“At least Clinton didn’t take us to war” Reply


By Tom Quiner

President Bush had to make a tough call on whether to invade Iraq.

That was a comment I received following my recent post, “If Bush lied, Clinton lied.” The writer, Monte Gray, who always keeps me on my toes, defends Mr. Clinton at the expense of Mr. Bush.  Let’s take a closer look.

The tragedy of 9/11 may not have happened had it not been for a decision made by the Clinton administration.  That decision was to let Bin Laden slip away when they had an opportunity to get him.  Here’s an excerpt from the Los Angeles Times in 2001 on this subject:

“President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.”

The write is Mansoor Ijaz who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has been a CNN commentator. He had plenty to say on the subject:

“From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger and Sudan’s president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.”

Was this a big deal?  According to Ijaz, yes:

“As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.”

I quote Mr. Ijaz as a counterweight to the “Bush Lied” revisionists.  President Bush certainly made mistakes, just as President Clinton made mistakes.  We will take a closer look at the “Bush lied” screed in a moment.  But to the point made by Mr. Gray that at least Clinton didn’t take us to war, that’s not totally accurate.  Mr. Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox on December 16, 1998.  For 4 days, the United States and Great Britain bombed Iraq for their failure to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, a similar reason given by President Bush for launching the Gulf War.  (Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.)

President Clinton’s effort differed by degree and resolve, not motivation, to President Bush’s.

As Saddam Hussein acknowledged after his capture, he thought Mr. Bush would embrace similar bombing tactics as had been employed by President Clinton.  He said he hadn’t anticipated Bush’s resolve after eight years of an American Presidency with a different level of resolve.  In fairness to President Clinton, 9/11 changed the political landscape dramatically.

As referenced in my post on August 14th, Hussein acknowledged that he encouraged the belief that he still possessed WMDs to use as leverage against their enemy, Iran. Because he had used WMVs before, because Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, because of the heightened insecurity following the attack on our nation on 9/11 by a man Clinton let get away, President Bush had to make a tough call that President Clinton didn’t have to make.  Do we leave our security in the hands of the United Nations?  Bush said no.

Even after the United Nations weapons inspectors said that they couldn’t find any WMDs, the world still thought Iraq had them hidden away somewhere, or would at least still have the capability to begin production of them again.

Here’s what Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said in October of 2003:

“When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”

Here’s what French President Jacques Chirac said in February of 2003:

“There is a problem — the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.”

Here is what former President Clinton said in July of 2003:

” . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back there.”

Here is what General Wesley Clark said in September 2002 in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee:

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we.”

Here is what former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said in September 2002:
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.”
Dean built on that point the next year:
“I agree with President Bush — he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country.”
Here is what Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation said in March of 2002:
“How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously — and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner.”
I could go on, but you get the point.  The Democrats and world leaders quoted above shared President Bush’s concerns about an Iraq armed with WMDs.  Did President Bush make the right decision in invading Iraq? Honorable people can disagree. However, it is dishonorable to claim that “Bush lied” in light of compelling evidence to the contrary.
[To the charge that I used unflattering photos in my post on the August 14th, I am humbly trying to rectify it with the use of a more flattering photo in this post!]

DO NOT READ if you are vegetarian 1


By Tom Quiner

Michael Wedeking, owner of the Flying Mango

I’m a proud Iowan.

I’m a proud conservative.

It comes as no surprise, then, that I’m a proud meat eater.  My wife, Karen, and I had a wonderful dining experience on Saturday night at the Flying Mango.  Let me cut to the bottom line:  I had the best beef brisket I’ve ever had.  I am not one to over-use straight-faced superlatives

Let me set the stage: within sixty seconds of being seated, we had service.  We ordered a bottle of Cabernet from the professional and cordial waitress. Within another three-hundred seconds, Owner/Chef Michael Wedeking himself arrived at our table to open our bottle of wine. (How many times have you gone to a restaurant and twenty-minutes have gone by before you’ve got a drink in your hand? Not at Flying Mango.)

Mr. Wedeking has an easy-going manner about him.  He clearly likes what he does, and he’s good at it.  He’s also very confident about the quality of his offerings.  The subject of beef brisket came up.  He asked me what is the best beef brisket I’ve ever eaten in town.  I told him.  He said his would blow it away.  He wasn’t even bragging as much as relaying a fact which would be self-evident in due course.  He said they go through five-hundred pounds of it a week.  Keep in mind, this isn’t some giant chain.  It’s a locally-owned restaurant snuggled in the friendliest corner of Des Moines called Beaverdale.

I took the bait and ordered the brisket.

Once you order, it doesn’t take long before you’re facing the prettiest plate of brisket, sweet potato pancakes, and home-made slaw you’ve ever seen.  And the aroma is so mouth-watering that it’s difficult writing about it without calling for a reservation at Flying Mango and making a beeline over to 4345 Hickman Road.

The brisket is tender, juicy, and flavorful.  It features a light smoked flavor that is subtle and doesn’t overwhelm the taste of the meat.  Portions are more than plentiful.

For the record, I’d never met Mr. Wedeking or his partner/wife Suzanne Van Englehoven before Saturday.  So I speak objectively when I endorse Flying Mango.

Interestingly, Mr. Wedeking told me that only ten percent of his business comes from the immediate Beaverdale neighborhood.  I guess I’m one of many to miss the boat by driving by Flying Mango en route to other local eateries.  That will now change.

Visit their website at www.FlyingMango.com.  Call 515.255.4111 for reservations. For catering, call 515.277.1830.

Tell them Tom Quiner sent you.

If Bush lied, Clinton lied 2


By Tom Quiner

Believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs

“Bush lied” was once again invoked in the letters to the editor in the Des Moines Register this morning.

For the record, here is specifically what the President said:  “Saddam Hussein has huge stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.  And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”  Only it wasn’t President Bush who spoke it. Thus spoke then President Clinton.

Believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs

President Clinton’s thoughts on Mr. Hussein are worth revisiting in light of countless assertions that “Bush lied”.  Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, most of the world, including Kofi Annan (then the Secretary-General of the United Nations) and John Kerry, believed Iraq housed weapons of mass destruction.  To think otherwise, one had to assume Mr. Hussein destroyed the weapons, but didn’t report it to U.N. inspectors even though it would’ve gotten sanctions against Iraq lifted.  That doesn’t make sense.

Hussein encouraged the belief that he possesses such weapons with statements like this, made in 20o0:

“Iraq will not disarm until others in the region do. A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone.”

Believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs

Finally, in 2004 after his capture, Hussein acknowledged the truth about WMDs to FBI interrogator, George Piro.  He said most of the weapons had been destroyed by United Nations weapons inspectors in the 90s.  Iraq destroyed the rest themselves.  But Hussein pretended he still had them. In his mind, that perception was critical to deter Iran from attacking Iraq:

“It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” said Agent Piro.

Why, then, didn’t Hussein ‘fess up when he saw U.S. forces preparing to attack Iraq because of this very perception he had so carefully inculcated?

“… he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So he expected that initially,” Piro says.

Bush-haters are uninterested in such evidence.  Their mind is made up.  But think about the logic they must employ.

In their mind, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair launched a war based on a lie (no weapons of mass destruction) that would soon reveal the lie when no such weapons were found.  Doesn’t make sense.

If weapons HAD been found, the same people would probably have said that Bush planted the weapons to justify going to war against Iraq.

There are certainly honorable differences of opinion on whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq.  Let’s debate the merits of the war honestly and can the phony argument that President Bush lied.  If he did, so did President Clinton.

“Have you figured out what’s causin’ them babies yet?” 1


By Tom Quiner

My friend, John, is the proud daddy of eleven children.  He is also a proud Catholic. As his bounty grew, he heard the question above with increasing frequency.  Here is what he told me about how he handled the question:

The best comeback line I ever found to defend the fact that we had 11 children came from the movie “Roxanne.”  Steve Martin plays a bright, intelligent man who is cursed with an abnormally long, Pinnochio-like nose.  Naturally, this has always made him the butt of jokes and bullying his entire life.  However, he has developed a great sense of humor and sarcasm as a “defense mechanism.”  In the pertinent scene, Martin walks into a bar to get a drink.  After a few minutes of awkward silence in the room, finally one local wisenheimer blurts out the predictable rude remark about his nose.  Steve Martin gets up from his seat at the bar and launches into a series of self-deprecating one-liners.  The “crown jewel” of the monologue for me was his rationale for why he had such a long nose:  “The Lord gave…and He just kept on giving!” So, whenever we had a new baby and someone would say the classic line, “Have you figured out what’s causing them yet?” I had my perfect answer in Martin’s line.

Take five minutes and watch the great Steve Martin in action above.  Life is better when we laugh.  It’s even better when we laugh out loud!

Shame on Dick Morris 4


By Tom Quiner

Dick Morris

Dick Morris is an interesting guy.

He was a political consultant for Bill Clinton who is credited with salvaging the Clinton Presidency through a political strategy characterized as “triangulation.”

Essentially, he convinced Mr. Clinton to move toward the center politically, embracing the best of Democratic and Republican ideas, after HillaryCare had damaged the President politically by pulling him too far to the Left. As a result, President Clinton eventually signed into law the NAFTA trade agreement and welfare reform legislation that his own party didn’t fully embrace.

From a conservative viewpoint, Dick Morris deserves behind-the-scenes credit for these legislative successes.

Mr. Morris was eventually disgraced and forced to resign after he let a prostitute, whose services he had engaged, listen in on his telephone conversation with the President.

Following his fall from grace, Morris emerged from the ashes as a conservative, becoming a fixture on the Fox network.  He can be seen on Sean Hannity’s show as well as The O’Reilly Factor on a regular basis.  He has been a vocal critic of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in recent years.

I know conservatives who love him … and loathe him. Some call him brilliant.  Others call him “sleazy.”

Dick Morris has a keen political mind.  He articulates his positions in a highly entertaining way.  Love him or hate him, it’s hard not to listen.

That brings me to an e-mail I received today from Human Events.  The subject line was: “Dick Morris:  Do you hate Harry Reid as much as I do?”

It was an appeal to raise money for Sharron Angle who is running against Harry Reid for the Senate.  The letter, from Dick Morris, began:  “Dear Friend who Hates Harry Reid as Much as I do.”

Please.

I don’t hate Harry Reid.  I don’t hate Barack Obama.  I don’t hate Nancy Pelosi.  I disagree with them politically.  I will do all I can to see them defeated.  Their ideas on what is best for America are not mine.  Even more, I think their policies hurt this country I love.

But hate them?  No.

Morris sounds like a typical angry Liberal using rhetoric like that.  Have we come to the point where we have to hate someone if they don’t agree with us politically?

Shame on you, Dick Morris.  Republicans are better that.