It's this fundamental flaw in the liberal argument that makes me chuckle every time.
How did Bush lie before he was in a position to lie?
How did the Governor of Texas get Senate Democrats and a Democrat President to state lies about Iraq?
It's ridiculous.
bttt
bookmark
ping for later
The answer is yes it bumps to the top.
Now, a question that has been bugging me is WHY has the White House not been more forceful in combatting the lies of the Democrats, Joe Wilson, and ad nauseum. I mean the President has all kinds of people he can use on the media.
So what is he waiting for?
Unless, of course, you count Scott McClellan, who's an even more accomodating punching bag than GWB himself.
What the hell is wrong with this administration?
Or the entire party, for that matter?
Bush shouldn't HAVE to defend himself...there are plenty of Republicans that could come to his defense; but, obviously, they have better things to do; like building a "bridge to nowhere."
I haven't seen this kind of political impotence since Gerald Ford.
Yup. Makes perfect sense. Once Bush said what everyone else had been saying it wasn't true any more. Who can deny such obvious logic?
Discussions need to center around dishing up a 9/11 by Clinton and his Dem associates to Bush.
For years in the making then disregarded, these terrorists found an unexpected realist in charge that would not call for legal proceedings as took place with the first tower bombing.
Besides dishing up 9/11, Clinton handed over a recession after inheriting an economy growing at 3.6% and then indulging in a bubble economy.
Trying to rewrite history is the primary objective of Dem's manipulations to climb back into the seat.
Will smoke and mirrors corral such a price?
No, deceptions have short life spans.
Their bubble is part of a short life cycle for smoke... and then bursts again.
"So why is the nation focusing now on a bogus argument about the rationale for the war in Iraq?"
Because the dems and their willing saps in the media have NOTHING ELSE to talk about. No ideas, no plans, no program, nothing.
I think some of this testimony will prove particularly enlightening ~ take for example these excerpts from the testimony of STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BUTLER, FORMER EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, UNSCOM, DIPLOMAT IN RESIDENCE, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ~
"... Saddam Hussein never claims to be disarmed. On the contrary, he threatens a degree of destruction of his enemies, which implies his position of mighty weapons."
" It is essential to recognize that the claim made by Saddam's representatives that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction is false. Everyone concerned, from Iraq's neighbors to the U.N. Security Council to the Secretary General of the United Nations, with whom Iraq is currently negotiating on the issue, everyone, simply, Mr. Chairman, is being lied to."
"This briefest of recollections of relevant background history reveals two salient facts: Iraq remains in breach of the law; it has been determined to maintain a WMD capability."
" ....inspection and analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UNSCOM, showed that in spite of relatively deficient indigenous sources of the fissionable material needed to make a nuclear weapon, Saddam's program was as close as six months from yielding a bomb."
" Of the three components necessary for the fabrication of a nuclear explosive device: materials, equipment, knowledge; Iraq has the latter two. On the relevant equipment/components, Iraq refused to yield them to the inspectors."
" The key question now is has Iraq acquired the essential fissionable material either by enriching indigenous sources or by obtaining it from external sources?"
" I don't know the answer. It is possible that intelligence authorities, in the West and/or Russia do. But, there is evidence that Saddam has reinvigorated his nuclear weapons program in the inspection- free years."
and these from the testimony of DR. KHIDHIR HAMZA, FORMER IRAQI NUCLEAR PHYSICIST; PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON MIDDLE EASTERN AFFAIRS
" "The last meetings of the Iraqi delegation with the U.N. relevant personnel on resuming inspectors, their work in Iraq, the Iraqi government decided, after they failed to agree on the -- make the U.N. agree to their terms of getting the inspectors back -- they wanted some concessions, they declared that inspectors' job is to disarm Iraq and leave it defenseless against an American strike, since the Americans will never remove sanctions. So, the whole game they thought the inspectors are charged with is to disarm Iraq. Since the inspectors are charged only with dismantling weapons of mass destruction and their facilities, this was an admission that Iraq may possess these weapons and also an implied threat that facing an invasion, it might use them"
"Iraq is well into CW production and may well be in the process of BW production. With more than 10 tons of uranium and one ton of slightly enriched uranium, according to German intelligence, in its possession, Iraq has enough to generate the needed bomb-grade uranium for three nuclear weapons by 2005. Iraq is using corporations in India and other countries to import the needed equipment for its programs, then channel them through countries like Malaysia for shipment to Iraq. Germany already black-listed some of these companies for violating sanctions imposed on Iraq."
That is, when they're regarded at all.
Have you read Stinnett's book, Day of Deceit? Have you heard it discussed on talk radio, for that matter?
December 7 is coming up shortly. One would think there might be some interest in knowing just what preceded -- and some would say, precipitated -- the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I can guarantee you the major talkers -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly -- won't tarnish their image with the likes of Mr. Stinnett, who spent over a decade compiling previously unreleased records and documents of 50 years ago to learn what had brought this nation to war, a war in which he served honorably and, according to his statements, one which he still thinks was justified.
His efforts to obtain documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were met with delay, obfuscation and, too often, a stone wall. Many of the pertinent documents are still marked "classified" and cannot be released.
But what eventually became available shows clearly that FDR was not only preparing the nation for war in 1941 but actively goading the Japanese into dragging us into it. He may not have known in advance of Pearl Harbor, but that's insignificant when compared with the hundreds of thousands of American lives lost, the immense cost, and the lasting after-effects of World War II.
One, which rarely rates any discussion here on Free Republic, is the perpetuation of the immense welfare state programs started by FDR well before the war began. His image as a "wartime president" has, for neo-conservatives like David Horowitz, apparently erased from the record all the ideological and character flaws FDR exhibited in the prior nine years of his presidency. He is praised as a "great president," and not only by Democrat loyalists.
G W Bush should be so lucky.