Liberal Hypocrisy in Iraq and Syria

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


US-CANADA-DIPLOMACY-KERRYIn a response with clear echoes to the beginnings of the Iraq War, Obama has refused Syria’s offer to open its chemical weapons sites to United Nations inspectors as coming too late to be credible.

For the worst half of a decade, liberals were either urging us to give the UN inspectors more time in Iraq or demanding to know “Where are the WMDs?” once the war had begun.

The common consensus was Syria; a fellow Baathist regime that also served as the pipeline for the majority of suicide bombers aimed at American soldiers. But that answer was met with ridicule and contempt from the questioners.

Liberals had found their killer talking point and they were not about to let it go. Not until now.

A decade after the beginning of the Iraq War, Obama is tiptoeing into Syria. The pretext for his unilateral assault on Syria, that has no credible chance of receiving United Nations Security Council approval, will be the protection of civilians against the WMDs that didn’t exist.

Ten years ago, James Clapper, now the Director of National Intelligence, said he was “unquestionably sure” that Saddam’s WMDs had been moved out of Iraq. Top Iraqi generals stated that the WMDs had gone to Syria. But all that fell on deaf ears.

Democratic political opportunism transformed the existence of Iraqi WMDs, once a universally accepted fact brutally testified to by the Halabja massacre of thousands of Kurds, into an absurd lie. Now as Halabja is being recreated in Syria, suddenly a unilateral war for WMDs has become the liberal platform.

In 2002, a minor Chicago politician with a funny name achieved an undeserved level of prominence with a speech declaring we should not attack Iraq because “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States”, “the Iraqi economy is in shambles” and “the Iraqi military (is) a fraction of its former strength” and advised that instead Saddam “be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

When that minor politician came to power, suddenly the dustbin of history that was good enough for Saddam, wasn’t good enough for Gaddafi or for Assad.

As Obama prepares to add a second unilateral regime change war to his Nobel Peace Prize trophy shelf, joining him for their very first war together as cabinet members will be two other prominent doves.

John Kerry’s senate career began with a bang when he traveled to Nicaragua to obstruct President Reagan’s policy of arming the anti-Communist Contra rebels. Now Secretary of State John Kerry is taking part in arming the Free Syrian Army rebel allies of Al Qaeda and pawns of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In his Sandinista days, Senator Kerry had said that America should not subvert its values “by funding terrorism to overthrow governments of other countries”. Since then John Kerry has changed his mind. It turns out that he was only against funding terrorists to overthrow the governments of other countries before he was for it.

Sitting in as Secretary of Defense is Chuck Hagel, who got his job because of his opposition to the Iraq War and attacks on Bush over WMDs, who will now be overseeing a new war over Syrian WMDs.

Three anti-war doves will be leading a war that represents everything that they claimed to stand against.

NBC reported that Obama officials were worried that the legacy of the debate over Iraqi WMDs would harm their efforts to get the United Nations Security Council on board with a Syrian intervention. But the legacy is the cynicism of prominent Democrats like Biden, Pelosi, Gore and Reid who turned their backs on the WMD consensus and clawed their way to power by undermining a war that they had supported.

Democrats destroyed the credibility of American foreign policy under Bush. Now they expect that time and poor memories will have already washed away everything that they did. And if that fails, then even more cynically they are preparing to blame Bush yet again, this time for the refusal of Russia and China to sign off on their Muslim Brotherhood regime change plan for Syria. But Russia and China would no more sign off on an invasion of Syria than on an invasion of Iraq.

Obama’s people are relearning what the Bush team learned, that diplomacy will not shift the United Nations Security Council, but instead of blaming the guilty parties, they are perpetuating the same destructive cycle that got them into this mess.

A decade ago, the Democrats decided to turn around and make the Iraq War into a partisan issue for political gain. Their actions severely damaged the credibility of American foreign policy. Now they are setting course for Syrian airspace, confident that the Republicans are too patriotic to do to them what they did to the previous administration.

There is no doubt that Assad has WMDs and that he used them in the Syrian Civil War. But poll after poll shows that the American public is opposed to any attack on Syria and that the international community is mostly unenthusiastic about the prospect of another intervention.

Obama, Kerry and Hagel’s Syrian War is haunted by their destruction of the Iraq War and as Assad deploys his Weapons of Mass Destruction, the question that the doves twittering about soft power in Washington don’t have the courage to ask is how many of those weapons that will either kill civilians or fall into the hands of terrorists came from Saddam Hussein’s secret storehouses in Iraq.

Democrats vociferously opposed any plan to stop the flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq. Now they are about to fight Assad anyway in support of their own twisted Muslim Brotherhood version of regime change.

The anti-war party has become the war party and in a supreme irony, its cause for a new war is the familiar one of stopping a Baath Party regime from using weapons of mass destruction against civilians.

Everything old is new again and every hypocrisy rises again to become policy. In New Hampshire, Howard Dean is reportedly sniffing around his presidential prospects and in Washington, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama will begin a war that they were against… before they were for it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • truebearing

    It isn’t America that is subverting its values. It is Obama, Kerry, Holder, ubermoron Chuck Hagel, and the rest of the mutants in the Obama ward.

    I could blindly throw a dart into a crowd of people protesting the prejudice against square wheels and unerringly hit someone smarter than Chuck Hagel. He was chosen for his ductile stupidity.

  • Tom M

    It’s about time Colin Powell starts taking some heat for encouraging the left to spew this no WMD’s non sense!… Blood is just as much on his hands from the deaths in Syria as they are on Obama’s, Kerry’s and Hillary’s…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

      Colin Powell was an excellent example of what a black person could achieve through work and dedication until he started to believe that black people should be given a step up because of the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. It would be interesting to hear what MLK would have to say today considering his historic dream of content of character being more important than content of skin and today’s system of affirmative action.

  • ApolloSpeaks

    OBAMA MUST BE SECRETLY THANKING GOD AND GEORGE BUSH

    for the Iraq War and downfall of Baathist dictator Saddam Hussein. If Saddam were still in power Arab Spring fever would have definitely spread to Iraq like it has to next door Syria where Baathist dictator Bashar Assad is killing his people in droves and WMDing many to death. Obama must be thanking God and Bush that he only has the headache of one mass murderering Baathist tyrant to deal with and humiliate him, not two.
    For more on this subject click or google
    http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/

    • StanleyT

      Hmmm, I wonder. This would require some humility on Obama’s part. It would mean he might have to admit that Bush was right and he was wrong. I’m not so sure he’s capable of doing that.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

        Hence the word ‘Secretly’

        Publicly, he decried Bush’s responsibility to protect and then engaged in his own responsibility to protect. Pres Obama’s hypocrisy exceeds the point where you can put any faith into what he says (e.g. the targeting by the IRS for political reasons in the past is reprehensible but the continued targeting is just a phony scandal not worth his time).

  • wildjew

    I want to dissent slightly. Of course there is base hypocrisy on the left. Where Bush left himself open to attack from the Democrats (who were waiting to pounce) was not the invasion of Iraq or the toppling of Saddam; both were defensible. It was the long and bloody occupation, the nation-building and (though Democrats did not attack it specifically) the attempt to spread democracy in the Muslim world.

    “The desire for freedom resides in every human heart…” (George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly, September 21, 2004)

    Islam = submission

    The following appeard in the The Jewish Daily Forward from 2007:

    “(S)ometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

    Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

    According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

      Good points there. That’s why I gave you a vote up.

      Pres Bush is a caring person that believed everyone wanted freedom and Democracy and would choose them if given the chance. The fact is that Islamism is a dictatorship religion not capable of working well with Democracy. Our founding fathers believed that Democracy could only work with a strong base in Western morals.

      • wildjew

        Thanks. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. I am a forty-two year registered Republican. In light of what transpired on American soil months later, Bush assumed the presidency at a critical time in world history. What concerned me most was what I heard after the 9/11 attacks. I did not see the kind of moral clarity other conservatives saw. I did not see a president who got up to speed on Islam after the attacks, or if he did it was not evident to me. More importantly, it grieved me that President Bush made a distinction between the jihad against Israel and the jihad against America and the West. I did not expect President Bush to announce that we are at war with Islam. Neither did I expect him to say the 9/11 hijackers were traitors to their faith, trying in effect to hijack Islam itself; a religion whose teachings are good and peaceful. Maybe in light of all this, it should not be surprising that only seven years after the 9/11 attacks, Americans elected a Muslim “born” president with deep sympathies for the world of Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

  • wildjew

    Unbeknownst to Bush at the time I suspect, Saudi government charities were funding al-Qaeda even as (then) Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul aziz demanded, late August 2001, Bush engage himself in the “Israel-Palestinian conflict” on the side of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians. If not Abdullah wrote: “You’re from Uruguay. You go your way. I go my way.”

    President Bush blinked. “Bush committed the United States for the first time in writing to seeing a Palestinian state established alongside Israel.”

    President Bush was prepared to make the announcement early September 2001. The September 11, 2001 attacks (al-Qaeda was / is a Saudi proxy; 15 of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi) put the announcement off till early October 2001.

    Sharon warns West against appeasement: “Israel is not Czechoslovakia”

    By Reuven Koret October 4, 2001

    In an unprecedented diplomatic challenge, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon cautioned the West, and the United States in particular, not to pursue a policy of appeasement toward the Arabs, referring to the historical precedent that European nations sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the hope that this would satisfy Nazi ambitions and bring peace….

    Sharon: “….I turn to the western democracies, first and foremost the leader of the free world, the United States. Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of a temporary, convenient solution. Don’t try to appease the Arabs at our expense. We will not accept this. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror.”

  • JVictor

    This so-called change of heart with members of the Obama administration is not a change at all. Every time there has been a destabilizing force that poses a greater threat to Israel, the Obama administration has supported that force. Cases in point: whether people liked him or not, Mubarak was a stabilizing force in Egypt–he was thrown under the bus in favor of the destabilizing Muslim Brotherhood revolution; whether people liked him or not, Qadafi had become a stabilizing force in Libya–he was ousted by radicals supported by this administration; when the Arab Spring fever tried to take hold in Iran to overthrow Ahmadinijad, this administration sat by silently while the revolution was quelled; Assad has been a stabilizing force in Syria–now this administration is talking about taking him out; now that the people of Egypt have spoken out against the abuses of power by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, this administration has been silent and absent in its support for the people; Saddam was a destabilizing force in his own right.
    It is clear that the Obama administration is working diligently, either actively or by apparent inaction, to destabilize the Middle East and northern Africa while alienating Israel at the same time. The question is, Why?

    • truebearing

      Saddam used WMDs on his own people, repeatedly, but Obama and the Left were wildly opposed to the war in Iraq. Saddam was commiting genocidal atrocities against the Kurds and Shiites, yet the Left opposed the war, though they supported Clinton in the Bosnian/Serbian war precisely because of what they termed genocide.
      Why is Obama doing everything in his power to enable the Islamists, destroy the US, and leave Israel at the non-existent mercy of the deranged Islamists? He’s a Muslim. He hates America. He’s evil.

    • defcon 4

      Alienating Israel is part of the same de-legitimization of Israel that has been going on for decades — in universities, colleges and the enemedia. I used to think the W. Bank would be the 21st century’s Sudetenland, but maybe the plan now is for all of Israel to be sacrificed to appease islam0nazism.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bryan-Schmick/100000836170959 Bryan Schmick

    Let’s not forget pres Obama’s reason to go to war in Libya was a responsibility to protect. One wonders why he felt it was important to protect the prospect of thousands of Libyas being killed and tortured but not the actual tens of thousands of Iraqis being killed and tortured.

  • D_boy

    Impeach Obama for treason, giving aid and comfort to our enemies those we are at war(WOT) with. Those he is going to prop up in Syria are Al-Quida, just like he did in Libya and Egypt. Supporting and arming terrorist sworn to our destruction. This truly enough, every American I know are pissed.

    • 11bravo

      Yeah Right – that will do it!
      Any other bright ideas?

      • defcon 4

        Expel you to live in an islamofascist state?

  • oneteedoffpatriot

    These bozos are gonna go against Israel and have a big crap sandwich shoved down their throat.

  • Kythas

    Except that preliminary investigations by UN inspectors on the ground show that it’s the rebels who are using the WMDs and not the Syrian government.

    But that’s not the story we’re being fed now, is it?

    • BS77

      We have no real information yet that would show the origin of the so called CHEMICAL weapons ….it would not surprise me to learn the rebels used these substances gambling that this would make Western powers attack the Assad regime. Nothing out of that part of the world would surprise me now. There are over 100 000 dead, over a million refugees and thousands more dying every month……seems like the “red line” was crossed a long time ago….with or without chemical weapons.

    • 11bravo

      You are lying!!

      • BS77

        Who is lying? This is called conjecture….we are trying to

        figure out who used these weapons, if they were used at all. You certainly don’t know.

        • 11bravo

          Preliminary shows the exact opposite!! That is why I said you are a liar. The rebels do not have missiles – they have no way of delivering these weapons – I mean c’mon man…Use your brain!!

          • Kythas

            Sarin gas doesn’t need to be delivered by missiles. It can be loaded on short range rockets and/or mortars, also.

            Come on, man, we found over 500 mortar shells in Iraq with Sarin gas after the 2003 invasion.

            Here are some videos where Syrian rebels are talking on the radio about delivering Sarin, and a picture of rebel forces in Syria loading what appears to be a chemical canister onto a rocket launcher.

            http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

            I’m surprised you’re unaware of these chemical weapons delivery methods, Mr. 11-Bravo. I was an 11-Hotel MOS and I know we were taught this in our NBC training at Ft. Benning.

          • 11bravo

            11Hotel was taken so I used 11b, that was all our default MOS.
            My point is Sarin is not nearly as effective if you put it with something that explodes. It gets ineffective quickly – but can still cause some casualties.
            I will wait to hear what the delivery method was – I am not following breaking news for this info – it will come soon enough.

      • Kythas

        No, sir, I am not.

        I’m merely stating what a UN weapons inspector was quoted as saying in the Guardian newspaper.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

  • amspirnational

    No, Iraqi generals, as Scott Ritter outlined, said that Saddam no longer had WMDs.
    They were not shipped to Syria. But the fix for that war was in and if Israel insists, the fix for this war might be in too.
    Greenfield didn’t care about Iraqi Christians who were going to be endangered after Saddam’s fall-and have been. But so what? “Christians” like Bush didn’t care either. Oh yeah, on the left, you have to go as far as a Dennis Kucinich type to depend on consistent anti-war stances. But on the right, other than Ron (not necessarily Rand) Paul, you had and have no one to depend on either.

    • patron2

      You see no problem with the Democrat’s disgusting politicizing of the Iraq War, which they voted for as well? That’s the point of the article.

      Democrats saw they were getting the blame for 9/11, and it was affecting their trillion dollar a year political machine. They needed political attacks on Republicans, and just went feral hog on No Blood for Oil, when many Democrats including Hillary and John Kerry voted for it.

    • truebearing

      Oh, if Scott Ritter said it, then case closed!
      Ritter was wrong about Bush planning to invade Iran. He was wrong about Syria not developing nukes after Israel bombed the facility. He was wrong about a lot of things, but that’s not unusual for a delusional child molestor.
      The Christians endangered after Saddam’s fall were endangered before he fell, too. It is Obama who completely dropped the ball in Iraq. Apparently you are confused and think Daniel Greenfield is the president. I wish.
      Ron Paul is as delusional as you are when it comes to foreign policy. He is clueless Maybe now would be a good time to curl up in the isolationist fetal position and pretend you’re safe, as long as you stay in your ideological bubble.

  • TexasVetgal

    Hypocrisy of this fraud and liar Ob0Zo is breathtaking.

    “The anti-war party has become the war party and in a supreme irony, its cause for a new war is the familiar one of stopping a Baath Party regime from using weapons of mass destruction against civilians”.

    That statement says it all.
    He should be in Prison and not at the helm of our Nation.

  • Ampersand

    I guess we are at war with Oceania now!

  • Anamah

    Hypocrite weathercocks going as the wind flow with no conscience, moral or decency… Do these believe to be invisible???
    The world can see how cheap buffoons they are.

  • LDMack

    Nothing good is going to come from this. Nothing…

  • Ellman48

    Will Syria provide Obama with the key to infiltrate Egypt to save the Muslim Brotherhood? Is the latter his real objective in getting involved with Syria, even if only briefly? John McCain will surely support him 1000%. Wouldn’t surprise me if McCain changes party’s before his next election.

  • Ellman48

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were major blunders by the Bush Administration. It should have found another way to capture or kill bin Laden, as his ultimate demise clearly illustrated. But we have to ask, what is motivating Obama to engage Syria all of a sudden when the chemical attacks occurred in April? Is it possible that Syria will be the gateway for saving the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? It’s the only motivation that makes sense to me, given that only 9% of Americans support any action on Syria. This regime’s actions and motivations remain, as always, mysterious,unclear and inscrutable.

  • pupster40

    If this regime or any of its puppets touch policy, you can take it to the bank that it is anti American.
    The progressives are trying to take the communist playbook verbatim, and using it like an amateur trying to go pro.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    It seems that folks here at Frongpage see all kinds of faults with Barry Soetoro and his progressive radical administration and CZARS but have no problem with the fact that he used three fraudulent documents that enabled him to become a candidate for the office of the POTUS. Those documents are a proven forged birth certificate, a fraudulent registration with the Selective Service in 2008 after he refused to do so in 1980 as an Indonesian citizen and a flagged E-Verified fraudulent SS#. Shame on all of you. Do you think the Democrats and liberal web pages would allow a Republican to get away with these crimes?

  • Frank W Brown

    There is nothing but total CRAP coming from the REGIME!

  • ApolloSpeaks

    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
    IF ASSAD IS BEING WRONGFULLY BLAMED FOR GASSING HIS PEOPLE AFTER KILLING THEM EN MASSE SO MUCH THE BETTER.
    His fall will be a mighty blow to Iran and Hezbollah-the two worst actors in the region followed by their Sunni counterparts. I pray that Obama (following Bush and Blair) does a Saddam on Assad and brings down his regime even if it means the Brotherhood replacing him-the lesser of two evils (but not for Syrian Christians, Alowites and women). And if the venture goes awry Obama will be blamed, with the left tearing him apart like vicious wolves branding him George Bush and Cheney II. What a spectacle that would be. And what a boon for Conservatives and the GOP.
    http://apollospaeks.blogtownha

    • glennd1

      How is the hegemony of Sunni Salafist forces in the region a good thing for the U.S.? Isn’t a strategic balance between the Shia actually our best bet, leaving both at each other’s throats and neither able to dominate the other. Try to imagine the Saudi Sheikhs being overthrown by Wahabbists, well, it’s goodbye Israel.

      • defcon 4

        Iran has already repeatedly threatened to obliterate Israel, and Iran is militarily much more capable of doing so that Soddy Barbaria.

  • Truth Holder

    Funny how many of the previously antiwar people are now prowar, and the previous prowar people are now antiwar, or at least extremely cautious and skeptical when they weren’t before. Looks like there’s plenty of partisan hypocrisy all around.

  • danshanteal

    You certainly have your act together. So many geeks in the picture and so few statesmen.

  • lewpubco

    When the hawks are ready to line up their children and grandchilden to go to war, I’ll begin to believe them. Until then, they are simply hypocrites with nothing to lose. Their families are safe and sound while they run others’ sons and daughters off to war. A pox on all their houses.

  • melvin lafleur

    nuke ‘em.

  • davcer

    It seems Obama has just discovered children ! Like Pelosi and Feinstein. Children and women are killed in illegal drone strikes – happening right now. Let’s see those videos.
    WMD ??? USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS MUST BE PUNISHED !!!
    http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/
    BABIES BEING BORN WITHOUT EYES AND LIMBS
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
    AN ENTIRE VILLAGE, OVER HALF WOMEN AND CHILDREN, MURDERED
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJxb7CY13uc
    3 MILLION WITH SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS SO FAR – CHILDREN BORN DEFORMED

    And, of course, the children in the van in the “collateral murder” video.
    http://collateralmurder.com/

  • Kevin

    The reason Bigears pulled back from military action against Syria because his betters finally pounded into his head that the ‘opposition’ to Asswad’ s gov’t is made up of bloodthirsty Muslim jags.
    I don’t think this has set in Lurch’ s fetid yellow brain yet.