Helen's Sour Grapes...
Posted on 10/08/2004 11:26:53 AM PDT by Area Freeper
Someday, President George W. Bush may have to explain why he really went to war against Iraq.
But you won't hear it with his re-election at stake and his credibility on the line.
Public opinion polls continue to show a tight presidential race, which suggests to me that voters have devalued the importance of credibility in top government officials.
How else can one make sense of the fact that the president continues to do well in the polls despite the total collapse of his credibility about the reasons for invading Iraq?
This credibility problem was on full display Tuesday night during the spirited debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards, his Democratic rival.
During the 90-minute encounter, Cheney made it eminently clear that the administration has only one card to play in this campaign -- terrorism. By keeping the country scared, the administration hopes to be safely ensconced for another four years.
To his credit, Edwards quickly zeroed in on the administration's dishonest propaganda line that we invaded Iraq because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
These words that Edwards directed at Cheney should be emblazoned on every wall:
"Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 commission has said it. Your secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not."
Amen.
Administration spinners, from Bush on down, have cleverly tried to make that convergence, ever more desperately as the original rationale of Saddam's mythical weapons of mass destruction has gradually disappeared over the horizon.
The final nail in the WMD coffin came Wednesday when yet another White House-ordered weapons search came up empty.
Charles A. Duelfer, appointed in January after David A. Kay found no WMD in Iraq, is the latest weapons hunter to come home skunked. I wonder if Bush will send yet another searcher in hopes of satisfying this administration obsession.
No WMD and no links between Saddam and 9/11 leave Bush and Cheney adrift on an ocean of spin and stubborn insistence that, well, the world is better off with Saddam in jail. It would be funny if it were not so tragic.
Cheney, a hawk nesting nicely in a well-feathered administration, can't let go of his Saddam-9/11 rant even though Bush himself has said there were no links.
To those of us who have watched the Bush administration mush these two themes together, it was refreshing to hear Edwards tell Cheney Tuesday night that he was "not being straight with the American people."
Meantime, two administration leading lights have thrown the White House in a tizzy with their recent statements about the war and Saddam.
L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in Iraq, told an audience in White Sulphur Springs, W. Va., on Monday that the Bush administration had failed to provide enough occupation troops in Iraq.
Asked about Bremer's statement, White House spokesman Scott McClellan simply reiterated that the president took his advice on the troop situation from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the military commanders in the field.
Rumsfeld was in more hot water -- as if he needed any more trouble -- for telling the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that he had "not seen any strong, hard evidence" of links between Saddam and the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11. (Dick Cheney, please note.)
But big men can recant, especially when the White House apparently phones to rebuke them.
Bremer later backtracked and said there are now sufficient troop levels in Iraq. And the Pentagon said Rumsfeld was misunderstood. Too bad these men cannot speak English.
The White House was so rattled by this bam-bam that it issued a statement several hours before the vice presidential debate proclaiming that "there were disturbing similarities" between Saddam and the al Qaida before the war.
It's no wonder the administration is trying to hold the line on the fleeting reasons for going to war with so much at stake. After all, the voters could decide they were misled.
PLEASE! DO NOT POST PICS OF THAT OLD BAG SHEESH!!
Is MoDowd Helen's test tube baby?
Helen may want to put down the rhetoric and perhaps read something besides her own drivel. Neither the Pres, VP, nor his administration have made the mental leap between Sept 11th and Saddam. This is a transparent liberal MSM ploy that unfortunately many in the media don't care enough about to clarify (ie 'to do their jobs'). Helen has no audience (except us, I suppose) since she is very old school media which no one watches. Sorry, Dan, Peter, and Tom. Her comments make no sense and are just one more piece of evidence that, when you're wrong and when you have no integrity to admit your error, you will do whatever it takes to win. Unfortunately, the American people aren't nearly as clueless as this windbag.
Helen-suggestion, read the 9/11 Commission Report. Use a highlighter, your bi-focals and lay off Ted Kennedy's liquor cabinet.
Public opinion polls continue to show a tight presidential race, which suggests to me that voters have devalued the importance of credibility in top government officials.
ALright, whoever put her picture on this site should be kicked out!!!!
LOL she doesn't use email she still uses an 18th century goose feather pen and an ink goblet.
"Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 commission has said it. Your secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not." "
Sorry, this might be true, but nobody ever said there was, except Mr.ED...
This is a fine example of propaganda. They have to make this stuff up and put it in other people's mouth!
Seems to run with the old ones. The news talking heads are all botoxed and lip-injected with great makeup, hair and clothes. They've gone Hollywood. Thank God for the Net where it just doesn't matter. Substance does!
Helen's Sour Grapes...
Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this hypocrisy, dearest Helen.
And so many choices too...
hthomas@hearstdc.com
If she responds, please post it to this thread.
I have said it before: There is no fool like an old fool.
Don't forget her sisters Susan Estrich, Molly Ivens, Janet Reno, Madeline Half-bright -- I'm sure there are a lot more!I call them all Hateful NAG Hags! Their faces just exude hate.
How can these people miss the broader picture? Iraq is part of the larger theather against terror. To think that we should ONLY have gone into Afghanistan and ONLY targeted Al-Qaeda is not only naive, it is stupid and dangerous. The attack on 9/11 was a SYMPTON of the problem, not THE PROBLEM. Al-Qaeda has a few thousand (?)members, but doesn't account for the 18,000 terrorists in the world. If we stopped with Afghanistan, they would have been emboldened and found sanctuary ELSEWHERE.
WHY CAN'T "THEY" UNDERSTAND THAT?!?
That's my fave photo of Helen but for some reason it didn't turn up when I googled just now.
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.