Skip to comments.The Clare Luce Democrats - How they're lying about "he lied us into war."
Posted on 11/02/2005 10:38:40 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.
What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war" with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves.
We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
We better not !!!
Read the rest of the article by clicking my screen name and using my log on info to the Opinion Journal (and others).
As a famous and wise eight-ball once said: "Ask Again Later."
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Yep. We better be cracking down on this kind of partisan behavior.
Frankly, Jim, I was actually impressed with the coverage on FOX today (I am not impressed easily). They put names to the prior statements of the Dems. It grates when they use Hillary as an example because she receives too much attention, but still, FOX came through.
Not THIS conservative Republican.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Thank you for posting that!
I guess Clinton was trying to "lie" us into a war when he used the same intelligence and gave the almost identical speech before Bush took office.
I am sick and tired of these DemocRATS repeating their lies, and also sick and tired of Republicans not setting the record straight. They have to do this often as well, because we know MSM sure won't give it much ink. But if it is all they hear from the WH, they will have no choice.
Otherwize the WH should lower the cone of silence and not give MSM anything until they smarten up.
And, that would have the people doing the intimidating, not the Administration.
BTT. My guess is that the Dems are attempting to exercise their latest passion for "framing" in a particularly crude and ill-considered form. The pop psychologist named Lakoff who treated the left wing of the party to his platitudes on the topic has led them into the hopeful assumption that they can successfully focus the scrutiny on the buildup to the Iraq war to only those statements that were made by Bush and that the large and easily recoverable number of the same statements made by themselves will miraculously disappear from public memory. It's our job to see that it doesn't happen.
Just like the War Street Journal to be defending the character (or lack thereof) of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who most certainly did lie his way into a third term, promising to keep America out of Europe's war.
There is also a growing mountain of evidence to back up the contention of many Republicans that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by many months of USN activity in areas of the Pacific the Japanese controlled.
Shows to go you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers, even the WSJ.
Clare Booth Luce, RIP.
Good I checked before re-posting. :-)
WSJ editorials are JUST excellent (well, except when the topic is illegal immigration :-)
THE GREAT TERROR by JEFFREY GOLDBERG, The New Yorker, Aug 2002 (Halabja story)
The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War (evidence linking the former Iraq regime and al Qaeda)
There is all kinds of real proof ignored by the RATS and MSM
Our refusal to back down on our demand that Japan stop its war on China was what caused them to attack.
They were no more "provoked" then the Germans were "provoked" by the Poles in 1939.
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.