CLICK FOR TODAY'S CARTOONS

Monday, November 21, 2005

The Incredible Deceit of Some Democrat Senators, But Not All


You may think it unnecessary to keep defending President Bush against the charge that he Lied about WMD, but as long as these dangerous clowns keep repeating the charge, and as long as the mainstream media keeps urging them on, bloggers like myself are going to keep answering.

Please take note of a new banner under my profile that asks "Did Bush Lie". If you click on it, it does a Google Search of "Clinton-Iraq-1998". The search results are very informative. Bush didn't lie, he acted to protect our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren to come - something Clinton, embroiled in the Monica sexual harassment scandal was unable or unwilling to do.

The Incredible Deceit of Some Democrat Senators
"Big Lie Democrats"
By Brandon Crocker
The American Spectator
Published 11/17/2005 12:07:13 AM

"When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.

This has been the mantra of leading Democrats since the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, pulled his stunt to force the Senate into "closed session" as a "protest" over the supposed foot-dragging of Senate Republicans in the "Phase II" investigation looking into the matter. ("Phase I," which looked into allegations that the administration pressured the U.S. intelligence community to "cook" the intelligence to support the war, concluded, without a single Democrat dissent, that no such pressure took place). And now, to complete the farce, Senator John Kerry, during a press conference on November 14, proclaimed "the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history."

Senator Kerry, one might recall, built his political career on his status as a "war hero" in Vietnam, due to the fact that he amazingly, in four months time, was awarded three purple hearts (giving him a free ticket home), for wounds that, upon further scrutiny, appear, well, hyped. His most serious wound seems to have been unintentionally self-inflicted, and the first, of unknown origin, required treatment with a dab of Neosporin ointment. Upon returning home he made a name for himself by accusing U.S. soldiers of routinely committing atrocities, which he now admits he never actually saw, and which may not have been true. And then, of course, there is his famous story of his Christmas incursion into Cambodia, "seared" into his memory, strangely seared, since it, too, never happened. And during his presidential campaign he gave the distinct impression that he had met with "foreign leaders" who endorsed his candidacy, "negotiated treaties" while serving as a senator, and had been a much better college student than the idiot George W. Bush -- all of which turned out to be untrue.

Senator Kerry is, in fact, the Great Deceiver. So it is fitting that he has now taken up the Democratic crusade against George W. Bush, accusing him of lying to the Senate and to the American people on the basis of, well, let's be honest, next to no evidence, and in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So far, the heart of the Democratic case seems to be one CIA document, declassified with great fanfare by Senator Carl Levin, which questions the credibility of one source regarding one issue (the training of al-Qaeda personnel in Iraq). But it is not clear that Bush was ever given this particular document, or that members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees did not have access to it. What is clear, however, is that the CIA had other sources that corroborated the story, and CIA chief George Tenet felt that the overall evidence supported the story, regardless of the credibility issues of one source. It is certainly ironic that this cherry-picked document, in the Democrats' eyes, qualifies as damning evidence that Bush "cherry picked" intelligence to "mislead" the country into war.

It is also fitting, and ironic, that the Democratic leadership, which has used language comparing the actions of U.S. military personnel with that of Nazis (as in Senator Dick Durbin's infamous speech on the floor of the Senate, broadcast throughout the Middle East via al-Jazeera, for which he eventually felt compelled to apologize), now seems so adept at employing the propaganda strategy described by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels as "the Big Lie." Unfortunately, this Big Lie has been working (with the "mainstream" news media reporting the Democrats' daily accusations, with barely a mention of inconvenient facts to the contrary), and a majority of Americans now say that they believe that George W. Bush intentionally lied about Saddam's WMD programs in order to push an "unnecessary war." But as any watcher of public opinion polls knows, these sentiments can change.

Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that "the primary rationale for the war" has been "discredited," whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not?

The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so. It is what the Michael Mooron base of the party desires, and with the American public showing weariness of the war and of hearing the casualty figures reported daily in the media, the time is ripe, they calculate, to hammer Bush on the war. The only problem is, much of the Democratic leadership supported going to war. That dilemma is solved, in their mind, by pushing the argument that they were "misled" by Bush into doing so. This may turn out to be a bit uncomfortable for the Democrats' probable 2008 presidential candidate -- Hilary Clinton -- who is already on record as admitting that the intelligence used by the Bush administration was consistent with the intelligence assessments during the Bill Clinton presidency. But the Democrats will cross that bridge when they come to it. In the meantime, it is the Democratic priority to discredit the U.S. Commander in Chief, in time of war, simply because he's a Republican.

History will, most probably, correct the current misperceptions regarding Bush "lying us into war." And, most probably, history will eventually render an unflattering judgment on the Democratic leadership's current behavior. But that will be small comfort if the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Fortunately, Bush seems to have awoken to the fact that he can't continue simply to shrug off Democratic attacks and will, with the Republicans in Congress, aggressively respond to the Democrats' smear campaign." Brandon Crocker

NOT ALL DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ARE SUCH TURNCOATS

Quote of the week from Senator Lieberman:

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there."

--Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Last Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

5 Comments:

At 7:02 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

I'd love to present this question to Kerry and Kennedy. If Saddam didn't have WMDs, then what did his Uncle Chemical Ali use to kill all those Kerds and Iranians? We're fighting terrorist in this county, we got rid of a trouble making murderous dictator, and we freed millions of Iraqis. So, what are the Democrats trying to say with all this useless rhetoric? Should we just let Saddam go? Get out of Iraq right now and watch this country become deeply engulfed by terrorists who have no value for human life, take over the whole middle East? What are we to do as a free country, stick our heads in the sand in the same way that France has done all these years? If these are the choices that the Democrats offer, then I dread seeing any of these fools in the Oval Office in 08. Believe me, we're doomed if one of these Democrats ever gets in. It would be like going back to the days of smiling Jimmy Carter, a person of high moral integrity, who was a terrible President, a real bumbler, and a lapdog for dictators like Saddam and Fidel. No,-- I don't think so. We've already traveled that route before, and this country suffered the very lowest prestige during the Carter years. The Democrats need to stop playing games and come together with some solid solutions on what this country and the whole world is facing. I really don't believe they are taking all this serious.

 
At 8:02 AM, Anonymous phil said...

Republicans Calling a Decorated War Hero a Coward Devalue the Heroism of our Soldiers Currently Serving in Iraq

Even in the Orwellian world of American politics the events of recent weeks have been surreal. But despite all the arguing going on among our political leaders one thing has been constant, that is the overwhelming support for our troops in the field. Regardless of ones political affiliation or view on the conduct of the operation in Iraq, it is clear that all Americans support the troops, and all grieve equally when they are injured or die.

It is clear to anybody who is paying the least bit of attention that the war in Iraq is not going well. Thus far 2094 American soldiers have died and more than 15,000 have been left permanently disabled. The war has thus far cost the average American family over $3000 and costs each family an additional $100 per week. The sole measure of success on the part of the wars supporters is that if we left now the country of Iraq would implode. Americans have rightly come to question whether this is an appropriate measure of success for a war that has cost us all so dearly.

But as the Bush Administration grows increasingly desperate they have come to adopt a strategy of questioning the patriotism of those with whom they disagree. It should be noted that 63% of Americans believe that the war is not going well, and that 57% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration misused pre-war intelligence to justify their preconceived plans of going to war. But Bush and Cheney are undeterred, grimly describing those who don’t agree with their policies as “deeply irresponsible, reprehensible and dishonest.”

Recently the Bush war marketing campaign has taken a further turn, suggesting that those who question the Administration conduct of the war undermine our soldiers in the field, that those who disagree with Bush don’t support the soldiers. Only19% of Americans support Cheney, 34% support Bush and only 40% of Americans still believe that Bush is honest. Those numbers seem to be sinking by the day as Americans are increasingly disgusted and appalled by an Administration and a Republican Congress that judges whether citizens support their own soldiers on the basis of who agrees or disagrees with the Administration war policy.

There is no doubt that we ask a great deal of our soldiers in the field, this has been the case throughout the history of our country. We have seen so many times that ordinary men are asked to perform extraordinary duties; those that go above and beyond are considered heroes and recognized by their country for their valor. Just over a week ago our country paused to reflect and remember, and to honor those who served our country in war. Veterans proudly displayed their medals, tokens of appreciation from a grateful country for their acts of bravery. Today in Iraq we have men and women performing those same duties on our behalf; some will be similarly honored.

But what message does it send to our soldiers in the field in Iraq, soldiers whom we are asking to perform extraordinary acts of bravery on our behalf, when their Commander in Chief questions the bravery and patriotism of a soldier who earned 2 purple hearts? When the Vice President (himself a recipient of 5 deferments) suggests that a much-decorated veteran who happens to disagree with him “lacks backbone?” When a Republican member of Congress suggests that that same decorated war veteran is a coward? Does it devalue the service of our soldiers in the field when they see that the Administration can so easily dismiss a war hero as a coward simply because he disagrees with them? Why should they be as committed to duty, honor and bravery as John Murtha was when they see that the Administration would piss on Murtha and his medals for their political purposes? Would the Administration do the same to them?

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, just when you thought you had seen the worst of American politics, we’re treated to the spectacle of cowards like Cheney calling heroes like Murtha a coward. Orwell lives, but the last shred of decency on the part of the Bush Administration has long since passed. The Bushtanic is sinking, but as it was when Nixon went down the mood is not celebratory, it’s far more like mourning; mourning for our country, for all of us…for we brought it upon ourselves when we elected the incompetent bastard.

 
At 9:43 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

Phil, A few points:
1. I would hate to have had you in charge in 1943 when Guadalcanal and Anzio losses were in the 10's of thousands and the Germans and the Japanese looked invincible. hy didn't we just say then, "this is tough; let's pack it in".
2. The only poll that counts in the USA is an election, and the American people reaffirmed the policies of President Bush in November, 2004.
3. No-one is calling Murtha a coward, just wrong - just as he was sadly, and now historically wrong, when he called for Clinton's pullout from Somalia.

 
At 9:59 AM, Anonymous Mason said...

It seems odd that so many people can be so much uniformed. New York Fovernor Hughes @the year 1800 whwn there was much objection to the Stae to build the Erie Canal stated Those who object the most know the least" He was quite right, New York went on to build the Erie Canal and the GNP rose nearly 20%/year for the next 18 years making the US a economy the power house of the world. Today we have a very vociferous anti-Bush campaign bases on lies, inuendos and conspiracy theory. I am glad I only read non-fiction. To me these clowns are acting with mob histeria and respond just like the chickens in the hen house, once one pecks on a particular chicken they all do. Doesn't make much sense but neither do all of you nitpickers out there who are slamming Bush and have no facts to back it up. Incidently most decorated war heroes came to be so because that they were in a particular place fighting for their own lives. Many of them didn't cut in run bcause if they turned their back on the enemy they would get shot in the back. That ought to be a lesson to you who would propose to turn your back on the terroists. Most of these were true heros and very patriotic but not all, so please stop using fallacious reasoning and be a bit more pragmatic about the harm you are doing to this country here and abroad!!!! My great solace is that the Democrats have a gentleman like Leiberman that stands up for what he thinks is right. Just an ending note..all of you Bush haters can call him a lair, dishonest and charge him with despicable acts, what is going on now is we are giving you just a little bit of what you gave, or are you too self-righteous to deserve the same treatment that you give??

 
At 9:55 AM, Anonymous steve said...

I've always liked Leiberman among the dems. He at least understands the long view.
I almost fell off my chair when I saw the picture 1)cut 2)run
Too funny....too sad.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home