Iraqnophobia: Fear and loathing of victory in Iraq. See also "Harry Reid" - AnabolicMinds.com

Iraqnophobia: Fear and loathing of victory in Iraq. See also "Harry Reid"

  1. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Iraqnophobia: Fear and loathing of victory in Iraq. See also "Harry Reid"


    Lets face it, Victory or any success in Iraq is devastating to any chance any democrat has to win in 2008. Whats good for America and the world is bad for democratic politicians. Democrats are pathetic treasonous piles of ****, except Lieberman. The days of couragous democrats like Roosevelt and Kennedy are long gone. The days of anti american, terrorist sympathetic ****bags Mooveon.org Michael Mooreons are here to stay for a long time. Wake up America. Bush may have ****ed some things up, but he has one thing right. The war in Iraq has to be won, or our children and our childrens children will be there. Its not a choice. Or maybe best case scenario like Vietnam (bring the troops home) millions will die in a civil war after we leave and we can feel good about cowarding out because of drug induced hippy ignorance of the real world. At least we didnt kill a few thousand evil people, the terrorist killed millions of innocent civilians in religous genocide. Thats what will happen when Iran gets involved.

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    P.S. let prosecute Gonzales for firing Six US attourneys that werent enforcing the law (Even though its his constitutioal right to fire a guy for no reason at all), but ignore the fact that Clinton fired all 98 US attourneys appointed by Bush Sr., and the one that was investigating his Whitewater illegal land deal scandal. HAHAHAHA when I hear Pelosi talk about culture of corruption. Thats like Rosie Odonnel calling someone else fat, ugly and annoying.

    What the Democrats said about Saddam's WMDs

  2. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    John Kerry - the best friend the Republican party ever had!!!

    Just ask George H W Bush, who was being investigated by Kerry's sub committee on corruption for his role in the "BCCI" scandal of the late 1980's. Kerry dismissed the investigation because there was "too much" evidence and it would take "too much time" to sort it all out...too much evidence!!!

    Calling John Kerry a democrat is like calling Rosie O'donnel a fitness model!


    P.S. let prosecute Gonzales for firing Six US attourneys that werent enforcing the law (Even though its his constitutioal right to fire a guy for no reason at all), but ignore the fact that Clinton fired all 98 US attourneys appointed by Bush Sr., and the one that was investigating his Whitewater illegal land deal scandal. HAHAHAHA when I hear Pelosi talk about culture of corruption. Thats like Rosie Odonnel calling someone else fat, ugly and annoying.

    What the Democrats said about Saddam's WMDs
    Ps. Gonzales is in trouble not because he fired 6 attorneys, but because he replaced them with "pro-NEOCON" stooges, that were easily "outted" by their own records. The real issue is the documentation of the orders to fire the attorneys came from the White House as per the missing E-mails of Karl Rove!!!
  3. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Ps. Gonzales is in trouble not because he fired 6 attorneys, but because he replaced them with "pro-NEOCON" stooges, that were easily "outted" by their own records. The real issue is the documentation of the orders to fire the attorneys came from the White House as per the missing E-mails of Karl Rove!!!
    No, heres the true story.

    "Who's Politicizing Justice

    One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

    If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

    The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

    So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

    One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

    If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

    The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

    So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

    Democrats know that presidents have broad discretion to terminate U.S. attorneys so long as they aren't trying to interfere with investigations or the like. But where were Democrats when Janet Reno, almost immediately after becoming attorney general, took the unprecedented action of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys even before they had successors lined up to take their places? Yet Democrats insist on jumping to the worst possible conclusions concerning the Gonzalez Justice Department's much less extreme action of firing only eight.

    Scandalmongerer in chief, Sen. Chuck Schumer, exploited reports of these firings with his customary even-handedness. He didn't suggest that we need to examine the facts to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred. He immediately accused Gonzalez of gross improprieties and demanded he resign because he is putting politics above the law. What? Talk about calling the kettle black!

    It is Schumer and his fellow Bush-haters who are putting politics above the law, like they put partisan politics above almost everything else, including America's national security interests. How better to describe Schumer's demands that Gonzalez resign for engaging in the completely lawful and ethical act of firing attorneys serving at the president's discretion, likely because of policy differences or performance?

    Even the reliably liberal Washington Post has conceded that so far, "little evidence" has emerged that the firings were calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. What, then, do Schumer and his colleagues know that we don't? Nothing, of course, except the important lesson that allegations of wrongdoing repeated over and over damage their target, even when they are baseless.

    Schumer's Democrats are demanding that the evil Rove and others shackle themselves in leg braces and shuffle over to Congress to volunteer themselves as witch-trial, perjury trap martyrs in the spirit of the fallen Scooter Libby. When at first you don't succeed at taking down Cheney and Rove, try, try again.

    President Bush, though admirably standing his ground so far and properly upholding the integrity of the executive branch against this Democratic legislative power grab, has been very accommodating and forthcoming with the evidence. If Democrats were interested in the facts, instead of rushing to injustice, they would be jumping at this opportunity to examine the evidence before jumping to conclusions of criminality.

    Bush has offered that Rove and others meet informally with the witchhunters, and is providing mountains of e-mails and other documentary evidence for them to peruse in their quest for just a sliver of a morsel to suggest the faintest hint of a shred of barely discernible ambiguity that could be stretched, contorted and distorted enough to fool some into believing wrongdoing occurred.

    We must encourage the president to hold his ground here and, the next time Sen. Schumer expectorates false charges against him, to reverse the charges. He should say to Mr. Schumer, "Senator, you are the one subordinating the law to politics. You are the one acting unethically and abusing your power, by wrongfully accusing public officials of wrongdoing and demanding their resignation without any evidence wrongdoing occurred. If you have a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing, produce it, or hold your slanderous tongue. Before lecturing us again on politics and justice, explain to us why you routinely savage my highly qualified and ethical judicial nominees for crass political purposes."

    By the way, where was Sen. Schumer when President Clinton and Attorney General Reno were giving a nearly eight-year seminar on how to politicize and corrupt the Justice Department? I devoted an entire book to that subject and would be glad to send an uninscribed copy to the senator, reminding him that he was conspicuously silent during that period."

    Posted by David Limbaugh at March 22, 2007 06:50 PM

    Read up Mooreon Marxists. The truth always hurts your cause.
    Liberals are mentally ill self loathing losers.
    •   
       

  4. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    No, heres the true story.

    "Who's Politicizing Justice

    One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

    If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

    The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

    So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

    One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

    If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

    The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

    So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

    Democrats know that presidents have broad discretion to terminate U.S. attorneys so long as they aren't trying to interfere with investigations or the like. But where were Democrats when Janet Reno, almost immediately after becoming attorney general, took the unprecedented action of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys even before they had successors lined up to take their places? Yet Democrats insist on jumping to the worst possible conclusions concerning the Gonzalez Justice Department's much less extreme action of firing only eight.

    Scandalmongerer in chief, Sen. Chuck Schumer, exploited reports of these firings with his customary even-handedness. He didn't suggest that we need to examine the facts to determine whether any wrongdoing occurred. He immediately accused Gonzalez of gross improprieties and demanded he resign because he is putting politics above the law. What? Talk about calling the kettle black!

    It is Schumer and his fellow Bush-haters who are putting politics above the law, like they put partisan politics above almost everything else, including America's national security interests. How better to describe Schumer's demands that Gonzalez resign for engaging in the completely lawful and ethical act of firing attorneys serving at the president's discretion, likely because of policy differences or performance?

    Even the reliably liberal Washington Post has conceded that so far, "little evidence" has emerged that the firings were calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. What, then, do Schumer and his colleagues know that we don't? Nothing, of course, except the important lesson that allegations of wrongdoing repeated over and over damage their target, even when they are baseless.

    Schumer's Democrats are demanding that the evil Rove and others shackle themselves in leg braces and shuffle over to Congress to volunteer themselves as witch-trial, perjury trap martyrs in the spirit of the fallen Scooter Libby. When at first you don't succeed at taking down Cheney and Rove, try, try again.

    President Bush, though admirably standing his ground so far and properly upholding the integrity of the executive branch against this Democratic legislative power grab, has been very accommodating and forthcoming with the evidence. If Democrats were interested in the facts, instead of rushing to injustice, they would be jumping at this opportunity to examine the evidence before jumping to conclusions of criminality.

    Bush has offered that Rove and others meet informally with the witchhunters, and is providing mountains of e-mails and other documentary evidence for them to peruse in their quest for just a sliver of a morsel to suggest the faintest hint of a shred of barely discernible ambiguity that could be stretched, contorted and distorted enough to fool some into believing wrongdoing occurred.

    We must encourage the president to hold his ground here and, the next time Sen. Schumer expectorates false charges against him, to reverse the charges. He should say to Mr. Schumer, "Senator, you are the one subordinating the law to politics. You are the one acting unethically and abusing your power, by wrongfully accusing public officials of wrongdoing and demanding their resignation without any evidence wrongdoing occurred. If you have a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing, produce it, or hold your slanderous tongue. Before lecturing us again on politics and justice, explain to us why you routinely savage my highly qualified and ethical judicial nominees for crass political purposes."

    By the way, where was Sen. Schumer when President Clinton and Attorney General Reno were giving a nearly eight-year seminar on how to politicize and corrupt the Justice Department? I devoted an entire book to that subject and would be glad to send an uninscribed copy to the senator, reminding him that he was conspicuously silent during that period."

    Posted by David Limbaugh at March 22, 2007 06:50 PM

    Read up Mooreon Marxists. The truth always hurts your cause.
    Liberals are mentally ill self loathing losers.
    Well, gee I don't want to get all political and.....na just kiddin

    I hope I don't come off as self hating but if "you" think I am mentally ill that is probably a "good" thing.

    Short and sweet- If the two teams are the Democrats and the Republicans and one team drops the ball.( ie; lies its way into an un-winnable international aberration in Iraq, has multiple ongoing corruption scandals involving- voter fraud, pedophilia, money laundering, spying, stock manipulation, illegal wire tapping, illegal torture, illegal campaign funding,no bid contracts,
    misappropriated funds, illegal private military contracts, illegal use of the military on domestic soil and violating the constitution as a point of order.)
    Would it not be in the best interests of the other team to let the world know and even rub it in alittle. I mean that's how you play the game, right, to win, so there!
    that's not too liberal for you is it???
  5. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Well, gee I don't want to get all political and.....na just kiddin

    I hope I don't come off as self hating but if "you" think I am mentally ill that is probably a "good" thing.

    Short and sweet- If the two teams are the Democrats and the Republicans and one team drops the ball.( ie; lies its way into an un-winnable international aberration in Iraq, has multiple ongoing corruption scandals involving- voter fraud, pedophilia, money laundering, spying, stock manipulation, illegal wire tapping, illegal torture, illegal campaign funding,no bid contracts,
    misappropriated funds, illegal private military contracts, illegal use of the military on domestic soil and violating the constitution as a point of order.)
    Would it not be in the best interests of the other team to let the world know and even rub it in alittle. I mean that's how you play the game, right, to win, so there!
    that's not too liberal for you is it???
    ROFL did you not reat the ****ING quotes democrats said about Iraq and you still claim lies by Republicans! HAHAHAHAAHA! Wow you are delusional. Illegal Campaign Funding, Sounds like a Clinton to me! Voter Fraud ROFL, there is more democratic voter fraud than republican by FAR. Thats an undeniable fact. Radicals like you know loony leftists will stop at nothing to win. Pedophilia like one stupid guy in the party has ramifications on the entire party, but at least 30% of Muslims being radical Jihadist genocidal maniacs, its not OK to profile them. You are and your far left ilk are the bigots.

    "money laundering, spying, stock manipulation, illegal wire tapping, illegal torture, illegal campaign funding,no bid contracts, misappropriated funds, illegal private military contracts, illegal use of the military on domestic soil and violating the constitution as a point of order." HAHA lets see you provide proof and examples that dont come from a Mooveon.org of Huffingtonpost website, or Michael Moore or Alex Jones propaganda film.

    BTW Franklin Roosevelt (a real democrat) was a big reason we won WW2, by hiding his financial help for Great Britian, cause douche bags like you werent smart enough to recognize a threat that exists.
  6. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

    "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."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

    "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."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

    "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, and 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."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

    "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."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source


    Which party lied again now? Lets not forget Germany, China, Russia all said Saddam had WMD's too. And lets not forget Clinton hired Halliburton also. Once again, your Michael Moore books dont teach you the relevant facts.
  7. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    ROFL did you not reat the ****ING quotes democrats said about Iraq and you still claim lies by Republicans! HAHAHAHAAHA! Wow you are delusional. Illegal Campaign Funding, Sounds like a Clinton to me! Voter Fraud ROFL, there is more democratic voter fraud than republican by FAR. Thats an undeniable fact. Radicals like you know loony leftists will stop at nothing to win. Pedophilia like one stupid guy in the party has ramifications on the entire party, but at least 30% of Muslims being radical Jihadist genocidal maniacs, its not OK to profile them. You are and your far left ilk are the bigots.

    "money laundering, spying, stock manipulation, illegal wire tapping, illegal torture, illegal campaign funding,no bid contracts, misappropriated funds, illegal private military contracts, illegal use of the military on domestic soil and violating the constitution as a point of order." HAHA lets see you provide proof and examples that dont come from a Mooveon.org of Huffingtonpost website, or Michael Moore or Alex Jones propaganda film.

    Umm, Hello anybody there!

    You or shall I say a person with some level of reading comprehension can research all of these FACTS on the web
    just google this phrase "REPUBLICAN" there will be many choices for your research! good luck !


    BTW Franklin Roosevelt (a real democrat) was a big reason we won WW2, by hiding his financial help for Great Britian, cause douche bags like you werent smart enough to recognize a threat that exists.
    Woah there buddy, FDR could you stay on topic? Yikes
    I know you have a little trouble reading, but simple character recognition, like my age 41, would explain why I did not recognize any threats during FDR's administration!

    Finally, I apologize for any ill tempered comments I may have made I did not realize that you had a head injury.

    I hope you get better some day and we can have an intelligent discussion, until then good luck and god speed be with you!!!
  8. Banned
    CNorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,184
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Woah there buddy, FDR could you stay on topic? Yikes
    I know you have a little trouble reading, but simple character recognition, like my age 41, would explain why I did not recognize any threats during FDR's administration!

    Finally, I apologize for any ill tempered comments I may have made I did not realize that you had a head injury.

    I hope you get better some day and we can have an intelligent discussion, until then good luck and god speed be with you!!!
    Typical neo-marxist. Doesnt address the facts, just insults character. No wonder Cheney is deleting his email. Pelosi and Reid have nothing to do for the country except attack characters in the Bush admin, and the media gladly helps them fabricate lies. Dont forget Sandy Berger! What he did is thousands of times worse than any deleting of email, or the irrelevant Valerie Plame "Outing" attack by the neo-marxist media. Berger didnt spend a day in jail and he destroyed some of the most important that covered how Clinton administration handled terrorism during his term. Sandy Berger should have gone to jail for 20 years if not life. He not only permanently destroyed and stole federal documents, he destroyed extremely important historical records that the 911 committee never had a chance to see. That is treasonous and he should have been sent to jail for a long long time. Sandy Berger is the real criminal, not Scooter Libby. Heres another good educational article for you to learn the facts, and to illustrate how the left doesnt deal with facts, they just resort to character assasignations.

    The whole Scooter Libby case, from start to finish, has been based on the left's depraved obsession with substantiating the lie that President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied us into war.

    Though I won't presume to substitute myself as a juror and will never downplay the actual commission of perjury, I have serious doubts that Mr. Libby lied – as opposed to having an imperfect memory over matters not that critically important – because he had no motive to lie. He had no motive because the administration had nothing to hide concerning its decision to attack Iraq and particularly the yellow cake uranium flap, despite the left's endless cacophony to the contrary.

    The relevant facts in this unfortunate saga are not that complicated. Most Democrats, because of overwhelming public support for the war, were politically compelled to support the Iraq war resolution. But when the war became less popular and the Democrats' anti-war base demanded accountability for the Democrats' heresy, they manufactured the fiction that the administration lied about WMD.

    Enter Joseph Wilson, who was willing to put some teeth into their false claims. Wilson corroborated the Democrats' claim that Bush lied in his 2003 State of the Union address in saying, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Note that the Brits still stand by their statement.)

    Wilson feigned outrage, saying he had investigated the claim himself in Niger and determined it was baseless. But the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British Butler Report both concluded that Wilson's findings did more to substantiate, than debunk, the Saddam-Niger connection. The Senate Intelligence committee also found that Wilson lied in saying he had discredited certain forged documents, since those very documents weren't discovered until eight months after his trip to Niger. Finally, the committee contradicted Wilson's claim that Cheney, rather than his wife, recommended him for the trip.

    Since the administration had not lied about Iraqi WMD – as opposed to having properly relied on the best intelligence available to it (and Democrats) – it had nothing to cover up, but it did have the right – and duty – to protect its reputation, especially since the Democrats' false characterizations were damaging America's image in the world, something they profess to exalt above all else.

    If Cheney instructed Libby to disclose that Valerie Plame was Wilson's spouse, his motive wasn't to punish Wilson by exposing his wife's highly disputed covert status. It was to impeach Wilson's credibility.

    But none of this mattered to Democrats, because it didn't fit their template that "Bush lied, people died."

    From the beginning, Democrats have been trying to make this case into something they knew it was not: a smoking gun against the administration. At the outset of the prosecution, Sen. Harry Reid shamelessly said, "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration." (Reid and others said virtually the same thing after the verdict.)

    Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald also pushed the Democrats' conspiratorial lunacy, as evidenced by his bizarre and outrageously inflammatory statement to a D.C. jury in closing argument, "There is a cloud over the vice president." Sound familiar?

    How could Fitzgerald possibly say that in good conscience, knowing and having known from the very beginning of the case that Richard Armitage, not Libby, was the leaker and Armitage was no friend of the administration and even less supportive of the Iraq war?

    Predictably, the liberal media have also made their best efforts to turn this trial into Bush's Watergate. Early on they were praying for and predicting that Rove would be indicted. And despite the unconscionably belated revelation that Libby was not the leaker, MSNBC reporter David Shuster stuck with the Democrat template, asking Libby, after the verdict, "Are you willing to go to jail to protect Vice President Cheney?"

    Protect him from what? How many times can we repeat that Libby was neither charged nor convicted of leaking – because he didn't do it? No matter. They just continue to push the theme that "the wrong guy was convicted."

    Scooter Libby is the wrong guy, all right, but there is no right guy, because there was no administration misconduct here. Libby is also the fall guy, but not for Cheney, Rove or Bush. He's the left's sacrificial lamb, an expendable human being whose criminalization is necessary to perpetuate their abominable and politically self-serving myth that Bush, Cheney and Rove lied us into war.
    WorldNetDaily: Whose fall guy?
  9. Anabolic Innovations Rep
    zbtboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    35
    Posts
    998
    Rep Power
    609

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino View Post
    Woah there buddy, FDR could you stay on topic? Yikes
    I know you have a little trouble reading, but simple character recognition, like my age 41, would explain why I did not recognize any threats during FDR's administration!

    Finally, I apologize for any ill tempered comments I may have made I did not realize that you had a head injury.

    I hope you get better some day and we can have an intelligent discussion, until then good luck and god speed be with you!!!
    LOL..there are some people (CNorris) and topics (liberals are evil, conservatives are god) not worthy of debate. This is one of them.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. 11 Hot Dogs in a Minute and Gallon of Milk in 15 Seconds
    By The Solution in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-28-2013, 07:32 PM
  2. Discussion of Blood Results and effectiveness of Triptorelin in PCT
    By fueledpassion in forum Post Cycle Therapy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 12:52 PM
  3. Replies: 310
    Last Post: 09-22-2010, 07:51 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 12:17 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-23-2003, 11:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in