Sunday, November 20, 2005

Tell me again who lied? Who died? Explain it to me.

Interesting, isn't it? After the "CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), I happen to hear loud, loud screams that, somehow, the investigation concluded that "Bush Lied, Kids Died," which is an odd conclusion, given that only a man named "Scooter" Libby was indicted on a NON-RELATED charge. Unfortunately, perjury is a common tactic of presecutors who want to prove that they haven't totally wasted taxpayer money on a two year investigation, and it's an easy charge to come up with. If you are questioned one day, recalled a year later, and say something even slightly different to the same question, then that's "perjury," even if that means you just can't remember every exact detail.

As far as "Scooter" is concerned, my major worry is what kind of name is Scooter for a White House Staffer?

And of course, the man hasn't been convicted of anything. Not a thing. It's just that a prosecutor said that it's possible they could get a conviction on Mr. Libby.

However, I've noticed that real Libs [Liberals], seem to take an INDICTMENT for perjury into a CONVICTION about some mass, Right-Wing-Haliburton conspiracy theory. Could it be that the Liberals are thinking about pandering to their base for next year's midterm elections?

Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached....a suggestion that's about as original as "I did not have sex with that woman." They've said it since he was elected in 2000, by winning the electoral votes of Florida by 243 votes. Funny, that, ain't it?

"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy. Your proof sir? We sent into Iraq for mulitple reasons-- about 30 of them. WMDs? Reason number 4.

"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid. Discredit those who challenge it? You mean Joe Wilson? It's not hard to discredit a man who's desk-bound CIA wife got him a job. I wonder why anyone would want to discredit a man who's intelligence findings was discredited by the bi-partisan Intelligence committee looking at Iraq. And how does one discredit such a man by outing a CIA wife who's CIA status was an open secret throughout the news media?

"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot. And if you want the truth? You can't handle the truth, but let's try this: The Clintonian CIA, who's budget had been slashed, its agents belttled, mishandled, mismanaged, for years, collected the same exact intelligence as the Brits, the Poles, the Czechs and the Russians.

Let's play a game. Who said "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program"?

Sounds like the President of the United states, right?

Come on, take a guess....

Bill Clinton.

Let's see, who else?

What secretary of state said, "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Clinton's. Madeline Albright.

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all." Who's being deceived and discredited again?

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." Who's misusing intelligence reports, exactly?

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." And this man was on the House Intelligence comittee, so I can't exactly see how the President could lie to him, he saw firsthand intelligence reports.

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." And he was right... even Joe Wilson said that Saddam TRIED to get nuclear materials from Nigeria, he just said he never got it.... and misteriously, we've been moving tons of uranium from incountry for months. Hmm....

Oh, I love this quote. This is so rabidly right-wing, it could be me.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

And I agree wholeheartedly, Nancy Pelosi.

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "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-Qa'ida 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."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom [why we can't just call it a war, I'll never know]: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc.

Hmm, now, let me see. Saddam had a centrifuge necessary for making nukes. He had about five to six months of warning to get out of town before we invaded. We KNOW he had been moving large amounts of money out of the country a few hours before the invasion. We found 11 mobile labs for making Chemical and Bioweapons. There were labs freshly sterilized before our troops got there. So could we take a guess that there had been other WMDs that could have been smuggled out too?

So, Ted, Dick and Harry, any other ideas?

I hear phrases like "War for Oil." We could have a better war if we invaded Mexico for THEIR oil. And we know Mexico's a security risk, we find Syrians and Iranians coming across the border daily. But we invaded Iraq, a harder task, why?

Now, on Veterans Day, President Bush noted: "Today our nation pays tribute to our veterans -- 25 million vets.... At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of this century. This war came to our shores on the morning of September 11, 2001. ... We know that they want to strike again and our nation has made a clear choice. We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the War on Terror is won. ... [I]t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? That's it? Really?

I know democrats over in the Gulf right now. They'll disagree with me on social security, welfare, medicare, abortion, but you know what they agree on? We need to be there.

Interesting concept, no?

Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis!

No comments: