By Oliver Wolf
Opinion Columnist

The general consensus among Democratic opponents is that President Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In my opinion (incidentally, the majority opinion of the American people) there were numerous justified reasons to liberate Iraq. However, as I hear more about unfounded accusations that President Bush lied about weapons of destruction, I can only stop and wonder: What if we had listened to the following pantheon of Democrats who also saw the threat of Saddam's weapons? Would people now be calling them liars too?

For now, I present you my Top Five List of the Left's "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."

5. "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

4. "Iraq is a long way from the USA 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

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

2. "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

1. "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

John Forbes Kerry. Junior Democratic Senator from Mass. Biggest beneficiary of special interests in the U.S. Senate. Likely Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. "Liar."
You really can't have it both ways. You can't say President Bush lied while Senator Kerry and others, who said the same thing, were being honest.

There is no one who has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. Along with Senator Kerry et al., the German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German evaluation was even more severe than America's estimates. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005.

If Bush lied, then he must have known there were no weapons in Iraq. There is no such thing as a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you believe to be true, and it ultimately becomes false, that's not called that a "lie," that's called a "mistake" -- a mistake made by the CIA that was beyond the Bush's control.

If Senator Kerry had his way, this claim would have been investigated a lot less competently because he voted to drastically cut CIA funding before September 11. Perhaps this absurdity will eventually be qualified by Kerry. I look forward to him saying that he had actually opposed the CIA funding decrease.

If anything, it's Senator Kerry who has consistently been lying to himself all these years.

Republicans have yet to fully go after Senator Kerry on his most critical vulnerability, his stunning affinity for reversing course for political convenience in regards to the war on terror. His voting record in this regard demonstrates this pervasive U-turn.

Senator Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War, which he now says he favored. He voted for the Iraq War, which he now says he opposed. He voted against the $87 billion for troop support and Iraqi reconstruction, while saying that he favors to support troops and Iraqi reconstruction. He votesfor the Patriot Act, which he now condemns as an attack on civil liberties. And yet, this does not include the plethora of Kerry's questionable, inconsistent voting record in the domestic realm.

The problem with the prospect of a Kerry presidency is that he could not act this way if elected.

Compliments and criticisms of Bush aside, he has been a confident President who has stuck to his decisions and has not succumbed to changing. Confidence is a crucial quality for an effective President and a great leader; it's no secret that Senator Kerry lacks such confidence.

President Bush did not lie. Plain and simple. We had no choice but to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Nevertheless, it is confusing at best to understand how Senator Kerry would govern in the war on terror.

The choice to vote for Kerry is far too great a risk to take during this critical time.





Respond to this article