As most of you now know, a number of days ago, Democrats in the Senate used a rare procedure to shut down the Senate for a closed session regarding pre-war intel on Iraq.

Apparently, Democrats finally decided to put their memo on using Iraq war intelligence for political gain later into play. Well, I have three words: Bring it on. We will go all the way back and make our case to war.

To help out all you CAARs out there, I have decided to offer you a well-researched, sourced fact sheet that gives you responses to those against the war. I hope it reminds you of why we support this war and why we must continue the fight for Iraq. Some of these arguments are rarely, if ever, used anymore, but it helps even to expose these arguments, as it proves that liberals will find any excuse they can to avoid war. The arguments are in no specific order. If you don't like that.... I don't care.

Argument 1: We have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as proven by the CIA Duelfer Report.

Response: Funny how liberals love to mention this, but seemingly manage to always brush off this little gem from the report:

ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard [a.k.a. mustard gas] within three to six months.

And elsewhere:

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.

 

[...]

 

The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.

 

Even if we have not found stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, it is without question that they were a. going to have them very soon and b. they were several suspicious activities taking place that were not reported to the U.N.

Argument 2 (builds off of the first a bit, and is not used as often anymore): North Korea, with its nuclear weapons, are a more significant threat than Iraq. 

Response: Indeed, shortly before war on Iraq began, with our startling revelation that North Korea had betrayed the U.S. by secretly developing its nuclear capability, all of America was shocked. But liberals, in their abundant wisdom, used this as a way to deter war in Iraq:

You don't have to have a Ph.D. in foreign relations to understand that North Korea poses a greater danger to the United States than Iraq.

-Sen. Chuck Schumer

...[North Korea] may very well have two nuclear weapons. We don't have to get into that. But there is no question that they're going to be producing weapons-grade plutonium, which can be made into nuclear weapons within the next few weeks... We don't need another review. We don't need another study. We know that they've done that. Why isn't that a crisis? [George Tenet] refuse[s] to call it a crisis. Why isn't that a crisis?

-Sen. Ted Kennedy

[O]ur principal focus and attention today ought to be what is happening in North Korea. North Korea has produced nuclear weapons. It has a missile that can reach the United States. We ought to be talking to a North Korea that has nuclear weapons rather than going to war with Iraq that does not.

-Senator Ted Kennedy

What these morons and the rest of the loony-tune-left fails to comprehend is a basic, logical approach ( though to their benefit, that's never been liberals' biggest area of expertise.) Here, America had been hoodwinked by North Korea (due mostly to an almost laughably idiotic "peace agreement" proposed by Bill Clinton in 1994), and, instead of learning a lesson, liberals insisted that we make the same mistake again. America dealt with the crazies in North Korea. In turn, North Korea constructed a terrifying WMD program behind our backs. Iraq was working to construct a WMD program. But instead of taking note and preventing Iraq from becoming the same mess that North Korea was, liberals said that North Korea was the real threat. That's the only way liberals will feign support for a war: When we have weapons aimed right at us. Liberals don't believe in preventing America from having to endure a face-to-face showdown.

Unsurprisingly, Ted Kennedy already knew the outcome of only attacking the immediate threat and never keeping in mind the future threat. In 2001, Ted Kennedy would be found criticizing Bush's nominee for Asst. Sec. of Defense because the Secretary was not particularly fond of Clinton's 1994 peace deal. Kennedy said (requires registration) that we could not take a harsher action, for it would be "dangerously provocative to a nation that already fears aggression from the United States and South Korea."

...I think he may regret that statement now.

....or even worse, maybe not....

We cannot wait until threats grow to the point of face-to-face. We must eliminate them prematurely.

Argument 3: The number of civilian casualties, at 100,000, has made this war far too bloody to ever be justified.

Response: Actually, that number is not credible at all. The number, from the publication Lancet, has an enormous margin of error and is based on sloppy facts.

First off, the MOE is a pathetic "could be as low as 8,000, or as high as 194,000." Second, it was based on faulty methods. Richard Miniter claims: "When I investigated the 100,000 dead-civilians claim, I was surprised at how quickly it fell apart. The 100,000 figure is based on a single study in a British medical journal published just days before the 2004 elections. The authors were open about their anti-Bush bias. They got the 100,000 by knocking on doors in 33 neighborhoods across Iraq. They simply asked Iraqis how many civilian deaths they knew about. They did not take any steps to avoid double counting. They didn't demand any proof, such as a funeral notice or a newspaper clipping. Instead they decided to just trust Iraqis to give them straight dope. So if you interview Baghdad Bob you know what kind of answers you're going to get. In that chapter, I also uncovered four other major technical flaws with that study."

There have been more official studies, but ultimately even those cannot be entirely trusted. Civilian death counts in a place like Iraq are severely difficult to accurately represent.

Argument 4: The war in Iraq has created terrorists.

Response: Money created thieves.

So is Alito a Miers or a Roberts?

Looks like a Roberts. Sam Alito has expressed a willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade, was against taking religious displays out of public areas during Christmas, and ruled in favor of a law allowing Iranian women to migrate to America under gender discrimination.

But--WHOOPS!-- Chuch Schumer is already on the attack. Here is a factual response to the lies he spewed forth in his angry response to Alito's nomination.

"Good morning, everybody. This morning I went and visited Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda, to pay my respects. Being in the presence of Ms. Parks was awe-inspiring. This was a woman who changed history...."

Blah, blah, blah BLAH BLAH skipping ahead a bit....

"The real question today, is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better, or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others, fought so hard, and for so long, to put in place... A preliminary review of [Alito's] record raises real questions about Judge Alito's judicial philosophy, and his commitment to civil rights, to worker's rights, women's rights, the rights of average Americans, which the courts have always looked out for."

Ok, line by line:

"A preliminary review of [Alito's] record raises real questions about Judge Alito's judicial philosophy, and his commitment to civil rights..."

Question about his commitment to civil rights?! In Williams v. Price, Alito granted habeas corpus to a black prisoner who wanted to introduce evidence that a juror made a racist comment after a trial. Doesn't sound like someone who is insensitive to civil rights to me...

"to worker's rights, women's rights..."

Ah yes, Alito is certainly an anti-woman crusader for male superiority, thus the reason he ruled it acceptable for woman from Iran to be granted asylum in America under gender persecution grounds.

Best of all, Alito is a conservative. Many have even given him the nickname "Scalito" because of the similarities in his judicial philosophy to the philosophy of Judge Antonin Scalia.

One last quote from Schumer:

""It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."

First, isn't it interesting that the Dems didn't go around after Rehnquist's death saying that we needed another person "just like Rehnquist"? And secondly, how would O'Connor unify us? It certainly would not unify the right-wing with the left. Can we really expect anything in this country to unify patriotic, sane people (conservatives) with back-stabbing traitorous baby-killers (liberals)?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) on Oct. 20th, demanded a "resolution of inquiry" that would allow the House of Representatives to have access to "white papers, minutes, notes, emails or other communications kept by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG)" pre-Iraq war.

Apparently, Kucinich is looking for something to point to proving that Bush and Co. "lied" about our reasons for declaring war on Iraq.

The principal reason that America should move in the exact opposite direction that Dennis Kucinich would have is the fact that he is a Socialist, anti-American, pro-bin Laden pansy who is incapable of any kind of rational thought or comprehension.

Here are a few fun facts about Dennis:

Are you sleeping, Are you sleeping,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
And when the revolution comes,
We'll kill you all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

And another:

When the Red Revolution
Brings Its Solution
Along, Along

There'll be no more lootin'
When we start shootin'
That Wall Street throng

Of course, after the column exposed the Democratic Socialists as well as the Progressive Caucus, the website shortly thereafter deleted this page. Luckily, Archive.org still has its cache on there for you to read:http://web.archive.org/web/19980206053556/http://www.dsausa.org/rl/Docs/Songs.html#7

Kucinich believes that the only way to win the war on terror is by trying to make sure terrorists get more money: "We cannot hope to end terrorism by killing terrorists. Hatred feeds on violence and killing. I understand this and am here to offer a more practical approach: to reduce poverty worldwide..." He also offers other helpful suggestions, such as "pull our troops out of Iraq," "reaching out and rejoining the world community" and realizing the need to "develop a deep understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between history and acts of terror."

And this man expects the American people to take him seriously when he proposes an effort to investigate White House intentions pre-Iraq invasion.

About WHIG, the group Kucinich wants an investigation into, here is what we know so far:

The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the Republican Party whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the US, including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud'".

That's it. That's the problem: A group worked to drive support for the Iraq war based on true pretenses.

Dennis the Socialist Menace is probably not the person the Dems want representing them in their crusade to prove that Bush "lied" about the Iraq war. I wouldn't put too much money on this one, libs...