by JohnHuang2
Democrats and top party strategists at Reuters and other media outlets this week insisted that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, dismissing Saddam's White House critics who accuse the former Iraqi leader of doctoring evidence in a report last December to the U.N. Security Council in a bid to forestall a U.S.-led invasion.
The 12,000-page report, Iraq's official weapons declaration, required under U.N. resolution 1441, was sharply criticized in Washington and London for numerous "gaps, holes and omissions." Baghdad denied it doctored or slanted the report, and Democrats maintain evidence thus far shows Saddam likely was wrongly accused -- that Iraq was fully complying with all relevant U.N. resolutions.
Nevertheless, the White House insists, says the Associated Press, "that Baghdad had a program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, seeking to rebut critics who charge [the Bush] administration doctored" C.I.A. evidence, fudged D.I.A. evidence, falsified German intelligence, manipulated French intelligence, twisted Russian intelligence, fabricated Israeli intelligence, duped U.N. inspectors through the 90s, even while governor of Texas, suckering Clinton luminaries Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright and William Cohen into believing Saddam possessed banned weapons.
It was all a dark plot by evil "neo-cons" to wreck and ruin the lives of innocent dictators.
So diabolical and manipulative was the Bush administration, that "frequent trips" to C.I.A. headquarters after 9/11 by Vice-President Cheney compelled top agency officials, trapped by some irresistible spell, into knowingly producing completely bogus Iraqi weapons assessments -- in essence, framing an innocent dictator despite all available evidence exonerating Saddam, say Democrats. Did Cheney ask these agency officials to deliberately falsify intelligence info? No, they admit, but just his mere presence in the building forced them to lie about poor Saddam, they explain.
The Washington Post first broke the story -- considered Earthshaking! Staggering! Dumbfounding! Stunning! Shocking! -- of the Veep's trips to C.I.A.
In a wide-ranging, exclusive interview with Barbara Walters which aired Sunday night, Saddam Hussein seem to hint at the Washington Post report:
SADDAM: "So many accusations have been made about me -- extraordinary, outrageous accusations. I knew they weren't true and I knew that, for whatever reason, people felt obligated or compelled to make them, so it didn't seem unusual to me that something like this would be said."
BARBARA WALTERS: "One more false rumor?"
SADDAM: "That is what I believe -- yes." "Now, in retrospect, everything that was thrown at me, everything that was said, turned out to be without basis in fact. But that didn't help at the time, because we had this out-of-control, zealous [warmongering U.S. President] who was on a...campaign to undermine...me and everyone else."
"When [the U.N. Security Council threw out the Bush administration's case [for war] and said it was without factual or legal merit, I think that about summed it up."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrats, outraged by media reports, based on media reports, that Bush fabricated evidence to justify removing Saddam and liberating the Iraqi people, are calling for full Congressional hearings, vowing to hold this President's feet to the fire for winning the war that toppled Saddam so quickly and with so few U.S. casualties, to boot. Baghdad's swift fall suggests the Bush administration "hyped" Saddam's military strength, say critics.
"Why weren't we bogged down in military stalemate for months? Why no quagmire?," asked one top Democrat staffer on Capitol Hill. Democrats question whether intel was skewed and evidence planted to make Saddam look meaner and stronger than he really was.
"Three weeks is all the U.S. took to win the war -- just 3 lousy weeks! If that isn't evidence that Bush cooked the books, I don't know what is! It's an outrage the U.S. won so quickly, so cleanly!" said another Hill staffer.
"Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean revived a Watergate-era phrase to raise questions about whether Bush withheld information from Congress," reports the AP. "'The question now is going to become, 'What did the president know, and when did he know it?''" Dean is quoted as saying.
Who authorized the break-in at C.I.A.? The break-in at German intelligence (BND)? The break-in at French intelligence? The break-in at Russian intelligence? The break-in at Israel's Mossad? The break-in of Clinton's White House (to fool Berger, Albright and Cohen into thinking Saddam had banned weapons)? And who paid the 5 burglars, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice and ringleader Richard Perle? We need an investigation!
Dean: "Somebody's credibility is on the line," and it sure as heck ain't Saddam's.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who staunchly backed military action, now wonders whether he, too, was duped, demanding to know "'Whether the administration was overstating the case' that Iraq had banned weapons," says the AP.
Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia attacked the White House for "circling the wagons and scoffing" at growing evidence that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all.
The mass graves recently uncovered in Iraq? Suspicions have been growing that Bush, in his push to make Saddam look bad, secretly moved mass graves in Kosovo (which have never been found) to Iraq.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich accused Bush of taking "This country into a war that we did not have to go into. They led this country into a war that was unnecessary."
Florida Sen. Bob Graham, pausing briefly from scribbling notes in his notebook diary, denounced Bush for what he called "a pattern of deception and deceit of the American people."
No immediate comment was available from Saddam on the growing clamor from Democrats for hearings, probes, investigations/inquiries into 'WHY-IN-THE-HELL-DID-BUSH-WIN-THIS-WAR-SO-FAST-GATE?' Exploring why *Quagmire* failed to materialize, despite repeated assurances from New York Times reports/editorials, is top priority for Democrats in the coming months. They're not going to let Bush get away with winning another war. Enough is enough!
Some Democrats question the wisdom of such probes. The damage has already been done, they note -- we can't bring Saddam's regime back, and wishing won't make it so.
Meanwhile, "Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean lead the field among Democratic presidential candidates in New Hampshire," the Associated Press reports, citing "the latest poll of likely voters in the state."
"Kerry was at 25 percent while Dean was at 22 percent in the Zogby poll released Sunday," a statistical dead-heat. Lieberman came in at 10%, Gephardt at 7% while Edwards registered an impressive 2% support. Bob Graham, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton, riding a growing wave of popularity, "were all at 1 percent or less," said the AP.
Some dude named "Undecided," who still isn't running, draws the most support at 27% in this "poll of 600 likely voters taken June 4-7."
"Undecided" still could not be reached for comment.
|
Meanwhile, Hillary! and top party strategists at Reuters and other media outlets this week insisted that Hillary! does not plan on running for president, dismissing skeptics who accused the former "First Lady" of doctoring history in an autobiography "report" to the nation aimed at stealing attention away from the current '04 field of hopefuls.
The 528-page 'report,', Hillary!'s official autobiography entitled Living History, which hit book-stands Monday, was widely criticized in Washington for numerous gaps, holes and omissions. Hillary! denied she doctored or slanted the book ("I didn't even write it!"), and Democrats maintain evidence thus far shows the Clintons, like Saddam, were 'wrongly accused' -- that Bill & Hillary!, again like Saddam, were fully complying with all relevant statutes.
In a related development, a flock of pigs reportedly flew in formation over Chappaqua yesterday...
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You heard it here first, folks!
Hardball host Chris Matthews Monday night asked panelists this question:
"Are you guys surprised that [Hillary!] switched [her position] on [the need to repeal the 22nd] Amendment to the Constitution? She came out in the first interview with Barbara Walters and said, 'I'm still for 2 terms.' Over the weekend she was interviewed by TIME and she said, 'Well, that's an open question.' Is she now allowing for a Bill Clinton come back as well?"
Answer? Of course not. The reason Hillary! flip-flopped on repeal of the 22nd Amendment limiting a president to 2 terms (she now appears to support repeal) is obvious: Hillary!, having already served 2 terms as president, would be barred from gunning for a third in '08.
Meanwhile, Democrats say it's 1992 all over again. With Saddam ousted and major combat operations over, domestic issues -- scaring the hell out of seniors over Medicare and Security Security, the Dems' forte -- move to center-stage, while defense and national security, the GOP forte, fade to the background. Bush, say Democrats, will be easy to beat, as easy to beat as his father, Bush 41.
So, even though the AP reports this President Bush, in the latest Quinnipiac University poll, "holds a consistent double-digit lead over his Democratic rivals," Democrats say they can't wait to run against this President Bush. So what if this President Bush, matched against the current crop of '04 wannabes in recent surveys, creams every one of them; Democrats insist they can't wait to run against this President Bush!
But, as Democrats endlessly remind us, Democrats are the party of "fairness," and Democrats are worried -- they're worried that Bush, notwithstanding the polls, will be tooooooooo, way, way, too easy to beat. So they want to level the playing field, as it were.
To that end, they've come up with what they think is this neat idea: Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and Tenet, remove them from office, and viola! Republicans can field a stronger ticket to run against power-houses like Sharpton, Dean, Lieberman and Moseley Braun! Neat, eh?
Impeach Bush for what? Impeach him for being overly protective of our nation at war, even to the point of framing an innocent man, Saddam Hussein, whom we all know did not possess those mean and nasty weapons that Bush accuses him of possessing. We know this because Hans Blix and Sean Penn and Barbra Streisand all assure us that Saddam did not possess those mean and nasty weapons. No way. It's Richard Jewell all over again.
While it's true Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands, so what? Every dictator deserves a special Zone of Privacy, and those were his own people he butchered, gassed and stabbed to death. No business of ours. Liberals say human rights violations are no grounds for military action!
(This just in from the Hague: Slobodan Milosevic's trial reportedly enters crucial phase. Liberals say Human rights violations in Kosovo was grounds for military action.)
Terry Neal of the Washington Post sort of caught wind of this new, 'Level-The-'04-Playing-Field-Just-To-Make-It-Fair-For-Republicans' Democrat strategy.
No Weapons of Mass Destruction have been uncovered in Iraq, despite weeks of searching for weapons Saddam had geological eons of time to hide in itty-bitty Iraq, a country the size of itty-bitty California. No WMD, ergo, Bush lied, Saddam did not.
"America faces the horrifying prospect," writes Neal, a bit horrified, "that the threat was exaggerated" (Bush lied in his rush to war!) "or those weapons did exist but are now dispersed throughout the region among terrorists groups" (Bush didn't lie but waited too long instead of rushing to war!).
Here's where the Democrat strategy enters the picture.
"The Bush administration's pre-war claims that Iraq possessed" WMD stockpiles that "posed an imminent threat to the United States," says Neal, "is increasingly becoming an issue on the campaign trail."
"In recent days," moreover, "news reports" based on recent news reports, based on prior news reports, "have also raised questions about the administration's efforts to link Iraq and al-Qaeda," a "link" debunked by solidly reliable sources (sources which would never mislead the Great Satan): "Two High-level al-Qaeda operatives" who hate the Great Satan. These very reliable sources tell Great Satan interrogators that Saddam was too sweet, too decent a chap to hang around scummy al-Qaeda types like them.
Neal knows Bush is a liar and Saddam was not because "In the days and weeks before the United States" went to war, the Bush administration not only said that Saddam had WMD, "but also" that "it knew where they were located."
Neal: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on national television (days into war): 'We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.'"
That clinches it! Saddam was too busy watching reruns of the Sopranos to monitor CNN. So why no WMD found in spots announced on national television?! Answer: Bush lied, Saddam did not.
"This is a very serious matter," says former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, quoted in the article, Iraq's Missing Weapons May Become Election Issue. "The president's credibility is at stake and unfortunately, the question becomes 'What did the president know and when did he know it?'" Impeach! Impeach!
"Rumblings of impeachment are also being heard on our side of the Atlantic," writes Katrina vanden Heuvel in the Nation. "John Dean -- a man who knows something about political scandal -- wrote an astonishing column published on CNN's website this past weekend," where Dean all about declared Bush impeached and convicted. Bush, on national television, repeatedly libeled and slandered president Saddam -- Impeach! Impeach! Now!
See? Ain't Democrats wonderful? And oh so generous, eh? They're only trying to help us.
Oh, Dems? While you're at it, don't forget to impeach Bush for Top-Gun landing on that aircraft carrier. And for wearing a flight-suit. And for not taking a helicopter. Waxman should have those impeachment articles ready to go. Okay? Thanks!
Yep, Bush is so weak, so vulnerable, so shaky, so beatable that Democrats are scared to death of facing him in next year's election. Impeach! Impeach! Hurry! Hurry!
In conclusion, it's not 1992 all over again. Even with Saddam ousted and major combat operations over, domestic issues won't move to center-stage in a nation at war (besides, on taxes, education, Medicare reform, etc. Bush basically co-opted domestic issues, neutralizing Democrat attacks, as the stock market soars and the economy stages a rebound); national security and defense remain front-burner issues, and Democrats -- sharply divided, riven by factional disputes, out-flanked by immensely popular Bush who keeps beating their brains out -- are soiling their shorts.
|
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
