From Today’s New York Times reporting on Saddam Hussein’s strategy for fighting the war against the United States:
The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense.If Saddam Hussein’s top military leaders believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the run up to the war, why is President Bush denounced as a liar, having started a war based on a lie? As everyone should know, the Presdient gave a list of reasons for taking out Saddam. Iraq’s possession and desire for developing WMD was just one reason, albeit a very good reason Bush gave for removing Saddam from power.
A blogger quotes Democrat Assemblywoman Linda Stender at a DFA 7th District Forum yesterday:
"We desperately need a change in Washington. This administration took us to war based on a lie. It is an outrage that the Bush administration has dishonored our soldiers who with their service are giving of themselves for all of us."What “lie” was that Linda? Here’s what President Bush said in October of 2002:
In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.Stender dishonors our soldiers, our country and our President with her outrageous claims. Linda’s either unfamiliar with the facts or she’s lying. In either case, Stender’s not someone the country needs in Congress.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.
It’s hardly surprising Stender would rather run for Congress throwing stones at Bush than on her record in Trenton - “if elected I’ll fight to raise you’re taxes” is not a winning platform. Then again, telling the truth doesn’t appear to be one of Linda’s strong points, so don't look for her to be straight with voters on that issue either. Calling the President a liar may rally her base, but positioning yourself as an attractive Cindy Sheehan ain’t gonna fly with the majority of voters in the7th. Congressional district.