Rummy "lied"

Belmont Club | Friday, May 05, 2006 | Wretchard

[Spruce]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1627676/posts

[LjubivojeRadosavljevic]

["Zarqawi wasn't the best example of AQ/Iraq collusions. He was a terrorist and in Iraq. To my knowledge he wasn't a main player in AQ (narrow definition) in Iraq until 2003."]

I would agree with you.

[endthematrix]

I agree also. And I'll most certainly agree that many Democrats agree also, just not publicly. They balance the fence. They support the overthrow, but criticize any nuance just because of W.

[endthematrix]

I think it falls to the feet of the VP. Cheney has been marvelous at this, but never gets good press.

[MJY1288]

OK, Tell me where he was limited?

Writing checks to Suicide Bombers who were recruited by Hamas and Hezzbolla, Zarqari living in his country, Salmon Pak, OKC Bombing (The Third Terrorist) Saddam,'s money was asked for, and was given to, any Terrorist organization who asked for support.

Saddam had more maney than he knew what to do with, just ask the UN's Oil for Food managers at the UN! :-)

[Steve Van Doorn]

What a lot of people seem to ignore and is extremely important was that Saddam government was in a state of near Anarchy about the time we moved in.

There were three factions that had the power and a plan to taking out what was remaining in Iraq. None of them would have been in our interest so the US took Iraq.

What we done in Iraq was the right thing. The Bush administration is doing a piss poor job at defending their actions, and for the life of me I don't understand why.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"I believe the Bush Administration (Bush Himself) believes that history will defend him, and responding to people like Cindy Sheehan, and the Democrats who support her, is a waste of time..."

This isn't logical. History has always been writen by the winners.

If we lose the argument on why we must fight we will lose the over all war on terror and never get a chance to write that book.

[MJY1288]

And you think we will lose?

[MJY1288]

I should have stated that better, results on the groung will decide who wins the argument, and IMHO we are winning this on the ground

[Steve Van Doorn]

"VP. Cheney has been marvelous at this, but never gets good press."

I have to agree with you here. Cheney has made some absolutely wonderful speeches which I was able to see on CSpan. Obvously that isn't going to help our war on terror.

The president has the power to force the media to play speeches. if we want to win this war he must do it.

[rlmorel]

"The man was Ray McGovern, who Sweetness and Light noticed was part of Daniel Ellsberg's Truth Telling Project"

Got some news for you. Anyone associated with this group is a left wing nut. Now, they are not a left wing nut to the author of this, but heck two frogs in a pot can't much tell which is warmer and which is cooler now, can they?

[MJY1288]

" The president has the power to force the media to play speeches."

How?

The Main Stream Media has repeatedly ignored his requests for prime time coverage of his speeches

[rlmorel]

Let's see now. A leading figure in Al-Queda is in Iraq with the knowledge and approval of the Hussein government (Which was the only way to be there then)

Do YOU think he was buying or selling apples? Hmm?

[endthematrix]

I agree Cheney as a loudspeaker has been muted, so the Administration should step up to task. What ever happened to the fireside chats? Right now it should be, "we are interupting our scheduled dumb sitcom to become educated by our Commander-in-Chief!"

[rlmorel]

Well, I don't know that the constitution requires it, do you?

At best, he is ONLY required to report to the President. Not to Terry Moran or any other tool of the media.

At worst, he takes the Fifth. The constitution actually has a tool to prevent him from speaking to anyone.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"And you think we will lose?"

If we don't have the support of a large majority of the Amarican people to fight this war on Terror we will lose.

Just so we are clear on what the war on Terror is. Even if we win in Iraq and Afghanistan a total victory in both we are still losing the over all war on Terror. Because as we are fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan other parts of the world the fanatic Islamic are taking over.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan is a stab at much of the center of the problem but they are still spreading.

[rlmorel]

A poster stated: "...["Saddam had his hands in almost every terrorist movement around the world...and you opined: "No he didn't..."

We do know he was involved in terrorism in Israel, right? All those martyr payouts? All those exposive vests?

He had Abu Nidal and Abbu Abbas in Iraq under his full protection. There are two nasty, terrorists wanted for worldwide terrorism.

I would suggest to you that there are links between terrorism and Saddam Hussein. Known, verified links.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"The Main Stream Media has repeatedly ignored his requests for prime time coverage of his speeches"

The President shouldn't be making 'requests' during a time of war and if it is about the war.

[ozzymandus]

I wonder why it has never occurred to the left that if the Bush administration was as crooked as they say it is, they would have PLANTED some WMD and claimed to have found saddam's secret stash buried in the desert.

[MJY1288]

Considering that I saw first hand, the protest against the Vietnam War, I believe we are being duped by slanted Polls in this one. Millions of people took to the streets in the late 1960's to denounce the Vietnam War, Cindy Sheehan has been their best shot so far, and in my humble opinion, there is no resistance to this war on terror besides the freakazoids on the far left, the opinion Polls are sampling about 8% more Democrats than Republicans in almost every Poll, Not too mention that they sample even more Independents than any other group...

IMHO Independents are Liberals who are afraid to admit that they're Liberals