Posted on 07/26/2004 9:29:49 AM PDT by knighthawk
At this point we have four independent sources that say there was no lying by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The 9/11 commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's British investigation and Vladimir Putin have all stated that the WMD intelligence was faulty but the politicians did nothing untoward. So what should be done with the people who accused Bush and Blair of intentionally lying to bring war to the world? Have you heard any of them apologize for their slander? I haven't.
Let's go further. The 9/11 commission report criticizes both President Bush and Bill Clinton for failing to act on the Al Qaeda danger. That's what the Richard Clarke controversy was about. The former White House terrorism adviser ran wild suggesting that Bush ignored him. The partisan Clarke played down the fact that Clinton also failed to act on his advice to actively engage Osama Bin Laden. The 9/11 commission filled in that blank.
Imagine if Bush had ignored the CIA assertion that Saddam had anthrax and other substances. If Al Qaeda had attacked us with deadly weapons from Baghdad, and Bush had rejected intelligence about WMDs, he would have gone down in history as the incompetent of all time.
Based on intelligence, Bush had to confront Saddam. He tried to work within the framework of the United Nations. But it was obvious the UN would procrastinate as long as possible, as it is doing now in Sudan.
What would you have done if you were Bush? You are told by U.S. and British intelligence that a brutal dictator had WMDs and had supported terrorism all over the Mideast. Known terrorists, including Bin Laden pal Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were living in Iraq. And you sit there while Hans Blix runs around the desert? Come on. Bush could have delayed action and planned better for the aftermath, but, ultimately, he had to act.
Every time I hear some extremist rant about presidential "lies," I get furious. These people put all of us in danger. Many far-left Web sites spew allegations that have no basis in fact. Unfortunately, these people now have sympathy in the mainstream press and can get their libel distributed. Let me give you an example from experience.
In my analysis of the attack on Sept. 11, I gave airtime to a young man who lost his father at the World Trade Center. This guy said on my TV program that Bush and his father were responsible for the 3,000 deaths and that his own father had "allegedly" been murdered by Al Qaeda. He went on to imply that America was the true terrorist nation.
The man had no evidence for this, and was dismissed by me in a not very gentle way. The guy was and is a disgrace. But not to the far left: To them, he's a hero. These people have used him as an example of someone persecuted by "conservatives."
It is dishonest and disheartening. The ultraleft fanatics will pretty much say and do anything to destroy those with whom they disagree. These people are hurting all Americans by obstructing the true terrorist danger we are facing today.
Bush and Blair did not lie. It is far past time that clear-thinking Americans begin holding the true liars accountable. Our lives may depend on it.
Ping
Yes, he's not a die hard conservative but he does make enough good points along the way to be worth a listen.
That ego though....
DAMN
Left wingers and their agenda are responsible for more destruction than Osama could ever dream of.
O'Reilly isn't too consistent but this article was good.
It has long been my contention that O'Reilly is at his best when debunking the left. He also has a pretty good straightforward way of presenting the big picture.
I love to catch the first segment of his show - Talking Points Memo. That is not to say I accept anything Bill O'Reilly says uncritically. I generally won't watch any other part of the program unless a good guest is on. I enjoyed Geraldine Ferraro's last appearance.
Can you give me an example of where he is not consistent? Just curious.
It can't be said often enough - and truly - that Bush made essentially the same allegations about Iraq that were made over many years by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Daschle, Kennedy, Lieberman, Gephardt, and virtually every prominent Democrat. Yet the Dems - and many in the media - want to pretend that it was only Bush who ever talked about the Iraqi threat. Remember when Madeline Albright said - in response to critiques of the U.N. sanctions - that the deaths of 500,000 children were justified if they were part of the price to pay for containing the threat of Saddam Hussein?
I think he/she means that O'Reilly isn't consistently conservative or consistently a supporter of the Bush administration, not that O'Reilly contradicts himself. Just a guess . . .
I think he/she means that O'Reilly isn't consistently conservative or consistently a supporter of the Bush administration, not that O'Reilly contradicts himself. Just a guess . . .
If that's what he/she means, then he/she needs to know that O'Reilly considers himself an Independant, not Conservative or Liberal. I'm not sure I would consider that inconsistent.
Well, he's not consistently conservative, since he isn't really a conservative but is thought of as one by the mainstream media. Sometimes he goes way to the left on certain issues.
Big O is definitely not conservative, at least politically speaking. His agenda more often aligns with the left.
Some people have a misconception that because he detests liers and attacks them with a vengance, he 'must' be a conservative.
No wonder. Leftists are the children of the "Father of Lies".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.