Back to Quack Off
Knowing What We Know Now, Would
You Say that Jeb Bush is Retarded?
by Ann Coulter
Washington, DC -- Was Jeb Bush too busy watching
tele-novelas during his brother's presidency to remember the Iraq War?
We went to war at such
breakneck speed after 9/11, that, before the invasion, I was able to write
approximately 30 columns about it, give five dozen speeches on it, discuss
it on TV a hundred times and read 1,089 New York Times editorials denouncing
the "rush to war."
So I remember the arguments.
Contrary to the fairy tale
the left has told itself since Obama truculently gave away America's victory
in Iraq, our argument wasn't that we had to invade Iraq because of Saddam
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. And the left's argument certainly was
not: "He doesn't have any WMDs!"
Our argument was: There were
lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and none to keep him.
Indeed, after Bush's State
of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York
Times complained that he had given too many reasons: "Even the rationale for
war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of
accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address ..." (New York
Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
Among the reasons we invaded
(1) Saddam had given shelter
to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay
-- The mastermind of the
Achille Lauro hijacking, Abu Abbas, who murdered a wheelchair-bound American
citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, then forced the passengers to throw his body
overboard, was living happily in Iraq. (Captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad
less than a month after our invasion.)
-- The terrorist who
orchestrated the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley in October 2002,
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also took refuge in Saddam's Iraq. (Killed by U.S.
forces in Iraq on June 7, 2006.)
-- The one terrorist behind
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who got away, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled
to Iraq, where he was given money and lived without fear of being extradited
to the United States. (Whereabouts unknown. Possibly being groomed for a
prime-time show on MSNBC.)
-- Czech intelligence
reported that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 mastermind, met with Iraqi agents in
Prague shortly before the attack.
We're not supposed to
mention the Prague meeting on penalty of liberals yelling at us. Apparently,
our CIA discounts that report. On the other hand, the CIA didn't see the
1993 World Trade Center bombing coming, didn't see 9/11 coming, didn't see
the Fort Hood massacre coming and didn't see the Times Square bombing
coming. No one tell liberals, but our CIA knows NOTHING -- although they're
pretty sure something bad happened at Pearl Harbor a while back.
(2) Saddam had attempted to
assassinate a former president of the United States. Liberals complained
that it was a family feud because that president happened to be Bush's
father, but, again, he was also a FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
(Does being a relative of the president make you fair game for assassination
attempts? Bill Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy phone.)
(3) Saddam not only had WMDs,
he had used them -- far more prodigiously than Syria's Bashar al-Assad did
when Obama masterfully backed down from his "red line" threat if Assad ever
used chemical weapons. (Assad's WMDs killed about a thousand civilians --
350 according to French intelligence, which is a lot better than ours.
Saddam's WMDs killed an estimated 100,000 civilians. That's according to
everyone -- the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Clinton-era
ambassador Peter Galbraith.)
(4) We needed to smash some
Muslim strongman after the 9/11 attack, and Saddam was as good as any other
-- at least as good as the Taliban primitives who had allowed Osama bin
Laden to pitch his tent in their godforsaken country.
It worked: Moammar Gadhafi,
terrified that Bush would attack Libya next, invited U.N. inspectors in,
gave up his WMDs, and paid the families of his Lockerbie bombing victims $8
(5) Saddam had committed
atrocities on a far greater scale than our current bogeyman, ISIS. He
tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis -- removing their teeth
with pliers, applying electric shocks to men's genitals, drilling holes in
their ankles and forcing them to watch as their wives were raped -- as
reported by USA Today, among others. There was no risk that we were
accidentally taking out the Arab George Washington.
(6) Saddam was a dangerous
and disruptive force in a crucial oil-producing region of the world. We need
oil. Why not go to war for oil?
(7) The Iraqi people were a
relatively sane, civilized and educated populace with a monstrous ruler.
Removing that leader would provide a golden opportunity for an actual
functioning Arab democracy -- an Arab Israel.
That worked, too. In under
two years, Iraqis were waving their purple fingers to symbolize having voted
in their first democratic election. A few years after that, young Iranians
were demanding their own democracy in another good people/bad rulers
But then an innocent
26-year-old girl, Neda, was gunned down in Tehran by the Iranian military.
President Obama responded forcefully by going out for an ice cream cone. And
thus ended the democratic movement in the Muslim world.
The least important reason
to invade Iraq -- the one that was tacked on for the sole purpose of
taunting liberals over their goofy reverence for the United Nations -- was
that Saddam had refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in, leaving the
strong impression that Iraq was chock-a-block with WMDs. It was the
equivalent of asking where the feminists were when we invaded Afghanistan --
although technically, we didn't invade because the Taliban were mean to
In fact, the only time The
New York Times got testy with Saddam was after the "powerful case" made by
Secretary of State Colin Powell, "that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of
Security Council resolutions." (Who cares?)
Liberals didn't mind
Saddam's sheltering terrorists, using poison gas, invading his neighbors or
attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president. But Saddam had
disrespected the U.N.!
Far from claiming that
estimates of Saddam's WMDs were overblown, liberals cited those very WMDs to
warn America that any invasion would result in catastrophe for the Great
Satan. Thus, for example:
-- The New York Times
cautioned in an editorial that an invasion might create chaotic conditions,
allowing "terrorists to grab biological or chemical weapons." (New York
Times, Feb. 2, 2003)
-- Pentagon Papers leaker
Daniel Ellsberg predicted that Saddam would "use poison gas against U.S.
troops." (Jane Sutton, "Pentagon Papers' Ellsberg Sees Deja Vu in Iraq,"
Reuters, Nov. 25, 2002)
-- In the Chicago Tribune,
Steve Chapman warned: "Once American troops set foot on Iraqi soil, they may
be bombarded with poison gas." (Steve Chapman, "What Could Go Wrong in the
War With Iraq," Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17, 2002)
-- The Times' Nicholas
Kristof wrote that if we invaded Iraq, "Saddam may well launch missiles with
chemical warheads at Tel Aviv." (Nicholas Kristof, "Flirting With Disaster,"
Feb. 14, 2003)
This is why all six of Jeb
Bush's answers to Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly -- as well as Marco Rubio's
premeditated answer a week later -- were ridiculous. It's annoying enough
having liberals invent these historical fantasies. Do our fearsome
Republicans have to keep retelling them, too? If they don't follow the news,
can't they read?
Kelly asked Bush: "Knowing
what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?"
The correct answer is:
Now that we know that a
half-century of Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act would result in a
country where a man like Barack Obama could be elected president, and then,
purely out of antipathy to America, would withdraw every last troop from
Iraq, nullifying America's victory and plunging the entire region into
chaos, no, I would not bother removing dangerous despots in order to make
Instead, I would dedicate
myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and
building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican
president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected
president like Obama coming in and giving it away. -- FM Duck
back to top...