Don't you believe it. Those 16 words were still a lie!
by JohnHuang2
Sorry, Charlie, but I'm not buying. Those 16 words. No way. Have you seen the latest twist? Nice, very nice try. But no dice. Doesn't jive with the facts. Yet, they want us to believe those 16 words so badly, a full-court press is underway. But you'd have to be delusional to believe a word in those 16 words of Joe Wilson's: My wife was not involved in sending me to Niger and Saddam did not want Yellowcake. Did you see his column in the Washington Post? It appeared over the weekend. Like I said, nice try, but no dice. I don't care what he says, 16 wrongs don't make a right.
What I can't understand is, how could anyone have taken a chronic lying liar and dirtbag like Wilson seriously? I mean, it's not like the chap had built a good, solid reputation -- such as owning a newspaper that puts rumors on its front page or anything. Yet the whole media believed him. And where is the media now -- now that the truth has come out? If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you,' I call them girlie men.
And what about Joe Wilson? Where is he now? (In fairness, Joe Wilson isn't exactly hiding. His face is all over every milk carton).
Seriously though, what is the Clymer saying now to defend himself? He claims that vicious right-wing, warmongering, Saddam-bashing, Mullah-hating Republicans lied about him in that "Republican-written" Senate Intelligence Committee report. In other words, Republicans lied to their report. Did you read what those Bush-loving toadies on that committee like Jay Rockefeller wrote in that thing? (Aside from gushing compliments and effusive praise for the CIA on Iraq). The AP sums it up this way: The report, "rather than discrediting the Iraq-Niger link, actually bolstered the views of some analysts who suspected Saddam was seeking uranium". Buttressing that view further, "The committee cited separate reports received from foreign intelligence services on Oct. 15, 2001, and Feb. 5, 2002, and March 25, 2002." (Being that the sources are 'foreign', no doubt Kerry can't wait to embrace 'em as credible). The AP adds that "Though Wilson reported to U.S. officials there was 'nothing to the story' that Niger sold uranium to Iraq, the CIA and DIA" knew better.
In other words, Bush, in his State of the Uranium Address in 2003, told the truth when he said, 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Wilson says Bush, out of sheer arrogance, ignored his perfect investigation).
The AP notes that the Committee report also "challenges Wilson's denial that his wife (Valerie Plame, whose super secret undercover CIA status was known only to everyone in the Beltway) had a role" in his selection to go to Niger. In his Washington Post column, Joe Wilson, who values truth so much he uses it sparingly, still maintains that his wife had "nothing to do with" his trip to Niger. Absolutely no connection. No role whatsoever -- except to recommend him for the trip, telling her CIA colleagues that "my husband has good relations with both PM (Prime Minister) and former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." All of this was part of her effort to remain as hands-offish as possible. (Frankly, I'd like to see the Feds frog-march them both out of their house in handcuffs).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of frogs, former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger, target of a criminal probe over 'mishandled' classified documents that he stole from the National Archives, resigned Tuesday as national security adviser to Kerry. (When I heard this, I was stunned and amazed. Kerry had a national security adviser?)
Reports are that the documents were not 'returned to their proper place.' (Sorta like Bank robbery, when the money is not returned to its proper place).
Berger, who denies any wrong doing (it was a Document Malfunction), issued this statement through his criminal lawyer: "Mr. Berger does not want any issue surrounding the 9/11 Commission to be used for partisan purposes. With that in mind he has decided to step aside as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign until this matter is resolved."
Berger says he didn't really mean to steal any documents (was he doing a Documentary?), or that he stole them by accident or that he stuffed them in his pants but can't remember where he put his pants. (Pants do this all the time -- play tricks on you). Or that he "mishandled" them into his socks inadvertently (I hate when that happens). Or that he lost them in his socks. He did this -- stuffed documents into his pants, socks, shirt, underwear accidentally -- during three separate visits to the National Archives in 2003 to brush up for the 9/11 Commission. On each visit, he also accidentally brought a briefcase in order to accidentally steal documents. In any case, Berger says he's totally innocent and nobody saw him do it. He also says he's commited to finding the real burglars here. (I think this is a bungled bergerlary). He did admit to removing handwritten notes and 'mishandling' them out the front door of the building but that's only because he's a novice who had no idea removing extremely sensitive documents was a crime. (He was National Security adviser for 8 years, so he's just a beginner). Among the documents Berger burglarized by accident, and which are still missing along with his socks, were highly classified drafts of an "after-action" report on how Clinton, during the Dec. '99 millennium celebration, prevented a terrorist attack by accident. (He also searched for documents documenting Clinton administration efforts to fight terrorism but probably came up empty).
News of the Bergergate probe comes only days before the 9/11 attacks, er, the 9/11 Commission attacks, with a report expected to show that Iran had links to al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda passed through Iran from Afghanistan on its way to Iraq, which had no links to al-Qaeda. News of the Bergergate probe also comes only days before the Democrat convention in Boston that Kerry had wanted to use to convince voters that Bush, in going to war against Iraq, used poor judgment (unlike the more seasoned Kerry who hires people like Sandy Berger and Joe Wilson and votes for going to war against Iraq).
Some Democrats question the timing of the growing scandal triggered by Democrats. Chris Lehane, Democrat political consultant, told Fox News Tuesday that he suspects "political shenanigans going on here, in terms of how this became public right now." (Not ignoring a Democrat crook stealing documents is really hitting below the belt). He compared it to "one of those situations where you go to bed at night and there's no snow on the ground, you wake up, and there's snow on the ground. You can conclude that it snowed." (You can conclude that it snowed because of Global Warming, too).
Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign added just 4 percentage points in new support overall since the Edwards selection, only half the median forecast, a new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows, raising serious questions about the strength and durability of the Kerry recovery, which dates to January when Howard Dean imploded. (Dean imploded right after extremely accurate media polls said Dean wrapped up the nomination). The unexpectedly weak data, well below the usual pace of growth in polls from a VP selection, fueled growing anxiety among Democrats about a Bounceless Recovery. The disappointing report, showing persistently weak demand for Kerry, similarly took forecasters by surprise, with most expecting support to grow by 8 points or more, in line with past recoveries. Support for the Kerry/Edwards ticket rose from 45% in June to 49% after the Edwards announcement earlier this month. Forecasters, on average, had expected a Kerry-buying voter frenzy -- a jump in support for Kerry to 53%, overall. Far from the torrid pace analysts had forecast, the tepid numbers suggests people just aren't buying Kerry, despite the campaign's aggressive TV ad push -- $80 million and counting -- bolstered by unlimited amounts spent by the media and pro-Kerry 527s. (In blitzkrieg fashion, Kerry campaign ads, like clockwork, appear every night on three major broadcast networks. The ads are titled, 'The Evening News' and run for about a half hour). In the CBS News poll, support for Bush/Cheney held steady at 44% for both months.
(Wilson again insisted his wife was not involved in the decision to ship him to Niger).
The very sluggish support growth for Kerry, whose campaign throughout 2003 got mired in its worse slump since its last slump the day Kerry announced he's running, could foreshadow even more trouble ahead. If the convention next week in Boston fails to provide a stimulus in line with past conventions (10-15 points), the risk of a double-dip slump for Kerry in the coming months grows dramatically. (Interestingly, evidence of a Bounceless Recovery is seen in that Kerry's current 49% isn't sharply different from readings posted in January, the end of the last slump). After the GOP convention next month in New York, a sharp increase in rates -- job approval rates -- for Bush could more than undue the effects of the Democrat convention stimulus: A sharp spike in rates could burst the tiny Kerry bubble altogether. Before release of the CBS News survey, analysts had expected any modest increase in rates for Bush to be helpful to Kerry. The dampening effect of the higher rates for Bush would keep the Kerry campaign from overheating too early. Now, with reports showing continuing slack for Kerry, any post-convention rate uptick for Bush risks pushing the fragile Kerry campaign back into slump-mode.
(Bergergate figure Samuel Berger insisted Wilson's wife had nothing to do with shipping Wilson to Niger).
The much-weaker-than-expected poll gain for Kerry -- despite the Edwards selection -- underscores underlying, fundamental weaknesses plaguing the campaign. Kerry had counted on Edwards to boost his election effort and revive his stalled campaign. Though the Edwards pick buoyed expectations for steady growth, the lackluster July results cast a pall over the campaign and fueled renewed debate over tactics and strategy. At best, the sluggish numbers show voters remain reluctant to hire -- hire Kerry/Edwards. With expected rate hikes for Bush from his convention, the Kerry campaign needs a stimulus of 12%-15% in Boston or risk slipping into recession.
"Al Gore kissed Tipper on stage and improved his poll standing by eight points," the Christian Science Monitor noted Monday. This time around, by naming his running mate early, the presumptive Democrat nominee purged what little suspense or drama remained here (Kerry even let word get out that he served in Vietnam!), so, question is: Will Kerry improve his poll standing by eight points when he makes out on stage with John Edwards?
Stay tuned.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~