I don't know about anyone else, but I'm growing increasingly bored and tired of the lies by the Democrats concerning pre-war intelligence in Iraq. Over the past couple of weeks, the Demmies have really been racheting up the heat on this subject, accusing the Bush administration of lying concerning the reasons for going to war. John Kerry, for example, called the pre-war intelligence "cherry-picking" intelligence and said that Bush "stretched the truth in every way imagineable." Ted Kennedy and John Edwards are just a couple of the many other Democrats who are making similar claims.
But it is hard to ignore the spoken word. Every speech made by a politician, whether before 15 people or 15,000 people, is out there floating around, somewhere. And apparently all of these Democrats, particularly the three mentioned above, who are now claiming that Bush lied to the American people concerning the pre-war intelligence themselves are liars. Because the three mentioned above and many of the others clearly made comments concerning the need to take out Saddam.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. October 10, 2002.
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator John Kerry. January 23, 2003.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator Ted Kennedy. September 27, 2002.
Who's kidding who?
I'm not President Bush's biggest fan, by any means. If he were up for election tomorrow, he wouldn't get my vote. I am not a card-carrying member of the GOP. I have no intention of voting Republican in 2008. But the tactics of the Democrats have gone from annoying to shameful. They are pulling out all stops in an effort to go after the recapture of Capitol Hill in the midterms next fall. Their goal, I suppose, is that if they can get a simple majority in the House and Senate, they will immediately start impeachment proceedings against Bush on grounds that he lied.
In my opinion, this party cares nothing about America. They have blood on their hands, because they are responsible for strengthening the resolve of insurgents in Iraq with their constant drumbeat about how the war is a quagmire, about how we need to bring our soldiers home, etc., despite the fact that we're making great progress in Iraq. As a result, more American soldiers will die.
All politicians have their problems. They're all liars, they're all cheaters. But, honestly, the GOP, as much as I have begun to distance myself from them over the past 12 months or so, aren't attempting the political tactics that the Democrats are undertaking. I know we have some resident Democrats here. I don't care where your political ideas fall, although I know that most of them are much more to the left than my own. But, honestly, how can you guys support this political party?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I intended to make another post on this thread asking why it is that Bush is so hated by the Democrats. This guy Will Malven, a blogger, does a pretty good job of it, though:
Quote:
For five years now, President Bush has behaved in the manner in which you have claimed you want politicians to behave. He has attempted to remain above the fray. He has attempted to concentrate on doing the job that you the American people hired him to do, and allow the Democrat dogs to continue to yap at his heels. He has done this when those of us far less idealistic than he have clamored for him to speak out in his own defense. I have been one of those oh so frustrated Conservatives who have been trying to defend his honor and crying about his refusal to come to his own defense.
You see George Bush is a nice guy. Nice guys aren"t supposed to win elections. Nice guys are usually victimized far too early in a campaign to make it as far as President Bush has. He has done it because for a considerable time, the American people refused to allow the constant bombardment from the propaganda machines of the extreme Left dissuade them from their basic perception of President Bush as a "nice guy;" a little fumbling sometimes in his public appearances maybe, but a man who is at his core honest. They understood that this guy was one of them. They understood that his values were their values, his beliefs were their beliefs. He may have been born rich, but he was after all, just one of the guys.
...
For years, with very few exceptions, President Bush has tried to act like the adult in the room and remain above the battle of words. The Democrats, completely without principles or policies of their own with which to enter the fray have resorted to name-calling and false allegations. They have acted like five year olds (with apologies to most five year olds) lashing out with cries of:
"Yeah, but lookee what he done!" "Mommy, George lied us into war!" "Mommy, George wants to destroy Social Security." "Mommy, George says nucular." "Mommy, George kinda walks funny." "Mommy, George hates blacks." "Mommy, George wants you to be poor while he makes his friends rich." "Mommy, George"s friend Karl cheated "cause I know, "cause somebody told me and "cause I just know it"s true, "cause, "cause, it"s true!"
It"s sad, ridiculous, pitiful. It"s a campaign of distortion, lies, and twisted words in place of a campaign of ideals and proposals. When confronted by their own words, when caught in a lie, they act as if they never heard the question, they immediately move on to their same old negative talking points, avoiding the question altogether. It"s not hard to understand why they do this; their ideas are the same old sad socialist songs of yesteryear. Their proposals are worn-out, insipid, and have failed the test of time. They can"t tell the American people what they truly stand for, because they know they will be rejected out of hand. So instead they resort to this constant bombardment of lies and name calling in hopes that something will stick. And as sometimes will happen, some of their lies and distortions have begun to stick, and the President"s poll numbers have begun to slide fairly precipitously.
Ben, I have to admit I haven't been following this as closely as I should, but i've been somewhat preoccupied with my day job of late.
I believe, however, the argument goes something like this:
-many of the dems did support the war, based upon the intelligence that was shared with them by the Adminisration
-as POTUS, it is the Bush Administration's responsibility to gather intel, and present it to the legislative branch
-that information (for whatever reason) was faulty and incomplete.
If i take an action based upon incorrect information that you've gathered for me, certainly you bear some responsibility for that action. if you've intentionally misled me, that offense becomes magnified. in this instance, many of the Ds feel they were intentionally misled by the Administration.
ORIGINAL: boysda
I believe, however, the argument goes something like this:
-many of the dems did support the war, based upon the intelligence that was shared with them by the Adminisration
-as POTUS, it is the Bush Administration's responsibility to gather intel, and present it to the legislative branch
-that information (for whatever reason) was faulty and incomplete.
If i take an action based upon incorrect information that you've gathered for me, certainly you bear some responsibility for that action.* if you've intentionally misled me, that offense becomes magnified. in this instance, many of the Ds feel they were intentionally misled by the Administration.
boysda:
I think that argument is faulty. The US Congress has at least as much responsibility as the president when it comes to intellegence. They control the purse strings of every single agency. It has been the Congress that has forced the CIA to move toward gathering intelligence through technological means as opposed to human intelligence on the ground.
In addition, the intelligence about WMD had been flowing through the agencies for years and years before the president got into office. It was confirmed by the French, British, Israelis and other countries (including Iran after the war started). To me, the Congress is just as culpable or more so than the president.
To me, it is blantantly political hypocracy and positioning on the part of the Democrats.
Despite being accused of being W's apologist and a paid GOP operative by the liberal kooks here, I'm not married to either party and have been registered under both and continue vote for some Dems on the state and local level.
But as a whole on the national level at least, the Dem party just stands for nothing. It's become an eclectic collection of fringe elements who hate society, government and and most everything else. The party leadership has been hijacked to the ultra left. Look at their DNC chairman, Pelosi, Kennedy, Hillary and now they have corrupted Harry Reid as well.
All this revisiting of the BIG LIE is just a coordinated effort toward the mid-term elections. Note how they have switched from a policy of 'obstruction' to one of 'destruction' to try to bring down the Bush Admn. It doesn't matter a damn to them if they harm the nation's interest in the process.
Ben, I have to admit I haven't been following this as closely as I should, but i've been somewhat preoccupied with my day job of late.
I believe, however, the argument goes something like this:
-many of the dems did support the war, based upon the intelligence that was shared with them by the Adminisration
-as POTUS, it is the Bush Administration's responsibility to gather intel, and present it to the legislative branch
-that information (for whatever reason) was faulty and incomplete.
If i take an action based upon incorrect information that you've gathered for me, certainly you bear some responsibility for that action. if you've intentionally misled me, that offense becomes magnified. in this instance, many of the Ds feel they were intentionally misled by the Administration.
I think part of the problem is that the CIA presents the same intelligence to congress as gets presented to Bush. And congress does have oversight of the CIA, etc. Although members of congress (mostly democrat) may regret voting for war, they are being extremely disingenuous in blaming Bush for their own mistake. Yes, Bush made the same mistake but that is not some excuse for democratic congressional members to pawn off their responsibility by pointing the finger at Bush. The dems are turning this into a political circus and are essentially refusing to accept responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Nobody is impressed when people try to blame somebody else for their own mistakes, i.e. McDonald's made me fat, etc. Some people who simply hate Bush will buy into this but most people will quickly see the hypocracy of the dems actions and they will suffer yet another political backlash for a problem that they created by being dishonest in the first place IMHO.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
congress has oversight of the CIA in the same fashion that they have oversight of all executive agencies. The CIA, however, reports to and takes it marching orders from the executive branch, doesn't it?
the allegation appears to be that certain information was cherry-picked and provided to congress, while information that did not support the administration's viewpoint was intentionally omitted. IF that is the case, then we have a very serious situation.
Cal, as an LEO, if you were given only selective intel on a situation, while other relevent information was intentionally omitted, and were then asked to take action based upon the incomplete data, wouldn't you be outraged when you learned the truth?
andIF it is the case that the administration deliberately misled congress and the public regarding th e need for war, it would not be without historical precedent. anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin?
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
RE: Getting bored with the Demmies' lies
Time for new blood in both the House and Senate. It appears that many of our branches of government are dysfunctional. Too far to the left or right isn't good for anyone. Unfortunately both major parties pull in their own direction to counter the other. I think back to the 2004 election and can't help but laugh at the big 9 the Dems brought to the table. That is the best there is? The primary debates were a joke and I thought they missed the best chance in Lieberman who, IMO,was the smartest of the bunch but didn't have the look. The Dean rise and fall were circus like and when the new Dem hope imploded they settled with the candidate that had the longest face and catsup baggage. 2008 sounds like it will be a continuation of the same with Hillary leading the pack. Time for change and a new focus on what is wrong here in the states. Get rid of the corrupt politicians, who continue to lead us in counterproductive fashions and make government accountable to the people. There is too much politics and not enough leadership at all levels of government.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
Boysda, I suggest you read Tom Franks' American Soldier. I doubt anyone studied the intel prior to the Iraq invasion harder than Franks. He fully expected chem/bio to be used on his troops.
The CIA has had major problems for a long time. I hate to go back to Clinton, but he gutted it like he did the military. It takes 5 years or so to train a case officer. BTW, from day one I said W was making a mistake by keeping Tenant.
At any rate the Senate Intelligence Committee has oversight over CIA. Most of the members have been there for decades and should be equally responsible or more so than W for any intelligence shortcomings.
So far as the Big Lie, it is a lie. A big fat political lie. One that career politicians know will be embraced as the truth by the partisans and if told often enough by a few in the middlee. That's the votes they need.
Getting bored with the Demmies' lies
