Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, April 27, 2007
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
There Are “Lies,” and Then There Are Lies
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


As someone who has criticized the Bush Administration for not fighting back enough against relentless Democrat attacks and disinformation, I was delighted by Vice President Cheney's overdue dress-down of the Peter-principled and unprincipled Senate majority leader, Harry Reid.

If the mainstream media (MSM) gave as much credence to stories of real deception by Democrats as they do to phony allegations of Republican deception, the political landscape would look dramatically different. But no, I'm not holding my breath.

The MSM dutifully reports as fact the Democrats' false allegation that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD, when at worst it was a mistake, since Bush was properly relying on the virtually unanimous opinion of all major intelligence agencies in the United States and the world. To lie is to say something you know at the time to be false.

In fairness, though, it was not President Bush's mistake, but the intelligence agencies. If you insist on saying Bush made a mistake, so did the Democrats who voted along with him -- with access to the same intelligence, though they've lied in denying that as well.

Though Bush clearly hadn’t lied, we wondered why Democrats were all of a sudden bothered by lying, since they habitually defended a habitual liar of their party who previously occupied the Oval Office.

That's simple, they said. Clinton was lying only about sex. If you lie about sex, even under oath, you should come nearer receiving a Nobel Peace Prize than being punished for it. Of course, Clinton lied about much more than sex, but I digress.

President Bush, they say, lied us into war -- about decisions that would affect lives and our national security. I certainly agree that for a public official actually to lie about such grave matters is inexcusable, which brings us to Dick Cheney's verbal laceration of Harry Reid.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the rest of the Democratic leadership and their MSM echo-puppets are portraying Cheney's remarks as petty partisan politics. In the words of Reid, Cheney is the administration's “attack dog.” It's more accurate to say that he has been one of the Democrats' favorite scapegoats.

But here we go again. When Democrats assassinate Cheney's character with absurd lies, like “war for oil,” the MSM reports it matter of factly as “VP under fire.” When Cheney hits Democratic leader Reid squarely in the eye with truthful charges of his lies and inconsistencies, Cheney is portrayed as a vicious partisan hit man. All the while, the sober and self-evident truth of those allegations is downplayed or ignored. But we must not miss the substance of Cheney's pointed remarks.

The occasion for Cheney's statement on Reid was the Senate majority leader's regrettable declaration that we have lost the war in Iraq. Cheney decided to set the record straight on Reid's opportunistic oscillation on Iraq.

Cheney noted that in just five months Reid has taken three distinctly different positions on the war: “from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding … on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.” Are you with me on this? We're not talking about sex here, but “the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.” Reid has not only changed his position on the pivotal issue of Iraq, but flagrantly lied about it -- and Cheney caught him dead to rights.

Cheney pointed out that Reid falsely stated the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Surrender Group (ISG), which is “plainly false.” The ISG report “was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad.” This surge, in the opinion of the general in command, is critical to our victory in Iraq, and Reid is lying about the ISG's recommendation on it. So this lie conceivably could affect the very outcome of the war and, thus, our national security.

Cheney said that Reid chided Bush for not participating in a regional conference on Iraq, yet we're scheduled to participate in one next week. Reid said Democrats aren't given the opportunity for real substantive meetings with the White House. But just last week, said Cheney, Reid emerged from a meeting at the White House and said, “It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq.”

Checkmate!

If Reid is going to continue this pattern of prevarication, he’s going to have to cover his tracks better.

Call Cheney a counterattack dog if you wish. But at least he's counterattacking on behalf of truth and America's national security. More power to him.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Too bad there isn't more of it
If Cheney were just a single voice in a chorus of Repubs standing up for the truth, the case would be more strongly made.

This has always been one of the GOP's biggest weaknesses: the inability to fight back, and even -- God forbid -- take the initiative.

Screw the Dems and the names they call people; we need MORE attack dogs.

Good for Cheney. Good man.


Misunderestimated again!
President Bush is following a well-proven technique for evincing his opponents' most self-destructive rhetoric: he's standing back, above the fray, and deploying Vice-President Cheney as his Hessian.

Cheney is a poised and articulate man, with decades of experience in Washington and at national-level infighting. He knows how to couterattack, and how to make his words sting. Beyond that, he does not find the duty uncongenial, and has embraced it out of loyalty to his boss and the Administration.

This has freed President Bush to concentrate on larger matters, such as actually prevailing in the legislative skirmishes over Iraq. Eventually, I expect that he will, and in no small part due to Cheney's efforts. Along with that, there's the matter of regaining the Republican majorities in Congress and assuring a Republican successor in the White House -- and does anyone really think the most successful Republican political organization of the past twenty-seven years is standing aloof from that pursuit just because its top man is a "lame duck?"

Don't "misunderestimate" the Bush White House. Leave that to its opponents.


Dittos...
To use someone else's tagline...(sorry,
David)

I was quite pleased to hear about the VP's long overdue lambasting, and I look forward to more of the same.

Now, if only some of the other "representatives" of the Republican party would find some stones, we could actually--maybe--see some progress.

BTW, watching the Democratic "debate" last night was a most enjoyable form of entertainment.

What a pack of buffoons.

Ya, republican leaders take note:
United WE STAND,
Divided YOU fall.

Not sent out but let out
Remember when Bush came to office he promise a more hospitable environment? Well, that's one promise he's been keeping.

I believe that the VP was finally allowed to go after Reid, not sent after him.

wmd
What is the current "thinking" about wmd? I really don't know, but I (and I'm sure many more of you out there) have on file a wealth of quotes by democratic politicians including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Sandy Berger, Edward Kennedy and many others dating back as far as 1998, the subject of which is the possession of wmd by Saddam Hussein and the necessity of doing something about them.

Since allied forces invaded Iraq in 2003 one of the continuing stories has been the fact that they have found no wmd, which was one of President Bush's rationales for the invasion. "Bush lied thousands died" was a big hit for a while.

Did the wmd ever exist? If they NEVER did - we have been the victims of the biggest intelligence failure in recorded history. If at one time they actually DID exist - what became of them? Did they suddenly cease to exist?

questions -
1)is it harder to convince someone that something does exist that actually doesn't or
2)is it harder to convince someone that something doesn't exist that actually does?

My vote is with #1.

Assuming I'm right - Where are the WMD? What happened to them.

MY opinion:

1) Some were actually destroyed
2) Some were sold and shipped out of the country to Iran, Syria and possibly Russia
3) Some have not been found yet (don't forget that Iraq is a very large country and Saddam had a lot of time to hide them)
4) Some have been found but the discoveries are so horrendous that it is thought that public knowledge of their findings would cause public panic and the discoveries are being kept secret, which means that the administration is taking the heat but keeping quiet.

On the other hand - if they NEVER EXISTED and we have all been duped by the biggest intelligence failure in history, it is fair to say that the bulk of this failure occured beginning in the mid 90s, and we all know who was on watch at that time.

question
If VP Cheney can be called an "attack dog" then it follows that there must be some words that would properly describe those who attack him.

Suggestions?

The floor is open

Uncle Max
Your last sentence carries more water than you think. The CIA may go down as one of the worst intel agencies of modern times. Despite a $40 billion dollar budget, the recuitment of some of the top Ivy League minds, the CIA's only talent of late is Beltway politics.

The CIA failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Empire (in 1987 they predicted that East Germany's economy would surpass West Germany's economy by 2000, and that Soviet Union's economy would surpass the US economy in 1995); they were shocked to learn in 1991 that Saddam had a robust chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program; and recently they passed on to the President that Saddam had WMDs at several different locations in Iraq.

I'm not sure what the answer is. The President surely cannot trust the intel he gets. But who will he turn to? I remember reading that Regean's DCI Casey set up a CIA within the CIA and staffed it with people he could trust. I'm not sure the Senate would allow this in today's enviorment. All we know is that 3000 people died on 9/11 because of thier manifest incompetence.

If only
the Republicans had decided to stand up for themselves before November 2006.

Reid is a Mormon
Thus it is interesting to note that he apparently believes

"Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust (not gently placed or lightly admitted) to hell."
-2 Ne 9:34

At least he is solidly principled, though...

... as well as the rest of the Democrat party and the MSM who will quietly hide Reid's multiple stances or twist the opposition statements, as Limbaugh said.

Reid was also for the troop surge in December, before he was against it in January as soon as Bush wanted it. How can anyone miss the duplicity here?

I for one am forwarding this article to a few people I know. I think I'll start doing that every time an article here points out the flip-flopping lying democrat positions... The MSM may have the national TV, but we can get some infiltration in emails...


The root of the problem
isn't Reid or Cheney, it's the MSM which long ago took sides and abandoned objectivity in favor of pushing an agenda. You will listen and read in vain for an accurate report on this exchange in the MSM. Were it not for this forum, it is unlikely anyone would even be aware that this exchange had occured.

Blog on my brothers and sisters, blog on.

To JPK and Uncle Max
Google Georges Sada and Al-Tuwaitha for information.

Under reported and mostly ignored accounts about WMD.

BTW, I am very glad VPOTUS Cheney bit back at the ankle biters in the Senate.

folks
What part of: "this administration has lost the full faith and confidence of the american people" don't you understand? Once lost it never comes back.

What did you expect?
It would take FAR fewer words to enumerate the truths told by the Democrats than listing their countless lies. Practically everything they have uttered over the past few decades have not only been outright lies, but the total OPPOSITE of the truth.

But since the scribblers in the "news" papers and the talking heads on TV all seem to like the message those lies give, it must be a-ok.

FOUND! Republican Cojones!
Only 2 so far. But at least they are not totally extinct. Yet.

truth
The Dim-ocrats and the MSM have for years taken the immortal words of Josef Goebbels to heart. "A lie that is repeated enough becomes the truth."

...and they call Constitutionalists "nazis"...

Hal Donahue


"What part of: "this administration has lost the full faith and confidence of the american people" don't you understand? Once lost it never comes back."

Apparently your insipid comment is justification for the actions of your Democratic party? Because it sure has NOTHING to do with Limbaugh's column.

Or is it meant to be a classic red herring, designed to distract from the original discussion?

And, BTW, around here we prefer to capitalize "American".

You're a beauty. Don't ever change.


Uncle Max
Why does it matter whether Clinton started the fabrication, Bush continued it. They're 2 socialist one-worlder peas out of the same pod.

Ah yes, that damned Liberal MSM
My only comment.

Please watch Buying the War on PBS.

Although they do complain about Fox, they complain MORE about The New York Times, and other well known LIBERAL media outlets.

a few points....
Uncle Max -
They did find some WMD's. They found a few thousand pounds of old, desert storm era wmd's that had lessened in effectiveness, but were still WMD's. Part of the cease fire agreement signed by coalition forces and Saddam Hussein was that ALL wmd's would be detroyed and the WMD programs abandoned. Does it matter that these weren't NEW wmd's? Of course not. To the lefties out there, it does though. The point of the WMD statement was to illustrate that Hussein was in direct violation of both UN sanctions and the cease fire agreement. Sure, we didn't find any brand new, shiny WMD's with full capabilities, but I doubt even a wrong headed liberal would like their kids to play with one of the old ones.
Not to mention the very real possibility that Hussein hid his WMD's in Syria or moved them to remote locations, stealthily and under severe cover. The truth is that we might very well never locate these weapons and/or materials. But did they exist? Does it matter? The intel said it did. For some reasons, Americans forgot the lead up to the war. Hussein was openly denying UN weapons inspectors free access to their stockpiles. He was intimidating his own scientists and providing them a 'script' of responses they were authorized to use in interviews with UN officials. We used diplomacy, as did the UN, but to no avail. Hussein continued to ignore the world and justified the Iraq war. Then the world forgot all about that because the MSM was all too happy to cast Bush as the worlds foil.
Sad.
Limbaugh is dead on in this article.
Bush wanted to bring civility to Washington. This may have been his biggest mistake as Washington is full of pitbulls foaming at the mouth to place blame, all while voting themselves pay raises and taking vacations.
Slow to change his direction in the matter, it seems that Cheney finally convinced Bush to let others do some talking as well, lifting the monopoly on attacks the Dumbocrats have held since 2000.
the time has already passed to allow those on the right speak up against the constant attacks from the left.
Kick it into a higher gear, republicans. This wrong headed policy of keeping things 'civil' only works if every abides by it. The left will not.
Hal Donahue vomits up:
"What part of: "this administration has lost the full faith and confidence of the american people" don't you understand? Once lost it never comes back. "

Interesting, Hal? What NY times reporter came up with that line for you? Lets see, the MSM is overtly left leaning and has been trying to do what the MSM does best - convict people in the public forum without evidence or fair coverage. At least in court you are allowed to defend yourself. The MSM just loves to behave as judge, jury and executioner whenever possible. Don't believe me? Let's see - Don Imus, Duke rape case, Libby is guilty, etc.
Isn't it just as possible that the loss of support is based on the constant barrage of attacks and meaningless rhetoric the MSM spews in an effort to specifically remove support for the President? Of course it is. Success isn't reported because any success legitimizes Bush's initiatives. Only failure and tragedy gets press. God bless them, those MSM warriors hell bent on destroying Bush and reporting the worst in life.
Now, can we please get more Conservatives to open their mouths and retort? I'm tired of people getting away with nonsense like this.
Kerry calls our troops stupid and it is a joke. Clinton acts like her sterotypical perceptions of whomever she is speaking to. Edwards says anti-troop nonsense and all is forgiven. Pelosi violates the Logan act and gets away with it. Reid declares an ongoing war a loss and he 'misspoke'.
At some point, leaders have to bring the hammer to be effective. It is time to bring the hammer.
I want Pelosi tried for a violation of the Logan act.
I want Reid tried for Treason.
The left pretends to want accountability - I say we give them a taste of what that really means.

Jeffislouie
"Isn't it just as possible that the loss of support is based on the constant barrage of attacks and meaningless rhetoric the MSM spews in an effort to specifically remove support for the President? Of course it is." Oh no Jeff the loss of support was fully earned through poor performance.

If Vice President Cheney
is the attack dog, The liberals should be properly identified as the democ"RATS" that they are.

Thanks for the column, Mr. Limbaugh, it was excellent as usual.

Jeffislouie/Hal Donadweeb
Jeff,

Much better response than mine to Hal Donadweeb.

Pity that he didn't read it.

Hal,

That's all you got?

Sheesh. This isn't even interesting.

uniondude
Uniondude there are critiques of the program
but no one is questioning the leaks to justify
war. And that is the real story that every
American should be outraged at. I know I am.

A few days late but welcome.
Anyone remember what happened when FOX was going to air a documentary that CLINTON objected to?
Remember how Shummer & Kennedy etc., threatened to pull FOXs broadcast license?

If Republican legislators had any stones at all they would block funding for PBS and start pulling MSM licenses.

I bet we would have fair, unbiased news coverage overnight!

Buying the War
I saw most of the program, not all of it. I thought it was one of the best programs that has been put together about the press not doing its job when it came to the run up to the Iraq war.

First of all, the program was not a criticism of the administration's justifications for the war. It was a criticism of the job that the media did NOT do!

There is no argument that much of the information that we were initially given by the administration was WRONG. The program didn't focus on whether the administration was right or wrong. They focused on how, given the nation's ardor about 9/11, the media simply took everything the administration said for gospel and didn't do any independent research.

They gave examples of how the administration couldn't release certain information because it was classified, such as aluminum tubes and Iraq. How they "leaked" the information anonymously to Judith Miller at the NYT. Then they turned around and Cheney appears on TV the day the article is written and uses the NYT's article for reference.

Similar scenarios about Tim Russert.

You may agree, or disagree, with the administration manipulating the press. That's the political beast.

From my perspective, the program was not about the manipulation as much as it was how the media CHOSE to be manipulated and not do THEIR job.

Right on David
We need more "Attack Dogs" if that is what it takes to set the record straight.

A great article by Mr. Limbaugh
Kudo's to Jeffislouie A very good response. Along with the people mentioned that should be tried for their various infractions of the law...There should be accountability in unbiased news reporting.It makes me grind my teeth to see so much media coverage of those same "people". Add in Kennedy. It seems some eager beaver reporter could come up with some serious dirt on all of them and keep up the heat.

How to Lose a Propaganda War
How to Lose a Propanda War.

It's not enough that Al Jazeera has kicked the pants off of the Bush propaganda effort in Iraq.

Bush wants to fail in the U.S.

What other reason can one possibly come up with for sending the politician with the lowest approval ratings in history? As Harry Reid quipped, "I'm not going to get into a name calling contest with a guy who has a 9% approval rating."

I'm trying hard to think of someone who the media despises more than Cheney outside of Bush himself.

You know, can't think of one.

Cheney is great at alienating the American public. So I'm trying to figure out just how the math adds up in sending him out to do PR.

Jeffislouie
You really don't let facts get in the way of delusion, do you.

I'll concentrate on one item. WMDs.

First of all the President has admitted that there were no WMDs.

Rick Santorum came up with the ones that you cite. The PENTAGON says that they were from what, 1993?

Oh that's okay, because Saddam sent them to Syria. Oh you've got no proof of that, but we're supposed to believe YOU.

Weapons inspectors. One problem with all of your jibberish. The reason the inspectors left was because we told them that we were going to start a war. Saddam had let them back in, remember?

You begrudgingly state that we didn't find any brand new WMDs. Guess what? That's because they didn't have any!

You then cavalierly state that even if the weapons didn't exist, does it matter? Well let's look at the facts. If Saddam doesn't have WMDs, we don't go to war. Hmm. 3,000 + Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis don't die. Hundreds of thousands of people don't get wounded. The US doesn't spend Billions of dollars.

Yeah, I'd say it matters whether there were WMDs or not.

Saddam was willing at the end to go along with the US, but Bush wouldn't agree. Bush also NEVER got any authorization from the UN to go into Iraq, so don't use the breaking of UN items as a justification. That's a ruse.

Please get together with your hero. Perhaps you can find more of the WMDs under President Bush's desk. The one's you are concerned about your kids playing with.

Best defense against Democrats
I've always said the best defense against Democrats is to let them be Democrats. Not that I disapprove of the slightly stronger tone coming out of the White House these days, but the political agenda of the Democratic leaders transparent and they can't seem to stop themselves from over-reaching: They not only pass a surrender bill, they load it with pork! They not only disagree with the President’s foreign policy, they suck up to America's most avowed enemies. I make it a rule never to argue with a moonbat -- if the troops had found warehouses of WMD the tin-foil hat brigade would have said Cheney had been running around Baghdad in a pickup truck, pre-invasion, planting the evidence. Moonbats will vote Democrat no matter what. But it wasn't the moonbats that gave the Democrats their paper-thin majority -- it was disgruntled moderates. Now, of course, every right-leaning moderate who voted for a "bluedog Democrat" is wondering what the hell they could have been thinking.

Here's the lie:
The lie about Iraq was not that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. You're right, no one really knew whether or not he had them. The lie about Iraq was quite simply that America had no choice but to invade. That was never true, and the case made for the invasion was based on a bunch of b.s.
You want to talk about lies?
In 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said that General Shinseki's estimate of several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq was "wildly off the mark." This statement was based on nothing, and turned out to be completely false. Wolfowitz also said in 2003 that Iraq had no history of ethnic strife (as compared to Bosnia and Kosovo). He claimed that Iraqis would welcome an invading U.S. army. He further claimed that the estimate of $95 billion to pay for the war was way too high. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong."
Hmmm.
These sentiments were echoed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., along with a pile of unsubstantiated claims about mushroom clouds, uranium purchases and ties to al Quaeda -- none of which turned out to be true.
According to George Tenet, there was never any serious discussion of options short of war -- despite Bush's constant protestations that war was an option of last resort.
That was a lie.

Half-truths
Where I come from, telling a half-truth is still considered telling a lie. At best President Bush & crew used half-truths to convince the nation that we were in imminent danger of Iraqi attack with WMD.

Mr. Lambaugh & others insist that President did not lie about Iraqi WMD because the intelligence community provided inaccurate data. Leaving aside the fact that UN inspectors assured the world that there were no vast quantities of WMD & the fact that Iraq turned over paperwork that showed that they had destroyed their WMD, this still does not excuse their talk of mushroom clouds over American cities.

Let us suppose for a moment that the CIA had been right and Iraq really had WMD. No, let's go farther than that. Let us suppose that ever Iraqi citizen in Iraq went around carrying a WMD under each arm. Would Iraq have posed a threat to the US?

No one could possibly have believed so. Why not? Because Iraq simply did not have a means to deliver WMD to targets in the US. They have no air force. They have no navy. The US is out of artillery or even SCUD range. For all the hype about terrorist attacks with WMD, even terrorists know that high explosives are much more effective than chemical or biological weapons. (And no one believed that Iraq was closer than a dacade from building nukes.)

In short, the President & his minions seized on reports of WMD (which were contradicted by numerous other reports) to convince the American people that a threat existed when they KNEW FOR A FACT THAT IRAQ POSED NO CREDIBLE THREAT.

If you ask me, that means the President lied us into war.

dogjudge
as per usual, you are mistaken.

"First of all the President has admitted that there were no WMDs. "

Well, not exactly.
He SORT of said that. What he really said was that they couldn't find any and that they couldn't find any evidence of developed WMD production plans.
But they DID find some...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(that's called a 'link' and allows the reader to make up their own mind, as opposed to trusting the judge of dogs).
"Rick Santorum came up with the ones that you cite. The PENTAGON says that they were from what, 1993? "
Okay. Then I think you should have them displayed in your back yard so your kids can play with the harmless old containers of chemical weapons.
You might have missed this part, but part of the cease fire agreement involved the voluntary destruction of ALL wmd's in Iraqi military posession. I guess these don't count, at least not to you.

"Oh that's okay, because Saddam sent them to Syria. Oh you've got no proof of that, but we're supposed to believe YOU. "

*sigh* Could you be any more of a turd on this? Nope. You maxed out.
I do have proof.
It was a widely ignored book (by the left anyway)written by one of Saddam's most trusted advisors and a general in the Iraqi army:
http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-General-Survived-Hussein/dp/B000GYI1QU/ref=sr_1_1/002-4361820-4517625?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177705599&sr=8-1
(another link...)
But then there is also this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
and this:
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
and this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm
and this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml
and this:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html
and this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827
and this:
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
Aw heck, I could do this forever. OR you could google: saddam wmd syria and see how many storied I have been able to write in an effort to get 'no proof of that, but we're supposed to believe YOU. '
Moron.
Here's an idea - next time you read something you don't believe to be true, try looking it up before you make yourself look like the rear end of a horse.

"The reason the inspectors left was because we told them that we were going to start a war. Saddam had let them back in, remember?"

Sure. I remember. I also remember that the major complaints of virtually every inspector was that:
1) they weren't given free, unabated, unsupervised access (as per the agreement)
2) They were allowed to interview scientists, who were clearly recalling a script they had been given
and
3) they were being intimidated by Iraqi security (followed, rooms tapped, rooms broken into, documents ruffled through, etc.)
You must have missed that.

"You then cavalierly state that even if the weapons didn't exist, does it matter? Well let's look at the facts. If Saddam doesn't have WMDs, we don't go to war. Hmm. 3,000 + Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis don't die. Hundreds of thousands of people don't get wounded. The US doesn't spend Billions of dollars.

Yeah, I'd say it matters whether there were WMDs or not."

But there WERE WMD's, even if they were old. The terms were clear. Inspectors were to be allowed to make sure no new weapons were being created and ALL wmd's were to be destroyed.
I guess that doesn't matter to you. Thankfully, it matters to people who matter.

"Saddam was willing at the end to go along with the US, but Bush wouldn't agree."

Two words: rape rooms.

"Bush also NEVER got any authorization from the UN to go into Iraq, so don't use the breaking of UN items as a justification. "

Ah yes. The UN. A corrupt non-entity that was created to resolve international disputes. Name one they successfully resolved!
You can't.
And the cease fire agreement was enough, under international law, to justify an invasion.
But you're right, we should have listened to the sage UN, a group so outraged by the illegal kidnapping of British soldiers (which gleefully included blatant violations of the geneva convention), they wrote a stern letter of condemnation, then did nothing.
Great group. I wouldn't let the UN be in charge of guarding a piece of my dogs poop. Nor do I believe that we should listen to a single thing that comes out of that failed experiment in international diplomacy.
But I digress.

"Please get together with your hero."

Ah yes. Because I agree with something someone did, he MUST be my hero!
How about this? If Kerry was in office, Hussein would still be in power. He would still be utilizing his rape rooms, his torture techniques and his opression to rule his country with an iron fist. He would continue to allow terrorists to set up training camps and would still be paying the families of suicide bombers $50,000 each. What a sweetheart world THAT would be.

I do so enjoy your nonsensical rants about how bad Bush is and how evil America is.
It is very entertaining.
Thank you for exposing yourself as an uninformed, wrong-headed yutz with no iota of sense.
I'm finished with my rebuttal.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be under President Bush's desk, searching for WMD's.
Ladies and gentleman, jeff has left the building.

Jeffislouie
I LOVE your links.

Fox News, New York Sun, CNS, WorldNetDaily, please.

Next you'll be citing DailyKos and Moveon.

You don't have one reputable link in your group.

Let's start with Fox and Santorum. You're saying that the Pentagon was wrong? They said these were nothing new and were certainly NOT the WMDs that they were looking for as a justification for the start of the Bush's War. Were they WMDs? Yes. Wrong ones however.

General George Sada. Well let's see his claims were refuted by the Duelfer Report. Try again.

Inspectors? So you agree that your previous comment about Saddam not allowing them access is wrong. Thanks.

The 1993 weapons not being destroyed as a violation of the UN? Try again. The pentagon said they weren't viable weapons. YOU DON'T GO TO WAR OVER SEMANTICS. You go to war because there is a real threat. No threat. Get it?

Saddam willing . . . and your response "rape rooms" Again, except for neocons who are looking for ANY reason to attack another country, you don't go to war because of "rape rooms". Try again.

The UN. See you don't get it on LOTS of levels. You want to use the UN as justification to invade Iraq. Then you turn around and disparage the organization as being corrupt, etc. So which is it? They're corrupt and you don't listen to them, or they're not corrupt and you ignore the fact that you don't have any authorization to invade Iraq? See you can't have it both ways. Try again.

As for your other ramblings about justification for a WAR that has killed tens of thousands. Try again. Please don't have any of your heroes leave the country after they get out of office. The Hague is waiting.

Please let me know when you find the WMDs under Bush's desk, we're all holding our breath.


A Lost Cause
I don't know why everyone here get their guts all twisted with comments made by liberals. They've won, and will continue to win, and for two simple reasons:

1. Republicans are both cowards and wimps. Always have been.

2. The Democrats play the ignorant masses like masters at the game.

3. The ignorant masses will continue to be.....the ignorant masses.

The Democrats will gain seats in both houses of Congress and the White House in the next election. As my Mother used to say: "Why break your teeth."

raywood, tana, corbett, et al....
You all neglected to mention several facts.
Here comes the debunking:
1) Iraq posed no threat to the US.
-except for the threat they posed to US allies and interests. And the fact that they were encouraging and paying terrorists. And the fact that they were allowing terrorists to train in Iraq. And that there was a very real possibility that they might supply terrorists with WMD's, which THEY might be able to deliver to US soil.
2) Bush lied.
Well, where you come from not withstanding, a lie is defined quite clearly as:
-to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
-to create a false or misleading impression
Since practically every reputable intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq DID have WMD's and a secret WMD production plan, this doesn't hold up to that definition. See, you are using flawed logic to come to your conclusion. Your argument is based on the fact that we didn't find what we were looking for. A while back, I was set up on a blind date. I never found the restaurant that I was supposed to go to. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It turns out that like WMD's, the restaurant had moved. Yahoo's yellow pages (my reputable intelligence source) hadn't updated with their new address and phone number. They must have been lying. Perhaps my blind date was lying?
3) "The lie about Iraq was quite simply that America had no choice but to invade."
Funny. I don't ever recall hearing that we didn't have a choice. As a matter of fact, we did. It turns out that our Congress voted to AUTHORIZE the actions in Iraq. Simply put, we made a choice. But I'll continue, because you are clearly too dense to understand how this whole war thing works.
See, based on the intelligence we had, Congress voted to authorize the war. "But Jeff", you scream, "Only hard line, war mongering republicans voted for that!"
Not true, say I.
House vote - 296-133
Senate vote - 77-23
I'll just quote someone else who bothered to care enough to obtain knowledge on the matter:

"The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

-Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
-Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
-Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
-Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
-Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
-Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
-Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
-The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
-The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
-Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement"
But hey, you might be right. The only justification provided by the Bush administration was a lie about WMD's.
Do you people ever read anything written by anyone who DOESN'T hate America?
Just curious.
Annnnnd, I'm spent.

S. Lykos: Underestimate the Masses?
I think the "masses" are a helluva lot smarter than you give them credit for. they are not as
"ignorant" as you think.

Anyone with any level of common sense can look at President Bush and see how incompetent, out of touch with reality and full of arrogance he
is.

democrats are pretty much doing what they have to do to highlight it, and repubs/cons have got to know that Bush is an albatross that cost them control of congress at midterms and if they "stay the course" with him on Iraq, they will lose the White House in 2008.

Ignorant masses? I think not. people are a lot smarter than you think.

Lies! I Say! Lies!
David, another good job. The Liberals are out in force trying to denigrate you, but since they are Liberals, they have no ammunition---and no way to deliver it if they did.

Lies are a way of life with Democrats. If they didn't lie, they wouldn't have much to say. They're anti everything, and in order to produce something to be anti about, they have to lie and exaggerate.

Dick Cheney was proper in calling Harry Reid on the carpet. But, I wish he had taken the next logical step and called for his ouster.

Since, it's been documented and educatedly opined that Iraq's WMD were probably moved to Syria, what does that make Syria? And why should a jerk-water Democrat Congresswoman [Speaker or no]---who received less than 111 thousand votes in the last election---go there? To legitimize the country's ties to terror in order to make herself prominent? She's prominent all right. I wish Dick Cheney would properly call and work for her ouster, too.

Republicans and Conservatives must go on the offensive without letting their guards down on the defensive. Our country needs this type of leadership to protect it from enemies, foreign and domestic--and their numbers are growing---despite their own attempts at limiting population growth.

For tanabear: if David Limbaugh is such a lost cause, why do you read him? And comment on his writing? You obviously have nothing to add to any adult discussion, so why not return to your alley way at Daily Cos?

And Corbett: how do you know whether or not Iraq had the ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction? Did you personally investigate and observe? Ask the kurds and some of the shia if Sadam Hussein could deliver such weapons---oops! You can't. They were all killed by the non-delivery of weapons of mass destruction. Go home and hide under your bed before the bearus logicus gets you.

Sonny Lykos: "...cowards and wimps...?" "...ignorant masses...?" You really have a disdain for your fellow Americans. Why don't you do us a favor and go back to your Mother? Perhaps, she'll continue your second grade education.

dogjudge....
How pedestrian of you!
Attacking the credibility of news sources, yet a total lack of a single citation of a reputable one that contradicts a single one...
Laughable.
"Were they WMDs? Yes. Wrong ones however."
In direct violation of the US cease fire, which under international law requires the parties to resolve the violations independant of the UN. This was a matter of enforcement. Like you say, there were WMD's. So sorry they weren't the ones we were looking for. Truly. But that certainly doesn't matter one bit.

But let's move on to:
"The Duelfer Report"
You claim:
"General George Sada. Well let's see his claims were refuted by the Duelfer Report. Try again."
But that would be a lie and patently false.
As a matter of fact, the Duelfer report acknowledges that WMD production was a function of the strife between Iran and Iraq. Lord know total chemical and biological warfare between the two nations would have a negative net effect. I guess you don't care much about that.

"Inspectors? So you agree that your previous comment about Saddam not allowing them access is wrong. Thanks. "

I made no such concession.
Learn to read better.

" You want to use the UN as justification to invade Iraq."

No, I want to use the violation of the terms of a cease fire as partial justification.
You want to use the UN's opinion as justification for impeachment of a President following the will of the people with the full consent of our Congress.

"They're corrupt and you don't listen to them, or they're not corrupt and you ignore the fact that you don't have any authorization to invade Iraq? Try again."

They are corrupt, you don't listen to them, you pull all funding for them and you don't ask for nor require their authorization for any military actions. That sums it up better than your crazy strawman argument.
Was that a better try?

"you don't go to war because of "rape rooms". Try again."
Well, you're only partially right. But in the grand scheme of things, human rights violation have been and are valid justification for military intervention.
Tell you what, spend some time in a rape room watching your family suffer and tell me if you would prefer a military strike that ended that suffering or more time in the rape rooms.

"You want to use the UN as justification to invade Iraq."

I just love the taste of strawman in the afternoon. It is refreshing.
I want to use a violation of a ceasefires specific language as a partial justification. You want to peg this to the UN for some reason.

"Please don't have any of your heroes leave the country after they get out of office. The Hague is waiting."

That actually made me laugh a little.
The 'hague' is waiting. Good.
For what? Oh, right. You see our President as a war criminal. That's because you are stupid.
I believe previous generation would have called you a 'pinko' or a 'traitor'.

"Please let me know when you find the WMDs under Bush's desk, we're all holding our breath."

That's the best part of the post! You actually think other people who come to townhall agree with you!
That's funny.
Traitor: One who gives comfort and aid to the enemy of the state.
As in: calling our President a war criminal, accusing him of being a liar, telling the enemy that we had no business in Iraq, surrendering to the enemy, demoralizing our troops, etc. You know, all in days work for dogjudge!
Keep 'em coming dog. You entertain me.

leftangle...
"I think the "masses" are a helluva lot smarter than you give them credit for. they are not as
"ignorant" as you think."

the masses don't know who the speaker of the house is.
The masses can't point our Iraq on a map.
The masses believe in UFO's.
The masses believe Al Gore when he says the debate over global warming is over.

The masses are ill-informed. They would rather watch American Idol than news.
The masses believe that the Lottery is their best chance at retirement.
Puh-leaze.

Jeffislouie
The old WMDs, still there after the 1st Gulf War, is not what Bush, et al. said we were looking for when they spoke about Iraq having weapons of WMDs.

Listen to Rumsfeld talk about the WMDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInHphR4zBg&NR

He is being questioned by "Ray McGovern, a retired CIA officer turned political activist. McGovern was a Federal employee under seven U.S. presidents over 27 years and presented the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for many years."

liberty....
Why would you think I care?
That doesn't matter.
There was supposed to be NO wmd's in Iraq. Zero. That was the terms of the ceasefire agreement that Hussein signed.
And how do you know again?
Regardless, that still doesn't make what was said a lie.
Not even close.
Perhaps a mistake, but not a lie.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny
Remember the comments from this administration about the mushroom clouds that would be coming our way if we didn't invade Iraq?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnNiW1_bUFE&mode=related&search=

Jeffislouie
Hhhmmm... I would think you would care if they lied. Sorry, I must have mistaken you for someone who cared about their country.

liberty...
"Hhhmmm... I would think you would care if they lied."
But they didn't lie.
There wasn't any lie being told. the fact that they didn't find WMD's is not proof of a lie.

"Sorry, I must have mistaken you for someone who cared about their country."

Believe me, I care deeply about my country. Enough to be able to temper my ideas with truth and facts, not just accusations and assumptions.
If you believe that Bush lied, then you believe that everyone, including Shrillary and the worlds intelligence community, are all liars.
Personally, I just don't believe that. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that implicates Bush as a liar.
The fact is that I do care about my country. I just believe that there is any evidence, whatsoever, that there is any proof that Bush lied about WMD's.
I guess you might have missed the post where I defined what a lie is.
Go back and read it, then post what you think Bush did that proves he lied.
I won't hold my breath.
Only a simplistic moron would assume that because we didn't find the WMD's we thought we would, we lied to get into a war.
Kerry, Shrillary, and other dumbocrats were more than happy to assert that Hussein was a threat, and that he was creating or had plans to create more WMD's. Were they lying too?
I find it hilarious that you think that Bush lied.
Stop reading bumper stickers and search for facts - you just might find truth instead of the nonsense you libs love to spout.
If we had found WMD's, the dumb-o-crats would be talking about how smart they were to recommend we take action against Iraq.
Here's what your flip-flopping buddy Kerry said, in 1997 - 3 years before Bush took office. Remember that back then, democrats were pushing for action against Hussein:
"In a more practical vein, Mr. President, I submit that the old adage `pay now or pay later' applies perfectly in this situation. If Saddam Hussein is permitted to go about his effort to build weapons of mass destruction and to avoid the accountability of the United Nations, we will surely reap a confrontation of greater consequence in the future. The Security Council and the United States obviously have to think seriously and soberly about the plausible scenarios that could play out if he were permitted to continue his weapons development work after shutting out U.N. inspectors.

There can be little or no question that Saddam has no compunctions about using the most reprehensible weapons — on civilians as readily as on military forces. He has used poison gas against Iranian troops and civilians in the Iran-Iraq border conflict. He has launched Scud missiles against Israel and against coalition troops based in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war.

It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.

Were he to do either, much less both, the entire balance of power in the Middle East changes fundamentally, raising geometrically the already sky-high risk of conflagration in the region. His ability to bluff and bully would soar. The willingness of those nations which participated in the gulf war coalition to confront him again if he takes a course of expansionism or adventurism may be greatly diminished if they believe that their own citizens would be threatened directly by such weapons of mass destruction. "

I guess he was a liar before he wasn't a liar?
Oh, fudge. Here's a whole bunch of fun quotes by obvious liars who will undoubtedly stand trial before the hague:

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"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

"[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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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.

"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.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

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

"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.

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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.

"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.

"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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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

"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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.

Liars. All of them. Bastards! Wait a minute!
None of them were lying. They all say the same thing. Because they all based their opinion on the intelligence that was available.
For the love of all that is holy, stop posturing and grow up.

Jeffislouie
Ignore the blog name.
Take not of who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time they made these statements.
http://bullwinkleblog.com/?page_id=3287

Did Bush lie?
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20060413.asp

Hope this helps.

Cowardly Shrew
Why don't you volunteer your precious comunist butt to serve in what you call the Iraqi resistence?
It is mostly foreign volunteer Muslims.
You would fit right in.
Or are you just all mouth?

Saddam WAS training terrorists.
Training camps were found.
One had a 747 fusilage use to train hijackers.
Enough evidense of WMD and terrorist training equipment was found to convince any reasonable person.
Anyone who claims to not be convinced is either a fool or a liar, most likely the later.

Shrew
I don't think I would enjoy the company of anyone who feels elation at the news of an American soldier being killed.

I gave up drinking years ago and I used to be very fussy about who I drank with.

jeffislouie
Well, I see that quite a few others have seen through your ruses.

Simple question about your WMD arguments.

Bush has said that no WMDs were found.

Considering how this was such an important justification for the war, why is it that not ONE administration member has come out and said that the WMDs were moved to Syria as you said? Just one?

Bush has also stated that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Within the last few weeks Cheney was still making that connection.

So if the weapons were moved, why hasn't the Vice President said anything about them?

Jeffislouie, you've established yourself as a troll with no credibility.

Thank you.

shrew:
I invite you once again to join the heroic
"Iraqi resistance".

Strap a bomb on your narrow, pimply chest and
murder some women and children, hero.

Just like your precious "resistance"!

Shrew
"The Iraqi Resistence" is a figment of your fantasy.
That "Insurgency" consists of Muslim fanatics from all over the world. Very few have been recruited locally. Many are Asians.
Why do you think they are so willing to kill civilians?
Those civilians are not their nationality and belong to a different religious sect.
They will let you join up if you want to.
Why don't you make that good faith gesture?
You want to see American soldiers killed.
Why don't you go there and face them in combat?

MyOpine:
If Shrew wanted to face American soldiers in
combat, he'd have to join some other organiza-
tion (if you can call it that) than the "Iraqi
resistance".

They don't "do" combat; they plant bombs and
murder civilians.

hindsight's 20/20
It is interesting to note how many people bring up the fact "there are no WMDs". If I remember correctly, and as others have clearly pointed out, at the time we decided (that is we, not the president, remember this: House vote - 296-133
Senate vote - 77-23) more than a few people were under the impression that Iraq posed a legitimate threat to the U.S.

Of course, if we pull out now everything will be fine, right? Since there are no terrorists in Iraq (or was the arguement that there WERE no terrorists in Iraq)? Well the people over there blowing up cars with bombs on their chests seem like terrorists to me (call me crazy). Unless these terrorists only made their way into Iraq since the beginning of the war, which would make a lot of sense.

No, it seems to me that blame is easy to pass out, but very difficult to take. Look at that vote again. That seems like a pretty good majority to me. But if you must continue to cry about WMDs, go ahead.

lazyeye
Keep this link and browse the whole thing later.
Take note of the fact that Pelosi & Reid were both on the Intelligence Committee at the time they made these statements.
http://bullwinkleblog.com/?page_id=3287

lazyeye
'Well the people over there blowing up cars with bombs on their chests seem like terrorists to me (call me crazy). Unless these terrorists only made their way into Iraq since the beginning of the war, which would make a lot of sense."

i wont call you crazy just badly informed.

every single general has put the number of terrorists in iraq at 5% or less. you can look it up.
and 95% of those are iraqi, pace said that al-queida in iraq was essentially iraqi now.

everything i am saying has been testified to in sworn testimony in front of congress lazyeye.

the people strapping bombs to their chests are sunnis and shias who have been fighting each other for thousands of years.

it is a civil war and we are the referee, except when we get in the way we get killed.

bullgod
Prior to Reid's words being rebroadcast over Al Gazeera the Iraqi civilians were starting to come forward and tell Americans where the foreign troops were hiding.

We can't expect them to stick their necks out now that Reid has told them we are going to cut&run and leave them at the mercy of foreign fanatics.

Let's Be Honest About the Lies
Oh please, do you want everybody to throw up on their keyboard? The Bush II administration has never stopped lying. They have been more secretive than any administration in history, preferring PR releases to the truth. They started out by announcing that Clinton's staff had vandalized White House offices before leaving---Ari Fleischer later admitted this was a lie ("disinformation" is Bush-ese for "lie"). They paid journalists to say nice thing about Bush's policies. They put a political hack disguised as a journalist in the White House Press Corps so he could publish White House press releases without attribution (as his own writing) and kept giving him day passes for TWO YEARS until this scam was apprehended. They said Jessica Lynch did a shootout with her captors---she says that was a lie. They said Pat Tillman died while advancing against the enemy---his family is furious about that lie. As for the WMD and the smoking gun and the mushroom cloud and all that, Bill Moyers' PBS special "Buying the War" provided chapter and verse documentation that the public was sold the war by means of an arabesque of lies.

MyOpine:
That's surely a big part of the problem, isn't
it? Probably most Iraqis would support a stable
democratic government if they were reasonably
sure that such support wouldn't get their
throats cut by savages. But the savages will
be in charge if Reid, Pelosi, and the Democrat
caucus have their way.

It astounds me that Democrats are willing to
allow innocent Iraqis - and Americans - die to
advance their political ambitions.

bullgod
You use the term Democrat in the old meaning.
The word Democrat has beem morphed into a new meaning.
It is simply another euphemism they cower behind.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44701

The Communist Party comes first before country or even family.
There is NOTHING they will not stoop to to further Communism.

lilly
When you brand a man "LIAR" you destroy his credibility.
If you are in error and the man is not a liar then you brand yourself LAIR and destroy your own credibility.

lilly, get used to your new name "lilly the LIAR!"
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20060413.asp

Jeffislouie
Kerry is not my bud. Nor is Hillary. NOR IS BUSH. They are all 3 peas in the same socialist pod. A lot of people, Democrat and Republican, spouted the same rhetoric before we invaded Iraq. The vast majority received their data from the same source...what the White House chose to release. No, I do not believe we were told the truth, as the plans existed to invade Iraq long before 9-11 and were written by the same neoconservatives that now conduct our foreign policy. However, when they wrote the plans, they were still in think tanks.

I want to get the bad guys as badly as you do. However, I do not agree that using our troops to enforce UN sanctions or to nation-build have anything to do with the former.

We do not agree on the WOT, Jeff. However, I am not a liberal. Far from it. I happen to believe our military should only be used for the defense of our own country. Not this empire-building crap that we are currently doing to carry out the bidding of a bunch of ex-Trotskyite neoconservative, socialist pigs.

Two cents worth
Anyone out there who wants to annoy the msm go to mediamatters.com, the soros watchdog/attackdog for the dems. I truly enjoy clicking onto the "tip line" and informing them of the misinformation of the msm. I also enjoy bringing up news that is not covered, as in the dane fienstien matter.
Some of the emails I get back aren't very nice.

Liberty:
I also believe that the US military should only
be used to defend this country. However, unlike
you, I believe that's exactly what they're do-
ing now.

After 30 years of attacks on this nation by the
Islamic barbarians of the Middle East, finally
culminating in a murderous assault on American
soil, I want to know - what would YOU do?

Nobody's "empire-building", sir. We're responding
at long last to decades of provocation from an
enemy that won't stop murdering Americans until
we stop them.

Cheney! ha ha ha Impeached for Treason!
Yea man with a 9% or 19% approval rating criticized Reid. WHO CARES!

Cheney so dismissive, so condescending, so contemptuous of the American people he is beyond loathing.

Cheney can kiss my hairy............

Here is Mr. Insurgence are in THE LAST Throes!

He continues to claim a Iraq / al-Qaeda link, lie lie lie lie lie liar liar liar.

Cheney has lied bold face to the American people with NO shame more than any other politician with almost impunity.

He is the central figure in selling the lies leading up to Iraq. He was central in Plamegate and Libby.

What is funny funny funny is Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), is writing his intent to bring Vice President Dick Cheney up on Articles of Impeachment. He won't get far BUT its the thought that counts. GOOD FOR HIM.

PS: bullgod (bull-god? really nice sacrilege and I am so sure you are ugh.. sexy?) I would not puff your fat man boob chest out too far, we attacked the wrong country. If we where getting even or taking revenge we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Yemeni and Pakistan! (to name a few)

jetpilot:
I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself with
your illiterate, rambling, moronic posts. It's
crystal-clear that you have nothing to add to
this or any other discussion.

If you MUST post, at least keep your idiotic,
inaccurate personal attacks to yourself.

On second thought, you DO have some value in a
discussion of free speech. I always say, let the
left-wing nutjobs speak; it won't take long for
them to expose themselves as fools. Carry on.

dogjudge...
It looks like you caught me using your superior skills of deduction.
Yes. I am a troll. That's why every post I put on townhall is on topic and discusses my viewpoint.
That's why people agree with me for the most part, or disagree with me.
Trolls like you come here to stir up trouble, spew your anti-american rhetoric, and make unfounded accusations leveled at the POTUS, Conservatives in general, the Military, and people who care to post here.
But hey, maybe we're both trolls.
If you think I am a troll, then stop paying attention. I could care less.
Seriously.

liberty
Fair enough.
Forgive my assumption - most who argue similar perspectives tend to be looney libs who are so good at thinking, they spend their time at a conservative site like this making noise about how wrong we are.
Respect.

Jeffislouie
See, that's what is curious, Jeff. All conservatives used to espouse the very same thing I am. It was the liberals that believed in preemptive wars and nation-building.

bulldog
"what would YOU do?"

Go after the ones responsible, like we were doing in Afghanistan.

tanabear...
"Which allies and interests are you referring to? Saudi Arabia?"
Let's see:
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
India
Not to mention the nations that we are trying to swing to a more moderate stance like:
Lebanon and Egypt.
"Just because Bush considers them an ally, why should anyone else? ""
Well, I guess that a pretty fundamental problem.
See, in THIS country, our President sets foreign policy. So if the Bush administration says that Saudi Arabia is our ally, then I would say that the reason 'everyone else' (read: americans - the left has closer ties to Saudi Arabia. Al Gore has spoken to their leaders numerous times, as an example) should is because that is our foreign policy.
Thanks for trying, Nancy Pelosi.
"Saddam wasn't allowing terrorists to train in his country."

Not true. Several training camps have been discovered, including one with a airliner shell so they could train on hijacking techniques. And ways to kill anti-terrorist forces that might try to board and end the hostage situation.

"The only place where terrorists roamed free were in the parts of Iraq he did not control."
Wait a minute. This was the leader of Iraq, who ruled his people with violence, torture and fear. There are parts of this country he didn't control? Name one.

"The only country that actually trained the terrorists that hit us on 911 was the USA. "

It is so nice to see the hate America crowd chime in. Yes, we supplied weapons and supplies to what later became al-qaeda. Do you know WHY we helped them? It was because of wrong headed policy - we didn't want the USSR to be able to take afghanistan. So we played a game by supplying what later became al-qaeda, but at the time was a group of people opposed to communism and fighting for their own freedoms.
The US chose to see this conflict as a cold war issue. President CARTER (a democrat, anti-semite, and hypocrite worshipped by lefties with no sense of reality) authorized that level of cooperation. So I guess, if you really want to place blame for the very formation of AL-Qaeda, one would have to look at our brothers to the left of the aisle.
But hey, Bush is to blame....
Hogwash.
While I would love to dissect the rest of your ill-formed opinion, it mostly amounts to the same old same old, straight out of the liberal playbook.
Hussein was a nice guy. He wouldn't hurt a fly. He never used his biological weapons. Not once. He never gave any to anyone else. He didn't support terror. Before the US landed, Iraq was a place where the rich had summer homes and everyone drove a brand new Mercedes. As a matter of fact, the very reason Bush invaded was pure jealousy.
Hopefully, you can tell that I am kidding.
Hussein was a brutal dictator. He tortured dissenters, sometimes flaying the flesh from the skin of adolescents in front of parents, other times forcing parents to watch their daughters raped, and other times he would chain them prostrated, and beat them with metal chains.
He used his WMD's several times, most notably against Iraqi citizens. He had several times supplied wmd's to other countries and terrorist groups. He openly advertised and followed through on a standing promise to compensate the families of suicide bombers with $50,000.
Even your liberal leadership acknowledges that the world is better off without him.
Now, to the main point. The so called 'lies'.
Since you didn't bother to read any posts discussing why there is no evidence of a lie (including several definitions of conditions of a lie and examples of EVERYONE, including democrats now screaming about lies, believing the intelligence communities consensus that he did in fact have wmd's and production in place or in the works.
And I guess that you could choose to follow the lemmings leading the charge on the left and ignore the fact that in order for something to be considered a lie, there must be an intent to deceive. But would that suit any purpose? Of course not. The facts show that the international intelligence community overwhelmingly believed that he had WMD's.
So what was the lie again?
I've heard wmd's were the lie, but that wasn't a lie at all.
I've heard that the threat of danger to the security of the US was a lie, but THAT doesn't hold water either.
So what was it?
Since you didn't bother to read Limbaugh's column, I don't expect that you read this.
The problem with this line of argument that you and others take is that it all relies on a blatantly falacious idea.
Yes, wmd's were part of the justification of the war. But the fact that we didn't find what we expected doesn't mean anyone was lying. The possibility that the weapons were moved is very real, no matter how close minded to this idea others claim to be.
And none of that matters anyway.
See, Hussein was in gross violation of an internationally recognized cease fire agreement. They signed it. So did we.
The terms of that agreement included documentable proof of the total destruction of all WMD's and WMD producing materials.
He was refusing inspectors attempts to do their job.
And it DOES matter that we found OLD WMD's, even if they were about as dangerous as a stink bomb. They existed, which means that the terms of the cease fire were being ignored. As it turns out, those weapons were still very dangerous and could still have caused massive damage.
If you are covicted of a felony and are forced to get rid of all your guns by a court order and the next time to cops are over you refuse to let them in, then they find new guns, you still go to jail.
You can choose to live in a fantasy world all you like, but for those of us who live in the real world, there was no lie.
The very claim is ludicrous and proves your inability to think logically.
How can this have been a lie if the great John Kerry and the fabulous Shrillary Klinton BOTH made statements/wrote letters to the POTUS warning of WMD's and agreeing to/encouraging immediate action?
They must be lying too.
This was has been mistake riddled.
This was has been costly.
This war has been difficult.
But it is just and the right thing to do is finish the job and stand up a free Iraq.




liberty...
Well, I'm not a straight conservative.
And times have changed.
Abandoning Iraq now, especially in light of the fact that Al-Qaeda has declared it the front line of the war (literally), would result in the war being a totally pointless waste of time, the only benefit of which would be the removal of Hussein.
But since this country IS the front line for the war against jihad and islamofascism, we MUST remain until we can stand up Iraq.
Sure, it would be great if Iraq had a history of democracy and experienced leadership - but they don't. Hussein ruled that country for a long time.
The people need a fighting chance and leaving doesn't provide them with one.
With us gone, it wouldn't take long for another 'taliban' type government to take shape, leaving us with an enemy, not an ally.
Nation building as policy sucks, but the other option would leave the new nation in limbo, ripe for terrorists to create a new government that not only supports and harbors terrorists, but encourages them.
And again, this wasn't just a pre-emptive war. This is an example of what SHOULD happen when legally binding treaties between nations are flagrantly disobeyed. If the UN had any balls, they would have enforced this with more than some stern wording on letterhead.
Besides, we went in to take out Hussein - al-qaeda has worked overtime to create a stickier situation (along with Iran and Syria). They want us there for a host of reasons:
- We are 'mired down' in a conflict, leaving us less ability to monitor and react to international crises.
- If they embarrass us long enough, outlast us, and out PR us, we lose face to the world and they gain clout.
- They want an easier way to attack the US. With our security in the states increased, our vulnerabilities lie where they can have relatively easy access to us. With forces on the ground in a country that is easily accessable, what better place to attack the US?
I don't want us there one moment longer than we have to be, but I also don't want them coming here. If we can do enough damage to al-qaeda and other terrorists in the region, we stand a strong chance of bringing back peace by striking fear in the hearts of would be terrorists. The message we need to send is that we are coming for you, not we will run if you show up.

Liberty:
"Go after the ones responsible", you say; but
for which attack? My point was that 9/11 was
not an isolated incident, but the latest in a
30-year series of attacks against American
citizens and interests.

If you're saying we should have continued our
policy of piecemeal half-measures in response
to each individual attack, all I can do is
point out what a dismal failure that policy
was in preventing more attacks.

Post-9/11, it's obvious that Islamic jihadists
must be confronted on a region-wide basis, par-
ticularly now that Iran is developing nuclear
weapons.

Or - we could wait for the mushroom cloud over
an American city. And then "go after the ones
responsible".

Jeffislouie
"See, in THIS country, our President sets foreign policy."

That's not accurate. The Constitution was not distinguish between domestic and foreign policy. You are making up facts again.

"Not true. Several training camps have been discovered, including one with a airliner shell so they could train on hijacking techniques"

Salman Pak was an anti-terrorist training camp and it was not training terrorists. This has been debunked for years now.

"Wait a minute. This was the leader of Iraq, who ruled his people with violence, torture and fear. There are parts of this country he didn't control? Name one."

Kurdistan.

"So we played a game by supplying what later became al-qaeda, but at the time was a group of people opposed to communism and fighting for their own freedoms."

Much like the Iraqis are now fighting for their own "freedoms."

"Hussein was a nice guy. He wouldn't hurt a fly. He never used his biological weapons. Not once. He never gave any to anyone else. He didn't support terror. Before the US landed, Iraq was a place where the rich had summer homes and everyone drove a brand new Mercedes. As a matter of fact, the very reason Bush invaded was pure jealousy.
Hopefully, you can tell that I am kidding."

THis is a strawman argument; and you hardly make any good points even when you argue against your own strawman. The reason for not go to to war in Iraq was because an extended occupation of Iraq was not in our interest as a nation, and nation building is utopian and a waste of resources. The case for war (WMD) was a falsehood.

"The facts show that the international intelligence community overwhelmingly believed that he had WMD's."

You are conflating two separate WMD intelligence issues -- the status of Iraq's pre-1991 stockpiles and whether Iraq had resumed the production of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. While there was a consensus that Iraq had not fully accounted for its pre-1991 stockpiles, US intelligence went beyond this and claimed that Iraq had resumed production of WMD. These are two different claims. The intelligence underpinning the claim that Iraq had resumed WMD production had been debunked before the war in Iraq started, so Bush did take the United States to war even though the case for war had already been exposed as falsehoods.

"They existed, which means that the terms of the cease fire were being ignored. As it turns out, those weapons were still very dangerous and could still have caused massive damage."

I find it interesting that the Bush cult, who usually dislike the United Nations, think the United States military exists to enforce UNSC resolutions. Why should we enforce UN resolutions if doing so isn't in our national interests?

We are fighting for a "free" Iraq much like the Soviets were fighting for a free Afghanistan.













Is red tooth correct? Also motivation...
Red Tooth, you suggest that the available intelligence on Iraq's WMD's was that the weapons he had in 1991 were no longer a threat and Sadamm did not have or make any more in the decade or so since than. Therefore Bush did lie.

I am wondering if you have any theories on his motivation?

I personally do not believe it was for more oil resources so he could make more money. I would like to think that he honestly believed, after 911, that leaving Saddam in power was too much of a National threat and so had to be removed. This at least was his initial stance, remember? He brought up WMD's *after* the UN (and especially France, Germany, Russia and the left) were so vehemently opposed to taking out Sadamm and kept pushing him for more justifiction. I remember thinking that the whole WMD issue was brought up only to try and avert their self interests from monetary issues to a matters of self preservation! haha :)

Have you ever wondered how this dethroning and subsequent, eventual pullout would have gone if the whole world had been behind the US liberation of Iraq instead of against it? It's a perception thing. I mean, for just one example, imagine if it had been Clinton doing this. All the papers would be saying "Liberation of Iraq" instead of "Occupation" or "Invasion of Iraq". Words, as you know Red Tooth, are very powerful.


itreeye
Did Bush lie? Let's just say that he made a decision to go to war as the case for war had collapsed. What many do not understand if that we knew the intelligence was wrong before the war began, so there shouldn't not have been this feigned surprise of "what happened to all the weapons?"

The motivation for Iraq wasn't oil or even Bush's, but the Neocons who have had designs on Iraq for years, and 9/11 was the crisis that gave them the opportunity to invade the country. Now we are building permanent military installations and are showing no signs of evacuating anytime soon. US soldiers will continue to die over the irrelevant Sunni Shia conflict -- to Bush and the Neocons their deaths are just an afterthought.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.