“Yet appearances deceive; Baghdad is not a normal city, nor Iraq a normal nation. It is led by a man who has twice invaded his neighbors and precipitated two great wars. He has used diabolical weapons against those in Iraq who have dared to challenge him. He has, WITHOUT QUESTION, devoted substantial resources to developing what we now call by the flat phrase weapons of mass destruction – but which all understand are armaments that could kill and maim not tens of thousands but millions. He is a dictator who could, at the limit, provoke a nuclear Armageddon …

“On halting Desert Fox, Clinton, once more, placed his faith in a weapons-inspection regime that, whatever its successes, has apparently attenuated Saddam’s ambitions. (In any event, Iraq’s future cooperation must now be in doubt.) All of which raised once again a question that has been unanswered since, in 1991, George Bush halted the victorious forces of the gulf-war coalition on the road to Baghdad. If Saddam Husein is, truly, ‘very, very bad,’ why not finish the job?…

Pacifying Iraq might involve an invasion, followed by an occupation of perhaps 10 years; that, after all, is what the United States and its allies did to purge Germany and Japan of their warlike tendencies after World War II. Yet to say that the American public has never been prepared for that eventuality in the case of Iraq is to overstate the case; such a proposition has never ever been menitoned. Why not? Because domestic politics, as interpreted by a poll-driven White House, would not stand for it…

But Desert Fox is not the end of the matter. Saddam is still there; on Saturday, Secretary of Defense William Cohen said that Desert Fox had set back Iraq’s ballistic-missle program by ‘a year or more’ – which isn’t forever. To rid the world of Saddam will require leadership from a United States administration that can focus on the job at hand; which is supported by a thoughtful Congress, and which can explain unpalatable truths to a public that trusts its leaders to do the right thing. But that’s another movie, and not the one we’re watching now.”

- Newsweek Magazine – December 1998 “Perspectives” Issue, page 47 (Michael Elliott, Joseph Contreras and John Barry)

To start with, those are only excerpts from the full article. If you’d like to read it all, you’ll have to find a copy of the magazine. However, those statements leave zero doubt that many members of Congress and the news media are engaged in gross fabrication. We are told that George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, that his administration invented the concept so he could start a war and avenge his father. We are told that more people would be alive today if Bush and Cheney had never been elected, that taking out Saddam was reckless and cost more lives than it was worth.

Apparently, George Bush was fabricating those lies from the Governor’s mansion in Texas. He was doing so while Bill Clinton and the Democrats were in charge of the CIA, the FBI and the military. And he was also duping Newsweek Magazine into declaring – WITHOUT QUESTION! – that Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and suggesting that the only solution was a President who could “focus on the job at hand”.

Hmmm… Well, it seems like Bush is following Newsweek’s advice and focusing on the job at hand – like all war time Presidents who have endured criticism when the public tires of war, the opposition party plays politics with American lives on the line and the media generates headlines to sell newspapers and magazines.

The next time you read the folks over at Newsweek Magazine wondering aloud why Bush hasn’t turned Iraq into Orange County in only 5 years, remember the words: “Pacifying Iraq might involve an invasion, followed by an occupation of perhaps 10 years.” Sounds like fair warning to me.

The next time you hear Democrats and the media blame George Bush for lying about weapons of mass destruction – as if he just made it up out of thin air, remember Newsweek Magazine in 1998 declaring – WITHOUT QUESTION! – that Hussein was building them.

The next time you hear Hillary, Edwards and their contenders complain that Bush lied to them and that they didn’t have all the facts when they voted for war in Iraq, remember that Bill Clinton’s administration in 1998 had already convinced Newsweek and the rest of the world that – WITHOUT QUESTION! – Hussein was already making the weapons. Newsflash: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are married. Important point.

The next time you hear that George Bush isn’t listening to the American people, remember Newsweek’s statement that the only way to eliminate Saddam would be with a White House that wasn’t “poll driven”. Funny how now, when the White House is doing precisely that, the media bemoans that Bush is ignoring the polls and not listening to the American people (in other words, not listening to what the media has decided the American people think). If George Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction, then so was Bill Clinton, so was Newsweek, so was Hillary, and so was the United Nations.

Just so we’re clear, here’s what Hillary said about it in 2005: “And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate [Osama] bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban,”

Speaking of Newsweek Magazine, we’re not done with them yet. From the same issue on page 7:

“Federal authorities have ratcheted up security natinowide as a precaution against possible terrorist retaliation for the U.S. military assault on Baghdad. Meanwhile, U.S. forces are bracing for a possible attack in the Mideast or Africa by Osama bin Laden. Based on intelligence intercepts, U.S. government officials believe that bin Laden, the alleged architect of last summer’s twin embassy bombings in Africa, may have ordered a new fatwa, or religious decree, calling for the murder of U.S. citizens. In response to the latest threat, the State Department closed most of its embassies in Africa, and U.S. forces in the region were placed on ThreatConCharlie, a high-security condition. ‘We are particularly worried about people overseas, where [bin Laden] has the resources and we don’t have good control of local and federal police,’ says a top FBI official.

Shortly after President Clinton gave the orders for the strikes on Iraq, U.S. government facilities and buildings were placed on high alert worldwide. Law-enforcement and intelligence officials are focusing much of their attention on New York City, which the Feds consider a ‘hotbed’ of possible terrorist activity and a ‘natural target’ because of the local field offices’s aggressiveness in bringing terrorism cases to trial.

Late last week the FBI placed its New York field office on a ’24-hour lookout,’ ordering surveillance of all Iraqi installations in New York of all ‘known or suspected’ Iraqi intelligence officers. Of particular interest, according to an FBI teletype transmitted to all its field offices, is the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations. The FBI has also told its counterintelligence agents to reach out to all of its informants who may have intelligence about possible terrorist acts. As an added precaution, the bureau’s New York command center will be manned round the clock by the city’s joint terrorist task force, made up of the FBI, the New York City police and other federal agents. Still, says the bureau official: ‘I don’t think we’re going to see anything too terribly quickly. It takes a lot for them to plan one of these things.”

Wait… I thought Bush was responsible for 9/11. And yet here we find that Clinton not only knew bin Laden was a threat, but that even Newsweek Magazine knew it – and that New York was a primary terrorism target to boot. So Bush had 8 months – Clinton had at least three and a half years (more like eight) to do something about bin Laden. And just a reminder: his wife is running for office. I thought you might like to know.

You will also notice if you are paying attention that the fear for New York is not an attack from Osama bin Laden at all, but from Iraq. This is precisely why Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was the right one. Whether or not bin Laden and Hussein had coffee every morning or hated eachother’s guts, Hussein had a lot of power, influence and resources. Clearly, he was capable of something similar to 9/11. What makes anyone think, had we left him in power, weapons of mass destruction were the only thing we had to fear from him?

We are also told that Bush riled Iraq up and de-stabilized the country. Now, a bunch of terrorists will be coming for us whereas when Hussein was in power, no such threat existed because he kept everything under control. Well apparently Iraq was riled up enough to have our security forces on high alert in 1998, while Bush was still governor of Texas and Clinton was in front of Congerss talking about his penis. Am I the only person in this country who thinks that a man with the wealth and resources (oil) of the entire country of Iraq at his disposal might be able to afford a few box cutters and a plane ticket?

The truth is that Bush inherited a mess that exploded out of proprotion after 9/11. I don’t believe in blaming anyone (besides the terrorists). Hindsight is 20/20 and laying blame for something the magnitude of 9/11 is nothing but playing politics. But if you want to point a finger, why should Clinton get a free pass? Ask Hillary becuase I can damn well guarantee you this: Tim Russert won’t.

The current George Bush made the right decision in Afghanistan and he made the right decision in Iraq. Unfortunately, the prophets at Newsweek (who have conveniently forgotten their own prophecy in favor of a love affair with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama) were correct when they pointed out that any operation in Iraq would not be a 45 minute cake walk. Bush has known this all along. In fact, he’s said so all along. Has he done a bad job? Sure, he’s screwed up. You try invading a hostile country on the far side of the globe and then planting the roots of democracy. I bet you might screw up once or twice (except for Bill Maher. He would have done everything exactly right). But if we elect some fool next year who decides to pull the troops out before the job is complete, the entire globe is going to pay the price. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.