Posted on 07/16/2003 5:43:32 AM PDT by SJackson
The Democratic candidates for President -- and many in the media -- are trying to make President Bush seem like a liar. In so doing, they are making an unforgivable mistake. In his State of the Union Address to Congress on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, defending himself before the House of Commons for making a similar representation, said last week that the representation was true and comes from a different source than the one that was recently discredited by the CIA.
For me, it comes down to this: If Bush actually did lie to the American public -- intentionally stating as the truth that which he knew to be false -- then he should be impeached and removed as President. However, if Bush did not lie, and I do not believe that he did, then Americans of all political persuasions should defend our country's reputation for fair play by displaying their indignation at those who bear false witness.
They can do this by rejecting those candidates and political leaders who have perpetuated that charge and by turning to other TV and radio channels when the unfair and venomous attacks against the President are being aired.
I am a proud Democrat who generally supports Democratic candidates for office. I have never voted for anyone other than a Democrat for President.
Although I am a Democrat, I am no ideologue. In some local and state elections, I have proudly crossed party lines for candidates I thought were appreciably better. I believe that the most important issue facing the world is international terrorism, and it is my current intention to vote for George W. Bush for reelection. I do not agree with him on many domestic issues, ranging from privatizing Social Security to tax reductions favoring the wealthy. However, because of his leadership and successes in the war against international terrorism, he is my current choice in 2004.
Whether intelligence reports about Iraq were accurate or not, the President had a right to rely on information from Blair, America's most steadfast ally, and his government. If either Bush or Blair knew the reports were false and either is now engaging in a cover-up, that individual should be removed from office.
I believe Democrats and their media allies will fail to bring Bush down because taking on Saddam Hussein was the right course of action for America. National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, on Face the Nation over the weekend cleaned the clocks of her two media interrogators and critics, CBS' Bob Schieffer and Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau Chief, Doyle McManus with her brilliant responses to their questions. I quote her in part:
Bob Schieffer: The question I have for you this morning, who put it into the speech?
Dr. Rice: Well, let's start at the very beginning, as they say. And the president of the United States -- the notion that the president of the United States took the country to war because he was concerned with one sentence about whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa is purely ludicrous. And this has gotten to that proportion, that people are saying this statement is why the president took the nation to war.
The president took the nation to war to depose a bloody tyrant who had defied the world for 12 years, who was building a weapons of mass destruction program and had weapons of mass destruction, which he had used in the past, who was a threat to American interest in the Middle East and who, now that he is removed, is giving us an opportunity for Middle East that might finally be at peace and that will not create an atmosphere in which you have ideologies of hatred spawning people who slam airplanes into the World Trade Center. So we do have to put this in perspective.
The president's State of the Union said something that was accurate: This is what the British government said in its reporting. The British, I might note, still stand by that statement. It was not based, they say, on a single source, but on other sources."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Koch, for a Dem, is a pretty straight shooter and not all bad.
Details, schmetails. :)
Silly me. Of course, you are correct. I stand corrected.
Not sure if this was noted, but this is certainly intriguing coming from a liberal. Most liberals deny any media being for them.
Go live where Kings rule. Here, we have elected representatives with limits on what they're allowed to do for good reason.
Kings "ruled" only until they were overthrown. Good kings reigned with complete and unreserved allegience of their subjects.
Once the kings abandoned the causes of their countrymen, the soldiers began to falter, the battles began to fail, and the king no longer sat on his throne.
And for emphasis, I was recently listening to Hardball host Chris Matthews, being interviewed on a New York City radio talk show.
Matthews another dedicated Democrat said the Democratic Party is in deep trouble today and has to find a platform with which Middle America will agree. He said "Republicans will agree on fewer taxes, less government and "let's win the war.
The Democrats say more taxes, more government and let's lose the war."
Sounds like the it could be the end of the party with the RATS leaving the ship.
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.