Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

Why do liberals insist on telling such bad lies?

Politics can be a dirty game, and lies are frequently part of that game. But...why tell such bad lies as "Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction"? Even a cursory check of the recent past would have yielded the following tidbits...

• Bill Clinton, December 19th, 1998:

  "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq" ... "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

• Hans Blix, January 27th, 2003:
  • "UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization [of VX nerve gas] and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq."
  • "The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
  • "The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

    The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

    The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

    I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor."

  • "I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

    Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

  • "As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

    In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

• Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002:

  "Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

• Joe Lieberman, September 13th, 2002:

  "Saddam hates America and Americans and is working furiously to accumulate deadly weapons of mass destruction, and the missiles, planes, and unmanned aerial vehicles to use in attacking distant targets.

  Every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world. As long as Saddam remains in power, there will be no genuine security, and no lasting peace in the Middle East among the Arab nations, or between the Arabs, Israelis, and Christians who live there.

  The threat Saddam poses has been articulated so often that some may have grown numbed to the reality of his brutality. But after September 11th, we must reacquaint ourselves with it, because if we do not understand and act, his next victims, like Osama bin Laden's, could be innocent Americans."

  "The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequalled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life."

• William Cohen, November 25th, 1997:

  "Ladies and gentlemen, for the past three weeks the world attention has focused on Iraq's program to produce deadly chemical and biological weapons. The reasons are quite clear. First, Iraq has used chemical weapons both against the Iranian people and against its own people."

  "Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth."

• Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998:

  "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

• Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002:

  "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

I could go on and on, but I am sure that even liberals now understand how badly they fumbled this issue.

When liberals were asserting (without proof) that Bush lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, they leaped to the "punishment phase", demanding that he either resign or be impeached unless he proved he was innocent. Not only is that the reverse of the American legal system's assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty, but it also leads us to an interesting question for all the liberals who were beating the drums for Bush's head.

If you demanded that Bush resign or be "fired" if he had lied about Iraq, will you now resign, or be fired because you lied about Bush lying about Iraq?

I think we already know the answer to this. Liberals never, ever take responsibility for their own actions. Their lies are merely attempts to shield themselves and loved ones against vicious right-wing conspiracies.

At least, that is what they tell each other when the truth about their deliberate deceptions comes to light.

The American public, however, continues to see through such doublespeak. They know who the real liars are.

...why tell such bad lies as "Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction"?

"Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

"The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time."

I could go on and on, but I am sure that even liberals now understand how badly they fumbled this issue.