"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace, and there is no doubt in my mind that the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power." These were the words that President Bush found himself saying as he answered questions about reports that intelligence he used about Iraqi uranium procurement may have been tainted. As astonishing as it must have been to him to qualify the removal of someone from power who thought that mass graves were a quaint way to decorate his country it doesn’t seem to bother the people who supported the man who gutted our intelligence community. Even in the face of the admission that the information was found to be corrupt after the fact.

As the liberal-left in this country puts forward reasons why we should commit our military men and women to the struggle facing the nation of Liberia we are hearing their call for an investigation into just how compromised and battered our intelligence community has become. While I agree that these inquiries are necessary I believe that, if left to the stewardship of the liberal-left, somehow the blame will fail to be squarely placed on the shoulders of the individual responsible for compromising their effectiveness. To deny that the Clinton Administration’s contempt for the intelligence community is the cause of the current breakdown in the intelligence community is to have one’s head buried deeply in the Iraqi sand.

For the eight years of the Clinton Administration, in a world full of change and turmoil, the CIA and the NSA saw nothing but budget cuts while experiencing an increased demand in their effectiveness. Not only was funding for vital intelligence programs slashed but staffing at the Langley, Virginia headquarters, as well as at field offices all over the world, was downsized. Field operatives were spread amazingly thin and the sentiment at The White House couldn’t have been more nonchalant. After all, we could utilize the intelligence from other countries, the United Nations and NATO to suit our needs, right? How wrong they were.

It should come as no surprise that Bill Clinton used the same inaccurate British intelligence reports when he made his decisions to authorize military action against Iraq, al Qaida and in Bosnia that George Bush is being criticized for using in making his State of the Union speech. Somehow those reports were functional when a democratic president unleashed our military might but now that the Commander-and-Chief is of a different political affiliation they are not even suitable for inclusion in a speech. The double standard is incredible.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who has a past that our intelligence community should look into, is quoted as saying, "It's bad enough that such a glaring blunder became part of the president's case for war. It's far worse if the case for war was made by deliberate deception."

Senator Kennedy’s words are the words of a political creature and the spin is horrendous. The fact is, the case for military action in Iraq came the moment Saddam Hussein violated the cease-fire agreement that arrested the Gulf War but the liberal-left refuses to admit it. Each and every time the Iraqis violated the ceasefire by shooting at coalition aircraft and each time they murdered their own people because of Hussein’s insane political agenda a justifiable case for military action was made. These weren’t once in a blue moon occasions, they happened every day. The tainted intelligence from the British wouldn’t have had anything to do with that even if it would have been accurate.

The case for employing our military might in Iraq was much more inclusive than simply the matter of weapons of mass destruction. It had to do with the well being of an entire nation of people. Yet the liberal-left and the mainstream media chose not to focus on the humanitarian or legal reasons for disposing of Saddam Hussein and his regime and instead insisted on focusing on a spectacularly frightening topic that would sell more papers, garner higher ratings and shock more people. Kennedy knows it and he is playing the political angle in preparation for the 2004 elections. And he is not the only one.

If there is to be an investigation into how our intelligence community came to be so compromised it shouldn’t be conducted by a partisan commission, especially one assembled by the democratic left. If there is to be an investigation a commission from outside the government should conduct it and it should be informational in nature. Of course, if this should come to pass it would mean that the liberal-left wouldn’t have any control over which direction the investigation would venture or how far back in time the inquiry could go and that, for them, would be unacceptable. It would mean that responsibility for the intelligence breakdown would have to be laid at the feet of the person responsible and they couldn’t allow Bill Clinton to take the fall, not with Hillary positioning herself so blatantly for a presidential run in 2008.

Simply put, they are searching for an issue to pummel to death for the 2004 Presidential Election. They should stay away from this one.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.