McDermott, Bonior And Thompson: Did The Democrats and Their Media Allies Make A Deal with Hussein?

WND,FR, other media sources ^ | July 16, 2003 | my squash

[kiryandil]

In September of 2002, Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) traveled to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. Before they left for Baghdad, Jim McDermott made the following public statement: "the President of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." After McDermott returned, he continued to make similar statements.

While the 3 Democrats were in Baghdad, did they make representations to Saddam Hussein that their fellow Democrats and the Democrats' friends in the mainstream liberal media were willing to commit seditious acts to buttress Hussein's increasingly tenuous hold on his country? Did they advise Hussein that his WMDs should be secreted, in order to facilitate allegations that the Bush administration "lied" about Iraq? Did the Democrats promise Hussein the political head of Bush and the gutting of his administration in exchange for a resumption of Democrat control of the U.S. government through a Watergate-style political coup?

It certainly appears so. Currently, the Democrat political commissars are openly discussing "impeachment" and "Watergate". The Democrat media is presently engaged in a full-scale assault on the Bush administration over the issue of Iraq. As we speak, the Democrat media is insinuating with gossamer-thin "evidence" that the commander-in-chief "lied" to the country, is "lying" to the troops, and they are encouraging the troops to openly criticize their commanders. It appears that Saddam Hussein, a past master of media manipulation, has weathered the taking of his former fiefdom, and is lying low, waiting for the promised Democrat sedition to muddy the situation in Iraq and possibly deliver Iraq back into his hands. To further weaken the United States, its position in Iraq and its military forces, it is being suggested by the Democrats that we need to take military action in Liberia, which has scant strategic interest to the United States in its current war with terrorism.

The strategic interest of the United States in Iraq is plain for any thinking mind to see.

In a time of war, the Democrats are deliberately undermining the bold U.S. strategic stroke in the Middle East in order to regain their lost political power.

[kiryandil]

Perhaps Ann Coulter's next book project should be called Sedition: How The Democrats and Their Media Wage War Against the United States :-)

[ClancyJ]

Great suggestion. I am so thankful we have Ann and her guts.

[PeaceCorpsGuy]

Trent Lott to 'Jihad' Jim McDermott while in Baghdad:

He best better come home and keep his mouth shut!

[frithguild]

I think this issue is "Political Black Ice." Like real "black ice," you never see it coming and once you hit it, there is NO TRACTION and NO WAY TO RECOVER. Especially if you are speeding.

Let them accelerate on this.

[CMAC51]

---"While the 3 Democrats were in Baghdad, did they make representations to Saddam Hussein that their fellow Democrats and the Democrats' friends in the mainstream liberal media were willing to commit seditious acts to buttress Hussein's increasingly tenuous hold on his country? Did they advise Hussein that his WMDs should be secreted, in order to facilitate allegations that the Bush administration "lied" about Iraq? Did the Democrats promise Hussein the political head of Bush and the gutting of his administration in exchange for a resumption of Democrat control of the U.S. government through a Watergate-style political coup?"---



This doesn't hold water at all. Although it is pro-Sadaam entities which are carrying out the current attacks, they lack the force necessary to sugjugate the country even if the US pulls out. The Shiites, the majority of the population, and the Kurds, the most militarily organized, would not allow a return to Sunni control. Without the WMD's and Republican Guard, the Sadaam loyalist lack the force to control the country. They can be a problem, but they can't regain control.

[wayoverontheright]

While the 3 Democrats were in Baghdad, did they make representations to Saddam Hussein that their fellow Democrats and the Democrats' friends in the mainstream liberal media were willing to commit seditious acts to buttress Hussein's increasingly tenuous hold on his country?

Hussein didn't need to be told this, The Chinese were obviously aware, they contributed heavily to ELECT a democrat, Saddam already knew what democrats were willing to do to stay in or regain power.

Did they advise Hussein that his WMDs should be secreted, in order to facilitate allegations that the Bush administration "lied" about Iraq?

This statement attributes entirely too much credit for smarts to the democrats and too little to Saddam.

[bigfootbob]

Check out this article from today's Seattle P.I. Be forwarned, it's one you'll need a barf bag handy. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/131032_robert16.html

[TC Builders]

You better make that a big barf bag, before you take that one in.

[kiryandil]

This doesn't hold water at all. Although it is pro-Sadaam entities which are carrying out the current attacks, they lack the force necessary to sugjugate the country even if the US pulls out. The Shiites, the majority of the population, and the Kurds, the most militarily organized, would not allow a return to Sunni control. Without the WMD's and Republican Guard, the Sadaam loyalist lack the force to control the country. They can be a problem, but they can't regain control.

Saddam probably believed that the U.S. couldn't do his country in a walkover, either, so he's just delusional enough to believe that he'll get his fiefdom back.

[kiryandil]

You never know with the Dems. There may have been wink-winks and nudges hinting this to Saddam.

The effing seditious bastards had NO business over there in the first place, and we got a preview of their current campaign then.

[kiryandil]

I think this issue is "Political Black Ice."

That WAS a great post, wasn't it? :-)

[timestax]

bump to the top against these Benedict Arnolds!!

[Coroner]

Bonior also claimed that both he and Mcdermott (nodded in agreement) were Nam vets. Neither were in Nam!

[Cyber Ninja]

In a time of war, the Democrats are deliberately undermining the bold U.S. strategic stroke in the Middle East in order to regain their lost political power.

I am sure the Democrats would stoop this low, but would Saddam trust them? The last time he dealt with a Democrat President the attacks on Iraq were capricious and came with less warning. If anything, Saddam would be skeptical. Although, he and they are birds-of-a-feather.

CB^o

[kiryandil]

I was thinking a bit more on this. I think it's going to come down to the oath of office both McDermott and Bush swore.

One of them has to be lying:

"I, xxxxx, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

It can easily be shown that McDermott is quite cavalier about his oath of office with the Newt Gingrich dustup (an apparent felony committed by James McDermott in his partisan zeal to 'get' Newt Gingrich) and the Clinton impeachment (Republicans are a "political lynch mob" - but no problem with the chief law enforcement officer lying under oath).

It is also easily shown that Bush is willing to risk his political standing to do the right thing when the U.S. is attacked, unlike McDermott's hero Clinton, the probable cause of the emboldening of Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda.

Political black ice, indeed! :-)

[McGruff]

Why was this man smiling?

[Tacis]

That much money would have tempted any democrat to be a traitor! Bonior, under any circumstances, wouldn't have far to go.

[The Brush]

The Dems don't have to make a deal with anyone, they don't need facts or substance. All they need is a following so filled with hatred that they will attach themselves to any charge and cling to it until it breaks apart.
Common sense is the lifeboat that refuse to board.

[kiryandil]

In short, the DNC memo asks Democrats in office and Democrats in the press to join in trashing the entire Bush Administration and all of the current foreign policies of the United States, for the purpose of making the Administration and the nation weaker so the Democrats have a chance to take over the wreckage.

from Congressman Billybob's latest: Congressman Billybob Sez: Why I Hate Lawyers

Textbook example of sedition.

[bray]

"Oh No Briar Dems, Don't throw us in the Uranium Patch said Rabbit Bush!!!" It is great to see a President who is not continually being pushed by the polls. He was right and has NOTHING to appologize for. The truth being protected by Dasshole, Carville and The Wicked Witch of New York??

Pray for GW and the Truth