By Brian Yates
Saddam must go
Congress has finally voted overwhelmingly to give President Bush the power to go after Saddam Hussein. For weeks, liberal clowns and Democrats (is there really a difference?) blasted President Bush and his administration. First, Bush was ignoring Congress, and how dare he not ask their opinion of Saddam? So Bush went to Congress and was promptly blasted by the illegitimate Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle for “politicizing the war debate.” Which is funny, because Daschle was one of the loudest when it came to attacking the president for not going before Congress in the first place. Bush did what the Democrats asked for, and what did he get? Accusations that he is using the war on Iraq as an election-year issue. Folks, Saddam Hussein is not going to stop his scheming and hold off on any plan simply because we’ve got an election coming up and the Democrats want to focus on making their illegitimate majority in the Senate legitimate.
You can’t please these people. Liberals everywhere love to claim that this war is really Bush’s “daddy’s war,” or is all about gaining huge oil reserves. They keep reminding the world that Bush and Cheney have both worked in the oil business. (Because, of course, anyone ever employed by the oil industry is the very image of Satan.) Liberals are either afraid, or just not intelligent enough, to realize that this is not about oil, and it is most certainly not about Bush Senior. This is about protecting the American people.
Over the last decade, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council resolutions. Liberals love the UN, so why they ignore these blatant acts of defiance is beyond the comprehension of any sensible person. Sixteen UN resolutions have been violated, and action has yet to be taken. For all those liberals out there suggesting that the United States gain approval for the UN, why shouldn’t the U.S. be a leader on the issue? Should President Bush put the safety of America at stake by letting the United Nations handle a situation that it obviously can’t, or doesn’t, want to deal with? Absolutely not.
Al Gore opines that Bush is acting irresponsibly. Gore says we need to finish the war on terror first, then go get Saddam. When will these people learn? First, the war on terror is ongoing. It’s not going to end until the very word “terror” has been scrubbed from the earth. If we wait until it ends to go get Saddam, we’ll never get around to it. Second, whether you liberals like it or not, Iraq is part of the war on terror. Cut it any way you like, Saddam Hussein has been linked on several occasions to al-Qaeda. Liberals will say that, sure, there might be al-Qaeda members in Baghdad, but there are terror cells in Buffalo too. Buffalo is not supporting these terrorists, Saddam Hussein is. Want proof? A reporter for the New Yorker magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, interviewed several captured operatives of a Muslim extremist group operating in an area of Iraq known as Ansar al-Islam. The prisoners reported that a number of al-Qaeda fighters fleeing Afghanistan escaped to Ansar and that al-Qaeda runs the camp along with Saddam Hussein. In 1992, the reporter stated, Iraq hosted a top Egyptian leader of al-Qaeda in Baghdad.
Liberals love to say the US needs European approval; well, how about Britain’s report on Iraq? The British report states that Iraq has “continued to produce chemical and biological agents; military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shai population; developed mobile laboratories for military use; tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons; illegally retained… missiles; started deploying its al-Samoud liquid propellant missile; and begun to conceal sensitive equipment… in advance of the return of inspectors.” These are just examples of the various transgressions listed by Britain’s report.
Folks, there’s no question about it, Saddam must go, and the sooner the better. He is a threat to the world, and thankfully, President Bush realizes this. Rather than whining over the no-nonsense tone taken by the White House, liberals might try appreciating the moral clarity coming from this administration.
