Posted on 11/01/2005 4:27:06 PM PST by new yorker 77
Perhaps the best explanation for the Democrats' decision to virtually shut down the Senate today can be found in one passage from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference last Friday:
This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
Fitzgerald's statement, and his decision to confine the indictment of Lewis Libby to charges of lying and obstruction, threatened to dash the Democrats' hope of using the CIA leak case as an opportunity to re-debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq. So the party, or at least its leaders in the Senate, has decided to use another route, the shutdown of the Senate, as a way to achieve that goal.
Posted at 03:34 PM
How about the loser libs who kep saying 'Hannah had flipped abd will turn on Cheney'.
HE JUST GOT A PROMOTION, YOU LOSERS!!
How about Republicans finally grow a spine and support the military effort and remind the left of a few things.
1. Remind the left that every single Democrat of note said in 1998 that Iraq's WMD posed a danger to the United States.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972389/posts
2. Remind the left that Clinton's Justice Department obtained a federal indictment of Osama bin Laden which stated that AQ had a deal with Iraq. They agreed not to attack Iraq in exchange for weapons development.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
3. 9/11 Commission reaffirms Bush administration view of Iraq/AQ ties.
June 21, 2004. RNC.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157478/posts
4. Long List of Clinton Administration Officials who Believed There was an AQ/Iraq connection.
July 12, 2004. NewsMax.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169397/posts
5. List of CIA and various Reports regarding Iraq's support for terrorists, terrorism and AQ.
September 16, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
6. Osama bin Laden was considered an Iraqi Intelligence asset.
October 14, 2004. National Review.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246505/posts
Funny how in the 90's the world was concerned about the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam and now the left is revising history.
Saddam reaching out to OBL
January 1, 1999. Newsweek
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158277/posts
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections
January 14, 1999. ABC News
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1229608/posts?page=1
Osama and Saddam Work Together
January 27, 1999. Laurie Mylroie interview. She is a former Clinton terrorism czar.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158482/posts
A Much Shunned Terrorist Takes Refuge In Iraq (Abu Nidal)
New York Times. January 1999.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433610/posts
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL.
February 6, 1999. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's Link to OBL
February 6, 1999. The Guardian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden
February 13, 1999. AP
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158274/posts
Son of Saddam coordinates with OBL.
Iraqi Special Ops coordinates with Bin Laden's terrorist activities.
August 6, 1999. Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts?q=1&&page=151
LOL
I am so upset about the demorats today I forgot that
Thanks!
Reid did it because, well, he's stupid. It's really no more complicated than that.
He's stupid and doesn't want to be reelected?
I suppose we can only hope that in the future, and by future I mean 2006 when the left continues to lose more control of the senate, that things like this will become less and less of an issue.
I'm laughing non-stop at these losers.
We debated the Iraq War in 2002 - THEY LOST!! WE WON!!
We debated the Iraq War in 2004 - THEY LOST!! WE WON!!
We'll debate the Iraq War in 2006 - THEY LOSE!! WE WIN!!
Those are some awesome links. Thanks.
You're more than welcome. Share with e-mail friends. Especially leftists :-)
self-ping for later
Reid looked like a complete jack ass when he was waiving his finger in the air on the senate floor in an obviously (poorly) rehearsed show of outrage.
Reid did it because there are only cowards and whimps on the other side.
Stunts like this only serve to reinforce the public's perception of the Dems as weak on defense and national security.
Keep it up, Harry. We're behind you 102 percent.
Maybe but I think the tide is turning. The RINOs may be getting a spine.
ping
He looked like a lame donkey.
Thankfully Reid in in there. Rush is right, sit back, relax and enjoy. The left is emploding.
With all the grease in Wilson's hair, he himself is a WMD.
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.