNSCR 678 authorizing use of force to uphold UNSCR 660
• 4/3/1991 UNSCR 687 formal ceasefire ON THE CONDITION THAT IRAQ:
• Agrees to destroy all Chemical and Biological weapons
• Agrees not to develop Nuclear weapons
• Submits a declaration of its weapons programs and voluntarily agrees to on-site inspections.
• 4/5/1991 - 12/17/1999 TEN (10) UN Security Council Resolutions were passed, most of which dealt with Saddam's uncooperative behavior with regards to UNSCR 687
• Dec 1998 - Nov 2002 there was a complete ABSENCE of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq
• 11/8/2002 UNSCR 1441 gives Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with" UNSCR 687
• 3/7/2003 Hans Blix announced that Saddam was still in material breach of UNSCR 687. However, the corruption in the UNSC members that held veto power made passing another resolution to lift the ceasefire of UNSC 687 impossible. 
• 3/20/2003 The "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq, unofficially voiding the UNSC's half of the ceasefire with Saddam (remember, Saddam already voided HIS half of the deal).

    So as you can see, the Iraq War of 2003 was clearly a continuation of the more noble (in the eyes of the UNSC), Gulf War of 1990-91. Not only was it justified, but it should have been done sooner.

    And the last point I wanted to make to keep the record straight, is the answer to the question: Why in 2003? Why not sooner? If Saddam was officially in violation of UNSCR 687 as early as August of 1991 (according to UNSCR 707), then why was nothing serious done until 2003? Well besides the fact that corrupt veto holders at the UN made passing a use of force resolution increasingly difficult, I think a better answer to that question is the attitude of the times. The decade in America between the Collapse of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union and victory in the Gulf War all the way to the .com bubble bursting in 2000 and 9/11/2001 was without question, the most high-spirited, care-free and peaceful time in American history. I lived the prime of my youth and adulthood during the decade from 1990-2000. I also served in the USMC during this time (1994-1998). I know what the political and economic climate was at the time like no other. There was a sense of naivety about the evils of the world that I not only miss, but also feel bad about knowing that nobody in subsequent generations had the blessings of experiencing it. And boy did it come crashing down on September 11, 2001. That day is the day American innocence was lost. We were angry. Some wanted revenge. I remember serious calls for use of nuclear weapons against whoever was responsible. But more importantly, having recently completing 4 years of military under Clinton, I was VERY concerned that our response was going to be to send two cruise missiles to blow up an unoccupied aspirin factory in Afghanistan and call it a day. I really worried that we were just going to take it like a country hoss too big to notice the wasp that stung him.

    To my relief, George W. Bush took it seriously. It wasn't going to be a slap on the wrist like President Clinton did so many times before. It was going to be a show of massive force. He made the case to the world that he was going to clean up that part of the world. 

    We all know that anyone with half a brain knows it was not Saddam Hussein that attacked us on 9/11. But it was obvious to a HUGE majority in America at the time that given the circumstances of 9/11 and our involvement in Afghanistan, we were absolutely NOT about to put up with a Middle Eastern Dictator who has a history of WMD usage, who refused to comply with UN Security Council resolutions - resolutions that were put in place due to a war that HE was responsible for!

    Now that you know the WHOLE background story about Iraq, let's fast forward to April of 2005: The CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq reported that there were NO WMD found in Iraq. It seemed more like a final conclusion. It was certainly a final nail in the coffin of the Bush presidency that would have the most grueling and longest pathetically lame duck session imaginable. Making matters worse, Bush's refusal to defend any of his actions or respond to any criticism during this period was so disheartening to the right, and so motivating to the left that it most assuredly played a major roll in the Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator Barack Obama defeating Republican challenger, Senator John McCain. In fact, Senator Obama ran on the platform of "pulling out of Iraq":

    Unfortunately, tens of thousands of American trained Iraqis have been murdered. US service members feel they have sacrificed their life, limb and sanity in vain. Obama's incompetent decision to pull out of Iraq when and how he did caused a situation where terrorist group ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) have nearly completely taken over all of Iraq outside of the inner city of Baghdad (as of the time of this article) This has effectively set the stage where the same type of radicals that killed over 3000 innocent people on American soil will not only lead their own country, but have the kind of funding though oil revenue that they could have only dreamed of if Saddam Hussein himself sponsored all of their activities. Did I mention that President Obama has released the "Dream Team" of terrorist leaders from Guantanamo Bay prison back to the Middle East?

    Compounding this threat to America is the fact that Obama has completely opened the southern border with Mexico thanks to his orchestrated invasion. This flood of humanity has no doubt made it much easier for a Middle Eastern terrorist to get lost in the shuffle. But I digress.

    On June 20, 2014, reports from multiple independent sources said that ISIS in Iraq found Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpile! So it turns out EVERYONE (not just Bush) was right about Saddam's WMD. The big difference is that Bush was excoriated while he did the right thing morally, legally and strategically regardless of whether Saddam had them or not.

Bush Library Now Open First Students Arrive.

CLICK HERE TO PLAN

President Bush greets the first 43 visitors to the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum - school children from the Dallas Independent School District. The Museum is now officially open to the public

 

Thanks to:  Iranian American Conservative Party

Note to Editor - American Birth and Demise

  Before the birth of our nation, there were only monarchies and dictatorships. The United States was unique in the hirstory of man, with or Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Freedom of the Press. 

 
  After this past election, the president and his Czars can mandate any law with the backing of a liberal justice system, making Congress irrelevant.
  The Press is now dead and the constitiution and bill of rights is being trampled over. We are now just another third world dictatorship.

Gordon S.

Cincinnati Ohio.

The New Silent Majority

Barack Obama has just been reelected president by a majority of the U.S. population. Although this comes as no surprise to those at MSNBC, I must point out that this win bucks a whole lot of conventional wisdom on polls and turnout. Liberal commentators, pundits, journalists and Obama campaign officials spent the entire month of October pointing to polls that Obama had slight leads in nearly all battleground states. The election results proved the liberals right. But that doesn't mean all the conservatives that claimed that the polls were wrong were deliberately trying to be misleading. In fact their claims had so much merit, it lead me to believe that it was the democrats that were living in Fantasy Land. During October, I looked further into it and it turns out the polls were based on a methodology that included the belief that even though independents were breaking for Romney, a massive turnout of democrats very similar to 2008 was going to make up the difference.

Conservatives had plenty of reasons to be skeptical. First of all 2008 was an historic election for the ages. Supporters of Obama were going to vote for America's first black president. There was so much hope in the air it was electric. The numbers of young, minority and women voters that showed up in 2008 was overwhelming compared to any election before it. People who never voted in their life wanted to be a part of history. Then there was the 2010 election. The newly formed conservative tea party turned out to oust huge numbers of democrats in the house and senate. It seemed to most experts that the election of 2008 was an anomaly. Conservatives were convinced that the polling methodology for 2012 was wrong.

But wait! There's more!

The conventional wisdom of polling statistics was not the only thing that made conservatives skeptical of a huge 2008-like turnout. There was also obvious visual clues as well. In the last month of campaigning, both candidates held many rallies, almost every single day. In the last week there were several rallies per day for both candidates. One of the big stories reported by reputable conservative news organizations both on television and on the internet was that there was a huge difference in turnout to the rallies of Obama verses the rallies of Romney. It was reported that the Romney campaign had to move his scheduled events to larger venues because of the overwhelming turnout. I heard crowds as large as 30,000 were driving in from hundreds of miles away to get in to see what they believe was going to be their future president. By the end of the campaign, Romney was calling it "a movement." At the same time it was told that the Obama campaign was struggling to scrape together a couple thousand people. Reports of half empty venues were all over the place. One conservative article claimed an Obama rally featuring a concert by Stevie Wonder managed to muster up only 200 people! It doesn't help that the liberal news organization were silent about rally numbers. So while it may not be scientific, the reported rally numbers really made many feel like the momentum, energy and excitement was definitely on Romney's side.

More anecdotal evidence:

The visual evidence was not limited to rallies. I live in a swing county of a swing state. A strong argument can be made that Hamilton County, Ohio elects presidents of the United States. We voted for Bush twice and Obama twice. That's where I live and work. I drive all over the county all day, every day. In 2000, yard signs were equally divided between Bush and Gore supporters. In 2004, Bush signs were much more numerous than Kerry signs. In 2008, Obama signs totally overwhelmed McCain signs. This year, Romney signs absolutely dominated Obama signs. I can't speak for the rest of America and what kind of support they display on their residences, but here it is generally loud and proud, and this year the louder support in a county that is a microcosm of the rest of the country was loudest for Romney.

Last but not least...

I am a chronic Yahoo! user. Don't get me wrong - do not think for a second that in my quest for intellectual punishment, my choice of torture device is in any way an endorsement of such a device. I have grown to love to hate Yahoo! and everything their editorial staff stands for. Once you get beyond that, I am hopelessly addicted to their comments section. This is not a new development either. I was a notorious troll on the old Y! Message Boards before it got shut down, gutted and transformed to Y! Answers. These days, the public gets their fix of trolling in the comments section of Yahoo's front page articles. Its extremely popular, and I became convinced over the years that you can use the overall attitude of the collective posts as a bellwether for predicting actions of Americans. For example, back around 2005-2007 I could truly tell that Bush's popularity was waning. The more popular posts (based on their ratio of thumbs up to thumbs down) were mostly anti-Bush posts, and the overall percentage of pro-Bush posts was getting smaller and smaller. Then of course we saw the landslide election of 2006 against Republicans. In 2008 the comments were mostly pro-Obama, or anti-Bush, which of course led to the huge Obama win coupled with the election of the Democrat super-majorty in Congress. In 2010, I saw slightly more comments on Yahoo of pro-tea party types. It was only "slightly" because Yahoo comments section have always been a safe-haven for liberals, as many of the most popular news sources online have become by that time.

Fast forward to October, 2012: Following the debates, the comments section of Yahoo has become more one-sided than I have ever seen them - but not for the liberals. It has been flooded with conservatives earning hundreds of thumbs-ups for pro-Romney and anti-Obama posts. As far as I was concerned, this alone was an indication of a landslide for Romney. There was also the incumbent presiding over the worst economy of our generation, the foreign policy missteps of Benghazi, and to put the icing on the cake, the last few days of the campaign included a Hurricane Sandy that was very quickly looking like a debacle for Obama.

All the conventional wisdom was pointing towards the polls being wrong. How could a majority of independents be for Romney while the overall numbers were showing Obama ahead? How could this be while everything I can see with my eyes and hear with my ears says that most people are going to vote for Romney? How was it that the polls ended up being right on election day despite the conventional wisdom of presidential elections in years past?

The New Silent Majority

The answer is that there were many millions of people who voted for Obama that never put up a yard sign. They either didn't ever log into Yahoo, or stopped posting comments. They were quietly waiting in the shadows and pounced on election day. The are the "Silent Majority". Wait, what? For those not familiar with the phrase, the Silent Majority has in recent history been that large group of politically silent people that largely voted Republican on election day. For more information on the old Silent Majority, click here. The group of Obama voters that proved the polls right on election day are "The New Silent Majority." The question as to whether or not this is an Obama phenomenon or whether it is the new norm for the Democratic Party will not become apparent until the election of 2014.

As I write this, I am listening to Rush Limbaugh express his opinion that the reason Romney lost was because of a lack of turnout of the Republican Base. As of right now, based on what I have said about rally turnout, "Mittmentum," the movement, etc. I am rejecting that claim. Conservatives were fired up about the possibility of ousting Obama and replacing him with anyone. While conservatives were skeptical of Mitt for a long time, his performance in the debates really truly excited conservatives. Besides, just one day prior, Rush was talking about how the election results were a trend, not an anomaly. I'm not writing off the theory, but if Rush is correct, then I would have to write another article explaining how so many indicators pointed to a huge conservative turnout, but it just simply didn't happen on election day. For now, you can just know that it was the New Silent Majority.