Lies, Damned Lies, And Liberal Democrats

(Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel A Sense of Duty, available at http://www.geocities.com/nattybumpo1981/)

On June 15, 2006 during the Congressional debate about the Iraq war, Democrats routinely said President Bush was lying and that he misled country into sending the troops to war.

New York Democrat Congressman Maurice Hinchey, claimed that Bush misled the Congress because, he said, Bush knew that Iraq had not tried to obtain uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapon.

Congressman Hinchey also issued a press release on June 15, 2006 that stated among other things: "At the heart of the CIA leak case is the fact that the Bush administration lied about pre-war intelligence and then later attempted to discredit a credible source who was going public with information that exposed those lies. If the president and other senior administration officials had not falsely claimed that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa then there wouldn't have been the need for Joseph Wilson to investigate those claims on behalf of the CIA, members of the Bush administration wouldn't have plotted to leak the identity of Valerie Wilson in retaliation for her husband's public statements..." (Emphasis added)

We now know that there was no "plot" by members of the Bush administration to leak Wilson's wife's identity in retaliation or for any other reason. It was a casual offhand comment.

We also now know - and knew then - that the results of two, nonpartisan, independent inquiries into whether Bush lied about the Iraq attempt to purchase uranium from Africa determined that Bush did not lie.

According to the University of Pennsylvania's, Annenberg Public Policy Center project, Annenberg Political Fact Check ( Factcheck.org), which is a nonpartisan, nonprofit that debunks political propaganda, " The famous '"16 words"' in President Bush's Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain. Bush said then, '"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."' Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did." (emphasis added)

Of course, facts never deterred a liberal Democrat from a disinformation campaign. Take for example Florida Democrat Congresswoman Corinne Brown.

She said during the June 15 debate that she knew there were not WMDs in Iraq, because she knew that this war was all about Halliburton's profits and Bush and Cheney's friends profiting from the war (i.e. President Bush is a traitor).

Two weeks later Iraq Survey Group (ISG) Director, David Kay, the person who directed the effort to find WMDs in Iraq testified before a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Congressman Duncan Hunter, a member of that committee - a Vietnam veteran, a Republican, whose son served in Iraq and who voted for the war in Iraq and still supports the war in Iraq - asked Kay a series of questions about the accuracy of statements made by members of Congress - like Brown's - that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Here is a partial transcript:

Hunter: " ... when we have descriptions on the House floor .... '"There were no,"' and I'm quoting, "there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."' That's not accurate, is it?"

Kay: "It's not accurate by my personal knowledge." Hunter (quoting a colleague): '"We are spending billions of dollars to occupy a country that did not have weapons of mass destruction."'

So Congresswoman Brown, a liberal Democrat - who never served in the military, who never served in combat and who does not have a kid who served in Iraq - was not telling the truth when she claimed Iraq never had WMD's. She was not telling the truth when she said she knew this was a war about Halliburton's profits.

Congresswoman Brown also violated the House rules of debate by her criticism. Of course, rules are only for other people - not liberal Democrats. We know this because Democrat Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer with impunity in March of this year.

Not only did she violate a rule, Congresswoman Brown displayed the liberal Democrats hypocrisy. They do not like when people call them traitors for opposing the war, yet they can call people traitors who are in favor of the war.

I, for one, am sick and tired of Democrats calling anyone who supports this war a traitor. If Brown believes the war was for the personal profit of the president let us have the proof. If Hinchey has proof the president lied let's see it.

All liberal Democrats seem to know how to do is make false accusations, act as judge jury and executioner, deny their political opponents civil rights, and engage in ruthless actions to destroy anyone who does not think as they do.

"Top Democrats soon will call for Saddam to be reinstated to power."

Yep. This was the first step:

Rockefeller: Iraq Would Be Better With Saddam

CBS News: Iraq Would Be Better With Saddam

Sept. 9, 2006 (CBS) When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations... But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"

Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'" ... "[Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about." ..."

Weasels use whatever weasel words they need to use when it suits their political purposes:

"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. [2007] And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. .. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot! .." Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV on the Senate Floor On the Iraq Resolution October 10, 2002 Here

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.