[?][X]
There was a science fiction show once, about a secret agent who could change his appearance at will, as in reshaping his face and body into whatever he desired. He returned home after a long career but nobody would accept him, since he was nothing like the man he used to be. The thing is, you see, he had been so many different people so many times for so long, he couldn’t remember who he really was. He was compelled to choose one of his lies for his real life.
That, put simply, is Valerie Plame. The legend from the Left is that Ms. Plame was a hard-working honest servant of the U.S. Intelligence Community, made an innocent vcitim of the evil Bush regime, because her husband, the equally hard-working and noble Joe Wilson, caught the President in a lie. Makes a good storyline, and I rather expect Michael Moore will get around to making a movie about her. It meets the Moore Standard, after all - zero facts but the MSM doesn’t care.
The facts are very much a different story, and one the Democrats are not likely to push into production. To begin with, Joe Wilson is a documented liar, and one know to have a large mean grudge against the Bush Administration. For example, Wilson not only gave numerous interviews to the press about a confidential trip to Niger to investigate the question about whether Saddam Hussein’s regime attempted to purchase enriched Uranium, but he also declared that Bush was lying to say that Iraq had been attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. The evidence later showed that while Wilson focused on a single suspect document, which was never promoted by the Bush Administration, he withheld information known to the CIA, which supported the contention that Saddam had in fact been attempting to find sources fo enriched uranium. Wilson also hid the fact that his wife was the major influence which arranged for his government-paid trip, to such a point that the CIA did not enforce its normal secrecy requirements, which allowed Wilson to spend his time with press interviews and photo ops, instead of a debriefing and balanced evaluation of the facts.
What happened next was essentially a paranoid feud, the immature and egotistical Wilson representing both the paranoia and the malice in this instance. When the White House declined to respond in kind to his taunts and insults, Wilson went to Capitol Hill, and found a willing audience on the Democrat side of the aisle, which colored the debate on pre-War intelligence and poised to rewrite the history of the decision to go to war again in Iraq. The careful observer would have noted (and many did) that Wilson was unable to back up his claims with evidence, and that his screeds were actually no more than a bitter attempt to damage enemies.
On to Valerie Plame. To hear the MSM, the Plame issue was driven by a desire to punish Joe Wilson for criticizing the War in Iraq, which led to the exposure of his wife, an undercover CIA agent. The reality is different. First, it has been confirmed that Plame was not a field agent for the CIA, at least during the time in question, but a desk employee whose work was in no way related to field operations. Also, it is understood now that Wilson’s inadvisable trip for the CIA was made possible by his wife’s recommendation. And several intelligence reports have supported the fact, that reports of Saddam’s attempts to obtain nuclear material were true, which proved Wilson’s claims false. Further, two major intelligence reviews confirmed that the Bush Administration neither falsified nor manipulated intelligence data.
The facts, however, have not kept Wilson and his allies from pressing their hatred of the President well past the point of obsession. This is both good and bad. The first bit of bad news, is evidenced by the Libby indictment. Fitzgerald himself has admitted that Libby was not indicted in any direct consequence of the Plame investigation, but claims it was necessary to indict Libby, even though the facts suggest that honest error and confusion are more likely than malice or intent to deceive. With Woodward stepping forward to point another finger, again with nothing to show connection to the alleged “outing” of Plame, yet taken up eagerly by people enjoying the role of Grand Inquisitor. It’s one thing for Congress or the Justice Department to investigate known crimes and clear evidence, but quite another to pursue fishing expeditions for high-profile trophies. On the plus side, while the War in Iraq, the central issue in the 2004 Federal Election, was controversial and complex in many aspects, the sheer hysteria manifested by the Left cost them vital support from voters unwilling to grant power to a party so blind to basic facts. As the 2006 mid-term elections begin their primary cycle, it is a bad idea for Democrats to believe that the claim of “Bush Lied” will lead to election success, since it has already failed in a test bearing more directly on the President. Democrats chuckle at low published Job Approval numbers for the President, but fail to observe vital differences in the respondent pool from 2004, and also fail to note the distinction between happiness at the present condition, and commitment to see the mission completed. The 403-3 vote last night shows that even the most rabid Democrats generally understand that the American people are not at all keen on a ‘cut & run’ strategy, and since the Democrats have decided to once again polarize the issue, it forces people to mostly support the President. It shows a true disconnect on the Left, that they are able to comprehend that attacks on the President are not likely to sway the voters they need most, yet they refuse to rein in their most obnoxious members. Bear in mind, the difference between outrageous statements made on the Right and on the Left, is that on the Right the extremists do not hold office, while the most malicious and deceptive statements are repeated by Democrats in office, who know full well that the claims they make are neither truthful, nor do they serve the needs of the nation.
It is sadly true as well, however, that should the Democrats find some way to take control of the House of Representatives, they would be likely to try to impeach President Bush. While I consider this unlikely in the extreme to actually happen, because it is a possibility it must be considered and defenses manned. The facts have been presented many times already, so that while the Democrats can make noise on the WMD question, they cannot seriously hope to find evidence to support a claim that the decision made by the President, and approved by the Congress, was anything but honest and legitimate.
This brings us back to the Plame affair. To the unbiased observer, the claim that Plame was somehow the innocent victim of a conspiracy must seem laughable. After all, the Wilsons held press conferences, a photo shoot with ‘Vanity Fair’ magazine, a book deal, and countless television appearances, yet they continue to claim that their privacy is precious to them, and that they are simple, unassuming people. There is no question that while the President’s decision was supported by the available evidence at the time, Wilson’s motive for attacking the President was no better than a vendetta. The “evidence” not only does not lie, it has more than proven that Joe Wilson is nothing but lies. But the Democrats and the MSM have done an effective job of keeping the character of the Wilsons out of sight, and alleging connections through innuendo and rumor. Washington D.C. has always been a town full of whispers, and far more liberal in its politics than almost anywhere else in the country. The Democrats have effectively conceded that while they can taunt and insult the President, nothing in five years of slander has worked against him, so they are focusing on Vice-President Cheney. If the Democrats can get Cheney to resign as VP, expect the MSM to start trying to compare Cheney to Agnew, and to start hinting that Bush has something to hide.
Why do this, if it is so unlikely? For one thing, Democrats think they have a chance in 2006. Mathematically, that’s correct, and we Republicans had better not be too casual about protecting the House majority. But if opinion polls are not so great for President Bush, they are abysmal for the Congress, and especially for Democrats. The Democrats generally understand that they are very unlikely to take control of Congress in 2006. But if they can put pressure on Cheney, some Democrats hope they can force him to resign; stress after all, could lead to a stroke or heart attack, to which Cheney is unfortunately more susceptible than most men, and I am sorry to have to say there are Democrats who would like to deliberately cause a health condition which threatened the life of the Vice-President, in order to make him quit. Other Democrats would like for Cheney to stay on, knowing that if he resigns at a time when things are going well and the President is popular, the new Vice-President (Rice, perhaps) would immediately be considered the GOP front-runner (by the MSM) and make things harder for the Democrats to take the White House in 2008. if they keep the heat on Cheney, he has to stay put to show he is not going to be chased off by the attacks on him. So, the attacks on Cheney right now are supported by both factions on the Left. This, in the Democrats’ mind, could lead to a tarnished President and VP when the 2006 elections take place, strengthening the Democrats’ place in Congress, and leading to potential sweep in 2008, with Democrats retaking control of the House and Senate as well as the White House. I will let the reader decide how realistic that ambition should be counted, but caution us to defeat the attacks and prove the character of the men making them.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
Unforgivable
!!!
It has finally begun to dawn on Senate Republicans that they have fumbled badly in the “United States Policy on Iraq Act”, more commonly known as the Warner Amendment. Unfortunately, instead of accepting the damage they have done and their responsibility, the consensus of the GOP Senate is to either ignore the effect of their action, or else deceitfully try to explain their way out of it. Many Senators have tried to simply head out on vacation with no apology for their action, while a few have actually tried to excuse their conduct. That won’t work, as events will unfold.
The Warner Amendment came as a vapid response to a Democrat-sponsored cheap shot, a demand for a withdrawal from Iraq which failed in the Senate by a 58-40 vote.
First off, note that the Democrat’s resolution was the template for the Republican version, to such a degree that the actual document presented for the vote simply scratches out the names of the Democrat sponsors and replaces their names with “Mr. Warner” and “Mr. Frist”. Let me say that again; the actual Republican resolution was actually nothing but a modified version of the Democrats’ own demands! There is no way, given the tone and wording of the resolution, that any Republican who voted for the Warner Amendment can pretend to have done proper diligence or focus on the interests of the nation, our troops, or the goals for the Iraq effort. This is, to use a crude analogy, like a man who admits that he propositioned a hooker, paid her and watched her undress, but who somehow maintains to his wife that because he didn’t complete the act he somehow did nothing wrong. Betrayal of trust is unforgivable, Misters Senator, and you should have known that long before you played into this trick.
So, what does this resolution do? First off, there is the stated “purpose”, which includes lines like “recommend changes to the policy” and “require reports on certain matters”. The Democrats love these, because they are obvious rebukes of the Administration. No Republican claiming to stand with the President has any business supporting such attempts, and they know it.
Next up is Section [b](3), which specifically calls for “the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq” in “calendar year 2006”. That’s government talk for “Run Away! Run Away!”, which again is exactly what Democrats have always wanted in Iraq, and no Republican should have considered for even a second.
Section [b](4) specifically demands that the United States publicly announce their intention to leave, to the people of Iraq, which would demoralize millions of Iraqis who believed the promise of American commitment to full stability in Iraq, including millions of women who voted for the first time, and millions of families who dared to express their free speech in the open. This statement represents a betrayal of promises and commitments made, because it demonstrates a lack of resolve critical to the survival of a democratic republic in Iraq. I can’t imagine any U.S. serviceman in Iraq thinking such a statement would be in any way advisable or reasonable in the foreseeable future.
Section [c] goes on to demand, “every three months … until all United States combat brigades have redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified report on United States policy and military operations in Iraq”. This is unconscionable, in that this would demand the President defend his decisions over and over again, in a circus tent forum (“unclassified” not only bars relevant information to defend key decisions, but would provide fodder to a press corps known to be hostile to the military, to the point of malice), and allow countless fishing expeditions by Congressmen and Senators looking for political opportunity at the expense of the war effort. Just imagine such a demand of Roosevelt during World War 2, or of Reagan during talks with the Soviets.
Section [c] also includes such gems as [c](1)(A) demanding “compromises necessary” from the Iraq government, which is doubletalk for appeasing terrorists entrenched in Iraq; and [c](1)(B) demanding bring in “the international community” to “forge a … political settlement”, which is doubletalk for saying let the United Nations co-opt democracy in the name of expediency. There is not one person with a knowledge of history, who could honestly believe such demands would lead to a stable or healthy Iraq.
In short, the resolution demands miracles now, or else to just pull out and run. It completely abrogates not only the moral purposes for removing Saddam Hussein from power, but also pursues a reckless path likely to harm, even kill, the innocent and virtuous citizens of Iraq by abandoning them to the whims and desires of known enemies on their borders, and to the terrorist factions which already threaten their future. In essence, the only thing which stands between most Iraqis and the chaos of terrorism and a new dictatorship, is embodied by the United States Armed Forces. And the people who voted for this resolution want that protection removed. Such a statement is unconscionable on every level of honor and decency.
Matthew McDonald, speaking for Senate Republicans, sent a mass e-mail yesterday to bloggers and the press, in a weak attempt to justify the betrayal of Iraq and our military. In a piece he titled “Setting The Record Straight”, McDonald not only ignored the specific text and demands of the resolution approved by the Senate, as well as the absolutely stupid tactic of using the Democrat’s own proposal as the template for the Republican version, he also falsely tried to pretend that the Republicans somehow were supporting the President and the People of Iraq in this betrayal. Sorry, Mr. McDonald, but you could not be more wrong in that pretense. As your own e-mail admitted, Senator Harry Reid was able to claim that the Senate – Republicans and Democrats alike – demanded that Bush “change course in Iraq”. (Senate Floor, November 17)
See that figurative knife sticking out of the backs of millions of Iraqi kids, Mr. McDonald? It reads “Made by the GOP” on the handle, and it came from your table.
Senator Warner actually tried to claim “I think this is supportive of the strong points the President has consistently made. In no way is it to be construed, in my judgment, as critical.” (Press Conference, November 15)
Translation: 'You see honey, I didn’t know she was a hooker, she looks a lot like you and I thought I was actually being faithful… and I only gave her fifty bucks to get undressed, uhhhhh, because I thought she needed to change into better clothes, yeah that’s it’ Sorry, MISTER Warner, but no one outside the Beltway could possibly believe that lie for a second.
The e-mail from “Ronald” McDonald went on to compare the demands in the resolution to statements made by and regarding the Iraqi citizens, completely missing the critical distinction between a nation making strides on its own initiative and efforts, and the demoralizing effect of being left on your own after a deadline. The e-mail from Mr. McDonald did serve one useful purpose, though – the inability of Mr. McDonald to understand the sheer lunacy of voting for such an execrable resolution shows just how insulated and unrealistic your average Senator’s comprehension of the real world has become.
As a Texan, I would like to use my own Senators as an example for a personal message I think we should all be sending:
Senators, you have forfeited your right to hold office. By siding with enemies of the people of Iraq and by betraying your President, especially while he was visiting a major foreign nation, you have demonstrated a complete lack of fitness for the duties and responsibilities of your office. You may count on my tireless efforts to see you replaced with a Republican who keeps his word and honor, and I am joined in that determination by millions of other Republicans who count our President and our troops of worthy of support, and who have no tolerance for betrayal or an expedient politician like yourself.
In conclusion, I would like to note the breakdown of the votes between the Democrat's Surrender-Now demand and the Republican copy. Two senators did not vote on either measure; 53 voted 'yea' on both resolutions; 26 voted 'nay' to the Democrat version, but 'yea' to the GOP-brand White Flag; 6 Democrats voted 'yea' to the Democrat version, but 'nay' to the GOP version out of spite; and fourteen brave souls had the integrity and courage to vote 'nay' on both resolutions. These are the Senators we should applaud and watch for their future votes, as they are the only Senators who seem to understand the concepts of Leadership, Commitment, and Honor:
From Kentucky, Senator Jim Bunning [R]
From North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr [R]
From Georgia, Senator Saxby Chambliss [R]
From Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn [R]
From South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint [R]
From South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham [R]
From Oklahoma, Senator James Inhofe [R]
From Georgia, Senator Johnny Isakson [R]
From Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl [R]
From Arizona, Senator John McCain [R] (don't get cocky, John - you still have to explain your campaign finance "reform", and that 'let's leave it to the lawyers' bill you pushed on Torture definitions and restrictions)
From Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions [R]
From South Dakota, Senator John Thune [R]
From Louisiana, Senator David Vitter [R]
And, in proof that there is yet at least one Democrat who knows what Democrats used to stand for, Senator Kent Conrad [D] from North Dakota
Speaking for myself, Kyl should be made Senate Majority Leader, and Thune should be given a strong whip, and a license to get the party back in line.
It has finally begun to dawn on Senate Republicans that they have fumbled badly in the “United States Policy on Iraq Act”, more commonly known as the Warner Amendment. Unfortunately, instead of accepting the damage they have done and their responsibility, the consensus of the GOP Senate is to either ignore the effect of their action, or else deceitfully try to explain their way out of it. Many Senators have tried to simply head out on vacation with no apology for their action, while a few have actually tried to excuse their conduct. That won’t work, as events will unfold.
The Warner Amendment came as a vapid response to a Democrat-sponsored cheap shot, a demand for a withdrawal from Iraq which failed in the Senate by a 58-40 vote.
First off, note that the Democrat’s resolution was the template for the Republican version, to such a degree that the actual document presented for the vote simply scratches out the names of the Democrat sponsors and replaces their names with “Mr. Warner” and “Mr. Frist”. Let me say that again; the actual Republican resolution was actually nothing but a modified version of the Democrats’ own demands! There is no way, given the tone and wording of the resolution, that any Republican who voted for the Warner Amendment can pretend to have done proper diligence or focus on the interests of the nation, our troops, or the goals for the Iraq effort. This is, to use a crude analogy, like a man who admits that he propositioned a hooker, paid her and watched her undress, but who somehow maintains to his wife that because he didn’t complete the act he somehow did nothing wrong. Betrayal of trust is unforgivable, Misters Senator, and you should have known that long before you played into this trick.
So, what does this resolution do? First off, there is the stated “purpose”, which includes lines like “recommend changes to the policy” and “require reports on certain matters”. The Democrats love these, because they are obvious rebukes of the Administration. No Republican claiming to stand with the President has any business supporting such attempts, and they know it.
Next up is Section [b](3), which specifically calls for “the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq” in “calendar year 2006”. That’s government talk for “Run Away! Run Away!”, which again is exactly what Democrats have always wanted in Iraq, and no Republican should have considered for even a second.
Section [b](4) specifically demands that the United States publicly announce their intention to leave, to the people of Iraq, which would demoralize millions of Iraqis who believed the promise of American commitment to full stability in Iraq, including millions of women who voted for the first time, and millions of families who dared to express their free speech in the open. This statement represents a betrayal of promises and commitments made, because it demonstrates a lack of resolve critical to the survival of a democratic republic in Iraq. I can’t imagine any U.S. serviceman in Iraq thinking such a statement would be in any way advisable or reasonable in the foreseeable future.
Section [c] goes on to demand, “every three months … until all United States combat brigades have redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified report on United States policy and military operations in Iraq”. This is unconscionable, in that this would demand the President defend his decisions over and over again, in a circus tent forum (“unclassified” not only bars relevant information to defend key decisions, but would provide fodder to a press corps known to be hostile to the military, to the point of malice), and allow countless fishing expeditions by Congressmen and Senators looking for political opportunity at the expense of the war effort. Just imagine such a demand of Roosevelt during World War 2, or of Reagan during talks with the Soviets.
Section [c] also includes such gems as [c](1)(A) demanding “compromises necessary” from the Iraq government, which is doubletalk for appeasing terrorists entrenched in Iraq; and [c](1)(B) demanding bring in “the international community” to “forge a … political settlement”, which is doubletalk for saying let the United Nations co-opt democracy in the name of expediency. There is not one person with a knowledge of history, who could honestly believe such demands would lead to a stable or healthy Iraq.
In short, the resolution demands miracles now, or else to just pull out and run. It completely abrogates not only the moral purposes for removing Saddam Hussein from power, but also pursues a reckless path likely to harm, even kill, the innocent and virtuous citizens of Iraq by abandoning them to the whims and desires of known enemies on their borders, and to the terrorist factions which already threaten their future. In essence, the only thing which stands between most Iraqis and the chaos of terrorism and a new dictatorship, is embodied by the United States Armed Forces. And the people who voted for this resolution want that protection removed. Such a statement is unconscionable on every level of honor and decency.
Matthew McDonald, speaking for Senate Republicans, sent a mass e-mail yesterday to bloggers and the press, in a weak attempt to justify the betrayal of Iraq and our military. In a piece he titled “Setting The Record Straight”, McDonald not only ignored the specific text and demands of the resolution approved by the Senate, as well as the absolutely stupid tactic of using the Democrat’s own proposal as the template for the Republican version, he also falsely tried to pretend that the Republicans somehow were supporting the President and the People of Iraq in this betrayal. Sorry, Mr. McDonald, but you could not be more wrong in that pretense. As your own e-mail admitted, Senator Harry Reid was able to claim that the Senate – Republicans and Democrats alike – demanded that Bush “change course in Iraq”. (Senate Floor, November 17)
See that figurative knife sticking out of the backs of millions of Iraqi kids, Mr. McDonald? It reads “Made by the GOP” on the handle, and it came from your table.
Senator Warner actually tried to claim “I think this is supportive of the strong points the President has consistently made. In no way is it to be construed, in my judgment, as critical.” (Press Conference, November 15)
Translation: 'You see honey, I didn’t know she was a hooker, she looks a lot like you and I thought I was actually being faithful… and I only gave her fifty bucks to get undressed, uhhhhh, because I thought she needed to change into better clothes, yeah that’s it’ Sorry, MISTER Warner, but no one outside the Beltway could possibly believe that lie for a second.
The e-mail from “Ronald” McDonald went on to compare the demands in the resolution to statements made by and regarding the Iraqi citizens, completely missing the critical distinction between a nation making strides on its own initiative and efforts, and the demoralizing effect of being left on your own after a deadline. The e-mail from Mr. McDonald did serve one useful purpose, though – the inability of Mr. McDonald to understand the sheer lunacy of voting for such an execrable resolution shows just how insulated and unrealistic your average Senator’s comprehension of the real world has become.
As a Texan, I would like to use my own Senators as an example for a personal message I think we should all be sending:
Senators, you have forfeited your right to hold office. By siding with enemies of the people of Iraq and by betraying your President, especially while he was visiting a major foreign nation, you have demonstrated a complete lack of fitness for the duties and responsibilities of your office. You may count on my tireless efforts to see you replaced with a Republican who keeps his word and honor, and I am joined in that determination by millions of other Republicans who count our President and our troops of worthy of support, and who have no tolerance for betrayal or an expedient politician like yourself.
In conclusion, I would like to note the breakdown of the votes between the Democrat's Surrender-Now demand and the Republican copy. Two senators did not vote on either measure; 53 voted 'yea' on both resolutions; 26 voted 'nay' to the Democrat version, but 'yea' to the GOP-brand White Flag; 6 Democrats voted 'yea' to the Democrat version, but 'nay' to the GOP version out of spite; and fourteen brave souls had the integrity and courage to vote 'nay' on both resolutions. These are the Senators we should applaud and watch for their future votes, as they are the only Senators who seem to understand the concepts of Leadership, Commitment, and Honor:
From Kentucky, Senator Jim Bunning [R]
From North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr [R]
From Georgia, Senator Saxby Chambliss [R]
From Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn [R]
From South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint [R]
From South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham [R]
From Oklahoma, Senator James Inhofe [R]
From Georgia, Senator Johnny Isakson [R]
From Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl [R]
From Arizona, Senator John McCain [R] (don't get cocky, John - you still have to explain your campaign finance "reform", and that 'let's leave it to the lawyers' bill you pushed on Torture definitions and restrictions)
From Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions [R]
From South Dakota, Senator John Thune [R]
From Louisiana, Senator David Vitter [R]
And, in proof that there is yet at least one Democrat who knows what Democrats used to stand for, Senator Kent Conrad [D] from North Dakota
Speaking for myself, Kyl should be made Senate Majority Leader, and Thune should be given a strong whip, and a license to get the party back in line.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Speaking of Pre-War Intelligence
???
Congressman Curt Weldon says that the Able Danger intelligence team uncovered four terrorist hijackers in 2000, but was prevented by the Department of Justice from passing the information to the appropriate authorities.
Jamie Gorelick, a prominent Democrat on the 9/11 Commission refused to remove herself from the investigation even after evidence was produced showing she had direct and personal involvement in the rules preventing information exchanges between the military, intelligence, and the FBI, a policy now broadly understood to have hurt security and prevented the capture of the Al Qaeda cells.
Sandy Berger was convicted in September 2005, of stealing classified documents from the National Archives on multiple occasions. The documents dealt with Clinton Administration security actions and intelligence in 2000.
It is understood after investigation, that the 9/11 attacks were developed over a period of years dating back to at least 1995, and were inspired by the lack of concern and attention by the Clinton Administration to the numerous attacks by Al Qaeda through 1999.
The available evidence, even now, demonstrates that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor and patron of a number of terrorist groups. Also, questions surrounding meetings between representatives for Saddam and Bin Laden in 1994 have never been satisfactorily answered. Some government officials have pointed to information indicating the Iraq-Al Qaeda links were far more numerous and significant than has been publicly announced, as shown by a 2003 briefing for leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties. This group includes Senator Rockefeller, who personally read a sixteen-page memo supporting links between the Hussein regime in Iraq and Osama Bin Laden.
The intelligence community, not only the United States but also most major agencies, including the community in Britain, France, and Germany, agreed in 2002 that WMD existed in Iraq and represented a real threat.
The Left now argues, as they did fifteen months ago in another equally deceitful and malicious effort, that President Bush lied about the Intelligence information, and somehow tricked the nation. But we’ve already been there and answered that lie. David Kay, a man quoted by the Left when it suits them to take a comment out of context, clearly said “I think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people. We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration.”
As an example of world leaders of note, Tony Blair still believes the intelligence information is valid, saying “As for the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubt at all that those weapons existed, absolutely no doubt, because that is said not just by this government or the United States government. It was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and by United Nations inspectors.”
Kay also observed that it was right to invade Iraq, because "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." Kay repeated that invading Iraq was actually vital to U.S. National Security, saying “I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.”
Investigations into the pre-war intelligence have never found any evidence of pressure to reach a certain conclusion, and the statements made by President Bush were very similar to those made by leading Democrats and even President Clinton.
It’s obvious to me, that the attempts by the Left to once again smear the President amount to a shallow hope that people won’t notice that we had valid information, about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, long before they began training for the 9/11 attacks. An honest investigation would not be trying once again to put Bush in the dock. There have already been enough commissions and investigations about him, and fishing season’s over. If we want to investigate pre-War intelligence, let’s focus on why Al Qaeda was allowed to grow from a two-bit radical shoot to an international organization. That, of course, would put a damper on a certain Senator’s ambitions to become President in 2008, but it seems to me that’s what the Democrats fear, so it’s also where we should start to look.
Congressman Curt Weldon says that the Able Danger intelligence team uncovered four terrorist hijackers in 2000, but was prevented by the Department of Justice from passing the information to the appropriate authorities.
Jamie Gorelick, a prominent Democrat on the 9/11 Commission refused to remove herself from the investigation even after evidence was produced showing she had direct and personal involvement in the rules preventing information exchanges between the military, intelligence, and the FBI, a policy now broadly understood to have hurt security and prevented the capture of the Al Qaeda cells.
Sandy Berger was convicted in September 2005, of stealing classified documents from the National Archives on multiple occasions. The documents dealt with Clinton Administration security actions and intelligence in 2000.
It is understood after investigation, that the 9/11 attacks were developed over a period of years dating back to at least 1995, and were inspired by the lack of concern and attention by the Clinton Administration to the numerous attacks by Al Qaeda through 1999.
The available evidence, even now, demonstrates that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor and patron of a number of terrorist groups. Also, questions surrounding meetings between representatives for Saddam and Bin Laden in 1994 have never been satisfactorily answered. Some government officials have pointed to information indicating the Iraq-Al Qaeda links were far more numerous and significant than has been publicly announced, as shown by a 2003 briefing for leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties. This group includes Senator Rockefeller, who personally read a sixteen-page memo supporting links between the Hussein regime in Iraq and Osama Bin Laden.
The intelligence community, not only the United States but also most major agencies, including the community in Britain, France, and Germany, agreed in 2002 that WMD existed in Iraq and represented a real threat.
The Left now argues, as they did fifteen months ago in another equally deceitful and malicious effort, that President Bush lied about the Intelligence information, and somehow tricked the nation. But we’ve already been there and answered that lie. David Kay, a man quoted by the Left when it suits them to take a comment out of context, clearly said “I think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people. We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration.”
As an example of world leaders of note, Tony Blair still believes the intelligence information is valid, saying “As for the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubt at all that those weapons existed, absolutely no doubt, because that is said not just by this government or the United States government. It was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and by United Nations inspectors.”
Kay also observed that it was right to invade Iraq, because "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." Kay repeated that invading Iraq was actually vital to U.S. National Security, saying “I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.”
Investigations into the pre-war intelligence have never found any evidence of pressure to reach a certain conclusion, and the statements made by President Bush were very similar to those made by leading Democrats and even President Clinton.
It’s obvious to me, that the attempts by the Left to once again smear the President amount to a shallow hope that people won’t notice that we had valid information, about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, long before they began training for the 9/11 attacks. An honest investigation would not be trying once again to put Bush in the dock. There have already been enough commissions and investigations about him, and fishing season’s over. If we want to investigate pre-War intelligence, let’s focus on why Al Qaeda was allowed to grow from a two-bit radical shoot to an international organization. That, of course, would put a damper on a certain Senator’s ambitions to become President in 2008, but it seems to me that’s what the Democrats fear, so it’s also where we should start to look.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Things That Should Already Have Been Obvious
!!!
[] Picking your nose on a first date is going to prevent a second date
[] If you are a wanna-be war hero, it won’t help you to be photo’d anywhere near the real article.
[] There is NO safe answer to “Does This Make Me Look Fat?”
[] It is not a good idea to challenge a Conservative President whose dad kicked your keister already; you will lose your palaces and family and power, and end up living in a stinking hole
[] “No Money Down” translates to mean “Huge Finance Charges”
[] There are men who just look stupid in a uniform, while others look great in one.
[] Those who can, do. Those who can’t, are called Democrats.
[] If you are a Republican Senator, who largely owes his office and party majority to the sitting President’s efforts, and this is in a time of war, you do not stab him in the back by attacking him with the opposition party’s words, especially while he is visiting a major foreign nation.
Here is the Roll Call Vote of that nefarious regurgitated donkey dump.
[] Picking your nose on a first date is going to prevent a second date
[] If you are a wanna-be war hero, it won’t help you to be photo’d anywhere near the real article.
[] There is NO safe answer to “Does This Make Me Look Fat?”
[] It is not a good idea to challenge a Conservative President whose dad kicked your keister already; you will lose your palaces and family and power, and end up living in a stinking hole
[] “No Money Down” translates to mean “Huge Finance Charges”
[] There are men who just look stupid in a uniform, while others look great in one.
[] Those who can, do. Those who can’t, are called Democrats.
[] If you are a Republican Senator, who largely owes his office and party majority to the sitting President’s efforts, and this is in a time of war, you do not stab him in the back by attacking him with the opposition party’s words, especially while he is visiting a major foreign nation.
Here is the Roll Call Vote of that nefarious regurgitated donkey dump.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
If It Wasn't About The Terrorists...
???
It occurs to me to wonder, what if the Democrats are right, in their claims that the Invasion of Iraq was not part of the Global War On Terror, to which they pay fervent lip service?
The Democrats have been pushing the claim that the War in Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If this were actually the case, shouldn’t we look into what caused and led to the 9/11 attacks?
The available evidence, at least the bits the Democrats have not denied and tried to smear, is pretty clear that Osama began planning in earnest for the World Trade Center attacks during the Clinton Administration, after renewed success in attacking U.S. interests in a number of countries without significant retaliation. A few embassies, business targets, and bombings of assorted U.S. allies were all but ignored by President Bubba.
By the Democrats’ own logic then, shouldn’t they be demanding an investigation into Clinton’s failure to address the threat?
Then again, if we’re talking about Democrats, logic is not on the table...
It occurs to me to wonder, what if the Democrats are right, in their claims that the Invasion of Iraq was not part of the Global War On Terror, to which they pay fervent lip service?
The Democrats have been pushing the claim that the War in Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If this were actually the case, shouldn’t we look into what caused and led to the 9/11 attacks?
The available evidence, at least the bits the Democrats have not denied and tried to smear, is pretty clear that Osama began planning in earnest for the World Trade Center attacks during the Clinton Administration, after renewed success in attacking U.S. interests in a number of countries without significant retaliation. A few embassies, business targets, and bombings of assorted U.S. allies were all but ignored by President Bubba.
By the Democrats’ own logic then, shouldn’t they be demanding an investigation into Clinton’s failure to address the threat?
Then again, if we’re talking about Democrats, logic is not on the table...
Monday, November 14, 2005
Sunday TV
...
I enjoyed watching Fox News yesterday. I and my family were down with a virus, so we did little but watch television and drink soup. The Fox Channel was worth the look, as Chris Wallace hit the high points, correctly anticipating that the Democrat Jay Rockefeller would cling to the low road of insinuation and gutter mutter.
Among the questions which answered themselves:
“Senator Rockefeller, pre-war intelligence was a big issue in the last campaign, widely debated. George Bush won that election. There are now 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Is it really useful to go back over what Dick Cheney or someone else said in 2002?”
“Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did”
Some of the answers were worth attention, as Senator Pat Roberts observed:
“but we've had our own investigation, the WMD Inquiry, and the (inaudible) report in Britain and the WMD Commission all saying that there wasn't any manipulation or pressure.”
“I don't share Jay's view that there's that much difference between the PDBs and the information that we get, which is very similar to the senior executive intelligence brief.
I think what happened, if you read the Robb-Silverman report, that it was repetitive. It was a lot like the slam dunk statement by former CIA director George Tenet, who also believed, I'm sure, that there was an imminent threat.
I think that again, you know, this administration looked at the available report by the entire community, as we did, and said it was a danger to our national security, and they went to war.”
Seems like Chris Wallace learned more about Journalism than his dad.
I enjoyed watching Fox News yesterday. I and my family were down with a virus, so we did little but watch television and drink soup. The Fox Channel was worth the look, as Chris Wallace hit the high points, correctly anticipating that the Democrat Jay Rockefeller would cling to the low road of insinuation and gutter mutter.
Among the questions which answered themselves:
“Senator Rockefeller, pre-war intelligence was a big issue in the last campaign, widely debated. George Bush won that election. There are now 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Is it really useful to go back over what Dick Cheney or someone else said in 2002?”
“Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did”
Some of the answers were worth attention, as Senator Pat Roberts observed:
“but we've had our own investigation, the WMD Inquiry, and the (inaudible) report in Britain and the WMD Commission all saying that there wasn't any manipulation or pressure.”
“I don't share Jay's view that there's that much difference between the PDBs and the information that we get, which is very similar to the senior executive intelligence brief.
I think what happened, if you read the Robb-Silverman report, that it was repetitive. It was a lot like the slam dunk statement by former CIA director George Tenet, who also believed, I'm sure, that there was an imminent threat.
I think that again, you know, this administration looked at the available report by the entire community, as we did, and said it was a danger to our national security, and they went to war.”
Seems like Chris Wallace learned more about Journalism than his dad.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Fair Weather Conservatives
.......
Back when the dispute among the Right over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was hot and nasty, I observed that some people’s avowed support for President Bush seemed to be a bit more frail and weak than they claimed. The response to that was varied, including a number of personal insults about me being a “robot” or “bootlicker”. While the issue passed, and a nominee acceptable to all Conservatives was named after Miers’ withdrawal, I continued to wonder how well Conservative support would stick by the man most responsible for the present GOP Majority, and the first man since Reagan to not wilt under the pressures or enticements to forfeit the promises made to the American People.
I received an e-mail Thursday night, which I find representative of that facade-only Conservatism. I leave off the writer’s name, but the text was as follows:
“I think George Bush has lost control of the ship. He seems paralyzed to make any tough decisions - about anything - is unable to tell us anything without reading from someone else's prepared scripts. He is unable to tell us which direction we are heading as we are heading nowhere now except in circles. He has forsaken whatever conservative agenda that was promised to get him elected. His cardboard press secretary is no better. Why anyone shows up at those press conferences is beyond me.
“Seems to me he is like Captain Queeg juggling his marbles petrified to do anything .More honesty - if this were baseball - a relief pitcher would be would be in with Bush being able to be charged with a loss and not with a win.
“Hey - if he can't or won't steer the ship - better he get the hell out of the way. I would rather go down swinging than be led to the ovens again by inaction. What happened to the Guy that stood on the rubble in New York - seems we lost him.”
I replied as follows:
“Having a bad day? I read your message, but I cannot say that I see the analogies as valid. First, "paralyzed" is hardly accurate. Bush is getting out and making appearances and delivering statements, and even if some less-than-focused Republicans are hurting vital work like ANWR and screwing around with the Budget, the President himself is doing his job, same as he always does.
“I would have to disagree with your choice of comparisons as valid in any way. Bush's selection of Alito, his support for drilling in ANWR, and other key points of focus are as conservative as anyone could ask - if turncoats in Congress will not pass the proposals into law, it hardly means that the President did not care. As for Captain Queeg (who never actually held that rank - remember part of the thing was that Queeg looked so desperately to be promoted to Commander?), he was a mentally unbalanced bully, hardly an apt description of George W. Bush.
“I understand that you would like a grand gesture from Dubs, but remember - the "show on demand" President was Clinton. Dubya does things because he is doing the job. What he said on the rubble in New York was unscripted, and he meant every syllable of what he said. That's what made the difference. George W. Bush, whatever you think of his elocution, never says something unless he means it, and he is not one to grandstand, even when Conservatives think that will help.
“What I am saying is this - the George W. Bush we have now, is exactly the one we have always had. He's maddening at times, because he will not say what you want him to say, and he will not make a gesture just for points. The same George W. Bush who annoyed Conservatives by not threatening China in the plane collision incident in 2001, was the same President who had no trouble sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. The same Dubya who nominated Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court also nominated Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and for the same reason in each case; he honestly believed in his nominee, and thought they were the right choice. The same Dubya who refused to get outraged at the slander from Kerry's campaign last year, also refused to fire or punish Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any other Administration member who was attacked simply for doing their job well. The man is who he is, and on the whole we are truly blessed to have him at the helm, a man unwilling to panic or be sweet-talked, and a man whose perspective goes a bit further than any other politician on the horizon right now.
“Instead of suggesting that Bush is somehow not the right man to have in charge, for myself I am hoping and praying that we can somehow find a man or woman to continue his leadership past 2008.”
This was not the first, nor sadly will it be the last, that I hear of someone whose confidence drives his mind and heart. It occurs to me that, call me what you will for saying so, that if Conservatives want to make something of our majority, we need to make plain that we stand behind our President, and that if they want to be part of the future, they must follow the leader of the movement, not pretend to grandeur themselves for the sake of expediency or a quick moment of attention from the MSM.
This is a gut-check call for the nation. If the Liberals can sell the idea that Conservatives are not committed to their ideals, the people who swing the elections will start believing in “moderate” Democrats again. The closest thing we have to a Conservative leader with the vision and backbone to get the job done, is President Bush. It’s time for us to show we have not forgotten that, or that we have confused his rivals (McCain, Specter, et al) for leadership.
I support the President. Where do you stand?
Back when the dispute among the Right over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was hot and nasty, I observed that some people’s avowed support for President Bush seemed to be a bit more frail and weak than they claimed. The response to that was varied, including a number of personal insults about me being a “robot” or “bootlicker”. While the issue passed, and a nominee acceptable to all Conservatives was named after Miers’ withdrawal, I continued to wonder how well Conservative support would stick by the man most responsible for the present GOP Majority, and the first man since Reagan to not wilt under the pressures or enticements to forfeit the promises made to the American People.
I received an e-mail Thursday night, which I find representative of that facade-only Conservatism. I leave off the writer’s name, but the text was as follows:
“I think George Bush has lost control of the ship. He seems paralyzed to make any tough decisions - about anything - is unable to tell us anything without reading from someone else's prepared scripts. He is unable to tell us which direction we are heading as we are heading nowhere now except in circles. He has forsaken whatever conservative agenda that was promised to get him elected. His cardboard press secretary is no better. Why anyone shows up at those press conferences is beyond me.
“Seems to me he is like Captain Queeg juggling his marbles petrified to do anything .More honesty - if this were baseball - a relief pitcher would be would be in with Bush being able to be charged with a loss and not with a win.
“Hey - if he can't or won't steer the ship - better he get the hell out of the way. I would rather go down swinging than be led to the ovens again by inaction. What happened to the Guy that stood on the rubble in New York - seems we lost him.”
I replied as follows:
“Having a bad day? I read your message, but I cannot say that I see the analogies as valid. First, "paralyzed" is hardly accurate. Bush is getting out and making appearances and delivering statements, and even if some less-than-focused Republicans are hurting vital work like ANWR and screwing around with the Budget, the President himself is doing his job, same as he always does.
“I would have to disagree with your choice of comparisons as valid in any way. Bush's selection of Alito, his support for drilling in ANWR, and other key points of focus are as conservative as anyone could ask - if turncoats in Congress will not pass the proposals into law, it hardly means that the President did not care. As for Captain Queeg (who never actually held that rank - remember part of the thing was that Queeg looked so desperately to be promoted to Commander?), he was a mentally unbalanced bully, hardly an apt description of George W. Bush.
“I understand that you would like a grand gesture from Dubs, but remember - the "show on demand" President was Clinton. Dubya does things because he is doing the job. What he said on the rubble in New York was unscripted, and he meant every syllable of what he said. That's what made the difference. George W. Bush, whatever you think of his elocution, never says something unless he means it, and he is not one to grandstand, even when Conservatives think that will help.
“What I am saying is this - the George W. Bush we have now, is exactly the one we have always had. He's maddening at times, because he will not say what you want him to say, and he will not make a gesture just for points. The same George W. Bush who annoyed Conservatives by not threatening China in the plane collision incident in 2001, was the same President who had no trouble sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. The same Dubya who nominated Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court also nominated Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and for the same reason in each case; he honestly believed in his nominee, and thought they were the right choice. The same Dubya who refused to get outraged at the slander from Kerry's campaign last year, also refused to fire or punish Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any other Administration member who was attacked simply for doing their job well. The man is who he is, and on the whole we are truly blessed to have him at the helm, a man unwilling to panic or be sweet-talked, and a man whose perspective goes a bit further than any other politician on the horizon right now.
“Instead of suggesting that Bush is somehow not the right man to have in charge, for myself I am hoping and praying that we can somehow find a man or woman to continue his leadership past 2008.”
This was not the first, nor sadly will it be the last, that I hear of someone whose confidence drives his mind and heart. It occurs to me that, call me what you will for saying so, that if Conservatives want to make something of our majority, we need to make plain that we stand behind our President, and that if they want to be part of the future, they must follow the leader of the movement, not pretend to grandeur themselves for the sake of expediency or a quick moment of attention from the MSM.
This is a gut-check call for the nation. If the Liberals can sell the idea that Conservatives are not committed to their ideals, the people who swing the elections will start believing in “moderate” Democrats again. The closest thing we have to a Conservative leader with the vision and backbone to get the job done, is President Bush. It’s time for us to show we have not forgotten that, or that we have confused his rivals (McCain, Specter, et al) for leadership.
I support the President. Where do you stand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
