    |
|
mp3 FOR YOUR LIES ONLY midi |
Posted on 11/16/2005 12:29:28 AM PST by ajolympian2004
It was a powerful argument for war made by a politician with long years of experience in the White House.
"(I)ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program," said this national leader.
"(I)f left unchecked," the politician argued, "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security."
"This much is undisputed," declared this Democrat, as she voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
The question now is: Why did Sen. Hillary Clinton get it so wrong?
Had she -- to use the formulation Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is now using to attack President Bush -- "manufactured and manipulated intelligence"? Did Hillary lie America into war?
No, she did not.
Sen. Clinton got her bad intelligence the same place President Bush got his: the CIA. Specifically, from George Tenet, the man President Clinton appointed director of central intelligence (DCI).
The entire chain of custody on the intelligence Sen. Clinton used in her Oct. 10, 2002, Senate floor speech ran through Democratic politicians back to a Democrat-appointed DCI.
In 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate, and Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida chaired the intelligence committee. On Sept. 9, 2002, Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, a member of the intelligence committee, wrote Clinton-appointed Tenet asking for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs.
NIEs, the intelligence committee later said in its unanimous bipartisan investigative report on Iraq intelligence, "are intended to provide policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches with the best, unvarnished and unbiased information."
An NIE, the committee quoted a CIA document as explaining, "is the director's estimate, and its findings are his."
DCI Tenet was no Bush crony or Republican hack. His career was largely propelled by Democrats. In the mid-1980s, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont made Tenet his intelligence committee aide. Former Intelligence Chairman David Boren, an Oklahoma Democrat, later made Tenet the committee's staff director. President Clinton named him to his National Security Council staff, then deputy DCI, then DCI.
Tenet delivered the NIE requested by Durbin at the beginning of October 2002. Its key judgments included that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "had chemical and biological weapons" and was developing unmanned aerial vehicles "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents," and that "all key aspects -- research and development (R&D), production and weaponization -- of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."
Two months later, according to Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," Tenet sat in the Oval Office and twice emphatically told President Bush it was a "slam dunk" Iraq had WMDs.
Did Tenet and his CIA lie to Congress about Iraq to help President Bush deceive Sen. Clinton and other Democrats into voting for war? Did he lie to Bush?
On March 31, the presidential Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia and senior federal appellate court judge Laurence Silberman, published its report. It concluded the judgments about Iraq's WMD programs in the October 2002 NIE were "all wrong." However, it also concluded, after "querying in detail those analysts involved in formulating pre-war judgments about Iraq's WMD programs," that "(t)hese analysts universally assert that in no instance did political pressure cause them to change any of their analytical judgments."
The CIA ombudsman for politicization, the commission reported, "also found no evidence, based on numerous confidential interviews with the analysts involved, that political pressure had caused any analyst to change any judgments."
The intelligence committee's unanimous report likewise concluded: "The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
Reasonable people could and did disagree on whether it was wise to invade Iraq. President Bush and Sen. Clinton, relying on the same intelligence, happened to agree.
But reasonable people can draw only one conclusion now on the argument advanced by some of Sen. Clinton's Democratic colleagues that President Bush lied America into war. It is simply preposterous.
Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor of Human Events.
Undermining the Commander-in-Chief...again
Virtual treason. Undermining the President. Betrayal.
This is some of the language used to describe the events in the Senate yesterday. To keep it very simple, here's what happened. Senate Democrats began by proposing that the President unveil a timeline to get our troops out of Iraq. Here's what one Colorado talk show host had to say,
"Today, Senate Democrats tried to force the US military to surrender to the terrorists next year, as per the wishes of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Are you proud of your liberal senators today?"
http://www.850koa.com/shows/newman.html
He may sound like an over-the-top talk show host. However, outlining a timetable for our troops to get out, for all to see, would have that very effect. All our new household names--from bin Laden to Zarqawi--would get to sit back, have a beer while watching their fans on Al Jazeera. Vacation would end the day that our men and women would leave Iraq. That simple.
Thankfully, that proposal was shot down by Senate Republicans (and a few Democrats, including 4 who are up for re-election in red states next year).
"Even so, the Senate's political statement was clear - and made even more stinging when the vote was held with Bush abroad, in Asia, an embarrassing step Congress often tries to avoid. With Democrats pressing their amendment calling for a calendar for withdrawal, Republicans worked to fend off a frontal attack by Democrats by calling on the White House to do more." (reports AP via My Way News)
The report goes on to say, "The Senate then voted 79-19 in favor of a Republican alternative stating that 2006 'should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,' with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces."
"It does not require the administration to do anything. Rather, it simply calls for the Bush administration to 'explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq' and to provide reports on U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Iraq every three months until all U.S. combat brigades have been withdrawn."
While I am glad that they did the right thing for the nation to not vote for the timeline, I am very disappointed in the Senate's obvious political motives. If they were serious and had real conviction about this matter, why did they do this while the President was out of the country?! If I had real issues with my boss, I would request a meeting with him in his office. I would not wait for him to go out of town and then make a public statement to the rest of the staff and all our clients/customers/etc. This is what the Senate just did.
I understand that Congress already receives periodic reports on Iraq. If adjustments needed to be made, they should have taken it up directly with the man with whom they have the issue.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., admitted to some potential political motives for the proposal and for the support it received. "I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about the public perception of how the war is going with respect to 2006."
If Republicans think that their behavior is going to do anything to gain votes next year, they're missing it big time. You do not have to agree with the President to be respectful to him. You don't have to throw him under the bus in order to win an election. I suppose that if they don't figure it out now, they will get it in, oh, maybe in about a year or so.
Let your Senator know what you think about their shananigans: 202/225-3121
http://justawoman2005.blogspot.com/2005/11/undermining-commander-in-chiefagain.html
I am so sick of this.
Hillary lie?
My GOD, you people, she is a CLINTON
Thanks for the link. I've seen the ad and it is an excellent start.
bookmark
Hillary did not lie in this particular instance, but she is lying now by pretending that the President lied about the reason for Iraq!
It would be amusing if the right turned the left's tactics against them. All during Hillary's campaign all you would hear is "Hillary lied...troops died." It would be fun to watch them respond to that.
Where's the win in that? The best-case, most optimistic scenario is that Hillary is "almost as bad" as W. And then if Iraq turns out to be a success, you've painted her as a supporter of the war, so it won't be easy to deny her a share of the credit.
I'm not actually advocating this tactic. I just find the idea amusing. Picture Hillary at a campaign stop, with a bunch of unwashed Cindy Sheehan types with signs proclaming "Hillary Lied!!!" Maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of dems having a taste of their own medicine funny.
Ah, so it's little dick Durbin who manipulated the facts.
I will go a bit further in postulating that Hillary Clinton did lie, getting a ginned-up NIE from Tenet that exaggerated the WMD issues, with Tenet's knowledge and complicity in the plan to overthrow the Republicans in 2008. This hypothesis says she voted to give the President the power to remove Saddam from power, knowing full well that other democrats would follow her lead, thereby setting the stage for war, in essence luring GWB into war by falsely implying bipartisan support. This put Clinton to the right of the other potential democrat candidates for 2008 when she need to be positioned so in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.
She then, with input from weasels like Wesley Clark and other democrat former military men, correctly calculated that we would run into some tough going in Iraq, and that the so-called "anti-war movement" would rise, in concert with continued assault of GWB by the MSM, her allies. She knew that the MSM would pound into the heads of an ill-informed, short-attention-span general public that GWB "lied us into war", thereby eroding the President's support and thus that of Republicans in general. This way, Clinton would eventually be in the position of becoming a "savior" of the country who will extricate us from the mess caused by GWB. In other words, she has assumed both left and right positions on the Iraq front, and is able to triangulate around it to appeal to both sides, liberal and conservative.
My thesis is that Hillary and Bill Clinton have concocted an elaborate plan over a period of 5 years that would in the end catapult her into the WH. Very Machiavellian, very Clintonian, very, very dangerous to the USA and all of us. Hillary Clinton is a clear and present danger to our national security and even to our national sovreignty. She must be stopped by any and all means necessary.
|
GIVEN:
The only conclusion we can make about WMD in Iraq is about what we did find and what we didn't find. The Left, which includes the press, either needs to take a course in logic or needs to face the firing squad. THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED. It's as simple as that.
How can this country survive when the Democrats and their media accomplices are seditious, unrelenting purveyors of THE BIG LIE? And who do you think set this tactic into motion, anyway?
|
hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")
IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
NEW MOVIE! for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)
HILLARY'S INCOMPETENCE
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE
PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA
CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House
Yitzhak Shamir Validated: THE CLINTONS ARE "A GREAT DANGER TO JEWS"
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)
|
This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency. Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden. According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war. Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the accord and the Peace Prize good-bye. If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger. |
I suspect even her heinous couldn't think that far ahead. She probably was looking to 2004 and was probably trying to get a whole "Bush Lied" mantra into place for 2003. It wouldn't suprise me if Plame/Wilson had a hand in this too.
Apparently Boron and Tenant were having breakfast together when the first planes crashed into the WTC towers.
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.
