Posted on 11/02/2005 8:36:43 AM PST by MNJohnnie
Site: WABC Radio URL: www.wabcradio.com
For those who need a link.
Scroll down to the BBC story...
Duuhhh..thanks! This is what happens when I hit post BEFORE engaging brain:)
Far as I'm concern, let the Rats do this crap and have them act like crybabies.. Bush and the rest of the GOP does not need stoop to thier level imho..
Bamp, bamp, ba-da-da-daaaaa, dant-dant, dant-dant, dant-dant, da
Bamp, bamp, ba-da-da-daaaaa....
Hello, it's a glorious day in freepdom. Roberts on CNN said he would be releasing over 500 statements from the democrats from the past... since they want to play this game. Good to hear. For reading, you may be interested on these links on Rockefeller:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004779
As if you haven't seen it by now... the Rockefeller Memo:
Rockefeller memo
Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.
For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.
In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.
The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/110603/memo.aspx
This list is a must have and save- courtesy of Peach:
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
Thanks for the pass along SE Mom.
I am here.
Thanks for the ping. :)
Hey
Hey He comes!
Must have page on BJ Clinton and WMD (much info):
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=10038
bttt
Exactly... reminds me of:
During Harry Reid and the Democrats pi$$y little Senate tirade yesterday (in which he "Jumped The Shark") all they wanted to talk about was WMD's and the Bush's administration's alleged misuse of it. In other words, they're saying he lied about WMD's, and because of it we went to war.
Whoa there big fella, I think you're leaving out some key information, like the Resolution that Congress voted on to authroize the use of force. It wasn't just WMD's. In fact WMD's were just 1 of the reasons.
That's not the first time the Democrats have gone the road of "If Bush didn't lie about WMD's we wouldn't have gone to war. Strangely (OK, not so strangely) these claims usually spring up when the President's poll numbers on Iraq are down and when there are stories of American deaths rather than when Iraqi's turn out to vote and take further steps towards democracy.
But what Harry Reid and the Democrats often forget, is that WMD's were only one of the reasons we went to war. Was it one of the primary ones? Of course. But there were at least 7 reasons other than WMD's in the Congressional Resolution voted on by Congress to authorize the President to use force (in which 28 Democrats voted "Aye"). In fact, by following this link (http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=Content_old&pa=showpage&pid=31)you can read the resolution for yourself, and see that it's not the first time we've busted these clowns not with rhetoric, but with the Congressional record.
Hey, do ya think that some Republicans might want to bring that up?
Thanks for the ping
More Donk sh*t.
Anytime.
OMG .. Clinton on FNC at Rosa Park's funeral
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.