Anti-Bush Partisans Stuck on "No WMD" Meme

By this time, five years after the run-up to the Iraq war, it's abundantly clear that those on the left implacably opposed to the toppling of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime are stuck in a pre-surge mentality, and they'll continue to use any and all methods to prolong their deligitimization campaign of the American deployment in Iraq.

One of these antiwar nihilists is Cernig at "Newshoggers". I took down old "C" in a post some time back, "Blogging Foreign Policy: Bereft of Credentials, Left Strains to Shift Debate." "C" didn't like that and tried to resuscitate his "credibilty" in the comments.

Cernig's got a post up this morning on Australia's Rudd government and its effort to pull the country's contribution to joint security contingents in Iraq:

When War Party shills or the Bush administration repeat the old lie that "everyone thought Iraq had WMDs", they conveniently forget that French intelligence didn't, that weapons inspector Scott Ritter didn't, that Russian intelligence didn't, that Al Gore didn't, that German intel had already worked out that Curveball was a conman and warned the CIA...and leave out the fact that most Western governments were relying on the US to tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Australian PM Kevin Rudd has been laying out that latter inconvenient truth for his public, on the occasion of his ordering a withdrawal of Aussie soldiers from Iraq. It's a story that's got very little attention in the US, however.

Notice that language: The "war party shills." God, that's sounds positively evil. I'm sure the diabolical "neocons" had something to do with it!

I went to leave a quote from the Wall Street Journal at the post, but apparently I'm banned by Cernig for violating his abstruse "rules" for debate at the blog:

We're sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad's antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam. It has been held for review by the blog's author.

I started to leave this passage, from the Wall Street Journal article:

That Saddam had WMD was the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community for years, going back well into the Clinton Administration. The CIA's Near East and counterterrorism bureaus disagreed on the links between al Qaeda and Saddam--which is one reason the Bush Administration failed to push that theme. But the CIA and its intelligence brethren were united in their belief that Saddam had WMD, as the agency made clear in numerous briefings to Congress.

And not just the CIA. Believers included the U.N., whose inspectors were tossed out of Iraq after they had recorded huge stockpiles after the Gulf War. No less than French President Jacques Chirac warned as late as last February about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq" and declared that the "international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

The point here is not so much the disagreement over Iraqi WMD (Prime Minister Rudd's going to spin his antiwar meme as best he can, in kowtowing to whatever left-wing surrenderist pressures he's facing), but to illustrate the total cowardice of the antiwar hordes in censoring opposition to their views based on reason.

Cernig's a hack who has a history of banning pro-victory commenters, according to some whacked system of ad hoc posting rules. As Dave in Boca pointed out in any earlier entry,

Petty autocrat [Cernig] banished/blocked me for consistently outwitting and outfacting his tendentious gibberish.

My neocon protege at GSGF was also banned after disputing a Newshoggers' post, so shining the light of reason on this guy triggered a good amount of reflexive "spam-filtering."

Recall this is the blog that cheered Downs syndrome suicide bombers in Iraq, and these folks routinely demonize the American deployment from the trenches of neo-communist antiwar ideological hostility.

*********

UPDATE: I frequently mention that many of my antiwar commenters, who I tolerate generously (including Repsac3), never denounce (but defend) the antiwar nihilism and left-wing anti-Semitism I regularly chronicle on this page.

Here's another example: In response to this post, and my reference above to Newshoggers' cheering of Downs syndrome suicide bombers in Iraq, Fauxmaxbaer responded in the comments, which is followed by my rebuttal and the comment of Gayle from Dragon Lady's Den:

** [1] I followed the links and could not find where anyone applauded or cheered the use of those with Down's Syndrome as suicide bombers. Could you provide that quote. [Fauxmaxbaer]

** [2] This is the only quote that I found and it does not fit the description of cheering or applauding:

For the record, assuming it's true, I think it's just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down's women to perpetrate the bombings but I don't see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that. Perhaps Mr. Owens can educate me on how our troops are supposed to counter this new evil tactic? That would be helpful. [Fauxmaxbaer]

** [3] "I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that."A brilliant adaptation, for killing the innocents? Is that okay with you, Fauxmaxbaer? That's cheering. If that's okay with you, you're as bad as they are. [Donald]

** [4]) Donald, I found that same quote, and I see it differently than Fauxmaxbaer does. "I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that." Sounds like approval and cheering to me! That quote came from here. I think Libby Spencer is morally challenged. [Gayle]

Gayle responded to me just seconds after I responded to Fauxmaxbaer, and I was already working on this update when I saw her comments. I was going to throw open the thread for some debate on defending as "brilliant" Downs suicide bombers, which for both Libby Spencer and Fauxmaxbaer, is a case in the worst form of moral relativism.

But to be clear: If war opponents see the strapping of explosive vests on mentally-challenged Iraqi women for the purpose of killing American soldiers and innocent civilians as a "brilliant adaptation," that can only be seen logically as applauding a shift in tactics by the terrorists to excalate the nihilist violence. Libby Spencer's original post, and Fauxmaxbaer's defense, demonstrates a moral equivalence (and depravity), that, frankly, I find sickening. Is there nothing that the terrorists will do that elicits an unequivocal denunciation by the far left-wing enemies of American success in Iraq?

Thanks to Gayle for the moral backup. Sometimes I go crazy with these lefties!