Democrats -- Regrouped and reconstituted? Part II.
by JohnHuang2
"Key Republican and Democratic lawmakers [Sunday] said the U.S. faces credibility problems if weapons of mass destruction are not found in Iraq," reports the Washington Times this week.
Sen. Joe Biden, (D-Del.), "ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" and ranking member of the "Credibility Problems" Committee whose vast expertise on "Credibility Problems" includes plagiarizing Neil Kinnock, said "Mr. Bush 'hyped' the extent of weapons in Iraq's arsenal."
Appearing on NBC's Meet The Press, Joe 'I-Did-Not-Have-Plagiarism-With-That-Man!' Biden claimed a cloud of *Credibility Problems* and *Hype* hangs over the Bush Administration. This cloud of *Credibility Problems* and *Hype* has, in recent weeks, replaced *Quagmire*, itself mired with *Credibility Problems* after Saddam's swift fall, as the central point of 'vulnerability' for Bush, you see.
"I do think we hyped nuclear, we hyped al-Qaeda, we hyped the ability to disperse and use these weapons," he added.
"Mr. Biden," says the Times, "called the hype a 'serious mistake' but said, 'I do think we'll find weapons of mass destruction," so Bush will be vindicated, the "Hype" corroborated but I do think it's a serious mistake for Mr. Plagiarizer, himself mired with Credibility Problems, to 'Hype' a 'Hype' which isn't a 'Hype' since the 'Hype' will be proved in the end anyway. By his own admission.
Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd, who says his Grand Kleagle days in the KKK have been hyped, and who faces mounting Credibility Problems, "accused the Bush Administration" of mounting Credibility Problems for "deliberately misleading the American public into war with" Saddam. Why is it taking weeks to find stuff that poor chum Saddam had geological eons to hide?!
"What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat," said Byrd, who agonized when it became painfully clear in the aftermath of war that Iraq had lost the war. Saddam's former mistress made his remarks during a Senate floor speech which sounded like plagiarized material from Baghdad Bob.
Currently, American "military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD," added Byrd, American Idol to anti-Americans. "They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons and the occasional buried swimming pool...The Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq...has become more than embarrassing."
Problem is, while Byrd and the French were sniffing the fertilizer, getting woozy off the Bird manure, or dipping in the occasional buried swimming pool, The Bush Team continued its diligent search mission, turning up recently built mobile bio-weapons labs, tons of chemical suits, gas masks and recently used Atropine injectors (antidote to nerve agents).
Klansman Byrd's extensive hype of NO WMD evidence in Iraq has become more than embarrassing. Then again, Byrd -- an empty sheet -- has always been an empty sheet.
(For the record, Democrats insist Saddam's innocent -- framed by some crazed Republican cult seen in a brown van parked in Saddam's neighborhood. In any event, no sensible person believes Saddam is capable of pre-meditated violations of U.N. resolutions!)
International inspectors, moreover, have not uncovered any evidence of genocide in Kosovo, despite years of searches.
"The failure so far to find any weapons of mass destruction" raises "serious questions...about the quality of American intelligence," huff and puffs the New York Times.
The failure so far to find any fact-checkers at the New York Times raises serious questions about the quantity of intelligence at the Times, which hypes itself as a genuine newspaper. Though, to be fair, Howell Raines claims to have found a Mystery Woman who knows where those fact-checkers are!
Meanwhile, the chaos in Baghdad -- the shootings, the robberies, the stabbings -- continues.
Baghdad Family Mourns Lost Son, Victim of Lawlessness, blared the New York Times.
Check out these reports and news briefs compiled recently by the Frensno Bee:
[Baghdad] Shooter Sought
[Baghdad] police on Wednesday reported they were looking for a man who late Tuesday pulled a handgun from his trousers waistband and shot three people [as Baghdad descends into total chaos]. None of the wounds appeared to be life-threatening, police said.
Robbery Suspect Held
A 45-year-old...man was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of robbing three...businesses with a knife [as Baghdad descends into total chaos, police report].
[The suspect] was arrested after a [Baghdad] hotel was robbed. Authorities said he was also connected to the armed robberies of [another store] and a service station in [Baghdad].
Fourth Arrest Made in Drive-by Shooting
[Baghdad] police made a fourth arrest Wednesday in connection with a drive-by shooting that killed two...men [as Baghdad descends into total chaos.] Witnesses said a dark-colored car pulled up and at least one person inside fired almost 20 shots.
Oh, wait a minute. My mistake, never mind -- what you just read was a Police Report Compiled by the Fresno Bee about crime this past week in the Fresno area, not Baghdad! For residents of Palm Beach, that's Fresno, California.
"The Democrats' biggest challenge in 2004: Convince independent and swing voters that their party can protect the United States," writes Donald Lambro in the Washington Times this week.
Protecting the United States versus protesting the United States -- got that?
"That's going to be a hard, if not impossible, sell," adds Lambro.
I'd say. Many Democrats, in fact, secretly hope we get hit again -- their *Road Map* to political recovery; voters will blame President Bush, and rally around Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois! Or Dennis Kucinich of Ohio! Or the guy with the funny looking mop on his head!
"Polls," he writes, "show that Americans, by margins of 40 percent or more, trust President Bush and Republicans more than the Democrats to keep our nation safe from terrorism and other security threats."
"No matter 'How compelling our positions' on other issues, 'if the voters continue to see us as a feckless and effete [on national security] they will not listen to our message next year," wrote Democrat strategists Donna Brazile and Timothy Bergreen in a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week, quoted by Lambro.
Imminently sensible, no? Paraphrasing, no matter how compelling "our" position on the evils of SUVs, global warming and Bill Gates, if the voters think "we" Democrats think that SUVs, global warming and Bill Gates pose greater danger to voters than hijackers flying into skyscrapers, then voters "will not listen to our message next year" about the evils of SUVs, global warming and Bill Gates. Real rocket science here, folks.
"What Democrats can and must show is a firm commitment to keeping America safe from attack," say Democrat strategists Carville, Greenburg and Shrum in their latest memo. "This is not about faulting Bush. This is about being part of a unified effort in the country to achieve greater security."
Don't get too cocky. Democrats are on to something here.
What's their plan to "show" America their "firm commitment to keeping America safe"? Democrats are calling for more money for First-Responders: More money to firefighters, more money to Doctors, more money to Nurses, more fire trucks, more fire hoses -- yeah, that'll really scare the hell out of the terrorists!
Meanwhile, "U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has some early big name backers in Michigan, and U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri has strong support among union members here," writes George Weeks in The Detroit News this week.
"But," he adds, "it's Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut who emerged with a substantial lead in the nine-candidate field among Michigan Democrats."
He cites a "Poll of 400 Democratic voters" which shows Lieberman "favored by 27 percent, followed by Gephardt at 19 percent and Kerry by 15 percent. The other six candidates...each had less than 10 percent support."
It's probably the "'name recognition game,' said pollster Ed Sarpolus of the Lansing-based firm EPIC-MRA."
Some dude named "Undecided," who gets 20% in this poll even though he doesn't appear to be running, could not be reached for comment.
With Iran under growing U.S. scrutiny since the May 12 bombings in Saudi Arabia, I've been thinking, 'Watch the liberal media do a total 180 on Iran; with Saddam now ousted, watch 'em tells us Iran isn't really in cahoots with al-Qaeda; that any al-Qaeda elements in Iran isn't necessarily collusion. All the "arguments" the media used to argue against military action in Iraq would now be used to argue against aggressive action in Iran.
Man, was I wrong.
Get a load of this:
"Is Tehran in cahoots with Al Qaeda? And if so, why doesn't Washington do something about it?" asks a major left-leaning weekly magazine.
"American counter terror specialists devoutly wish they knew where Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi is today. Even so, they know a lot more than they're saying publically about where the terrorist leader, a reputed expert on poisons, has been. Colin Powell told only part of the story to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 in his account of the Jordanian-born Palestinian's travels in Afghanistan and Iraq. Zarqawi was Powell's strongest evidence of a terrorist alliance between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But the secretary of State didn't talk about how Zarqawi's trail leads straight to a place that makes the challenges of Iraq seem trivial: Iran."
Those quotes came from Newsweek. Yep, Newsweek.
In an article titled The Iran Connection, Newsweek correspondent Mark Hosenball writes that "Abundant evidence connects Zarqawi and other suspected [al] Qaeda aids and allies to Iran. Rumors have sprung up in Washington and elsewhere that bin Laden's son and heir apparent, Saad bin Laden, has been spotted recently in Tehran."
"Is Iran, not Iraq, the real link to Al Qaeda?" Hosenball in his piece leaves no doubt the answer is yes.
"...So, why doesn't the Bush administration do something about it?" Hosenball demands.
Hold on, lemme check something....
Oh, no!
Darn!
I did it again! That article is 3 months old! It was written back in late February -- well before war in Iraq! Small wonder!
So what are they saying now -- now that Iran is in the cross-hairs?
- Iran is majority Shi'ite; al-Qaeda is Sunni Muslim, ergo, no link between Iran and al-Qaeda can possibly exist.
- The Iranians are fully cooperating with the U.S., turning over al-Qaeda operatives for prosecution. Tehran has things under control.
- Sure there's al-Qaeda in Iran, but only in remote, northeast parts of the country, an area the central government has little control. Tehran doesn't have things under control.
- Tehran is not involved in terrorism. Okay, maybe a little -- but only against Israel -- not America.
- Calling Iran part of an 'Axis-of-Evil' made the Mullahs really, really mad; big mistake. Take it back, Bush -- now!
- Pursuing the War on Terror in Iran diverts from the War on Terror.
Oh well, guess I was right about the media 180 after all ;)
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ippinheimer!
