I knew this latest "Bush Lied" so-called report that was going around the internet yesterday was a load of bunk when I saw it.
I didn't have time to research it at the time, though a cursory examination of it was enough to know that it was just another empty smear job like we've seen repeatedly since before the Iraq War even started. Someone beat me to the punch and did a little background research on this so-called report and confirmed what I suspected: it's just more recycled Left-wing garbage.
Warner Todd Huston at the TownHall Publis Forum says the Center for Public Integrity behind it is, you guessed it, funded by none other than billionaire America-hater George Soros and other Leftist groups.
The Fund for Independence in Journalism, the other organization behind this smear-job, is also another Left-wing instrument.
Yet the "mainstream" media, like good little lapdogs, obediently put the story out there as if it was undeniable fact with the usual "nonpartisan" blah blah'ing.
Almost every--if not every--intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs or was working on them in violation of agreements he made at the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Why not take a look at what some of these Leftists were saying before they decided to try and get some political mileage out of bashing our wartime president:
Notice how they used terms like "no doubt about it," and "unmistakable" and "he certainly has" and "greatest security threat" and "he will rebuild" and "he will use his arsenal again" and "serving on the intelligence committee...briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons..." and "the lessons we learned after 911 is that we can't wait to be attacked again" and so on? Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.
And they can't say Bush was lying to them because many were getting their intel directly from our intelligence agencies, and a lot of this goes back to the Clinton administration that was saying the same thing.
What would these Leftists rather we use against Saddam: harsh language?
In fact, if Saddam didn't have WMDs, when why not let inspectors do their jobs without constant harassment from Saddam? And why risk losing his country and getting executed for his crimes (as he did) if he wasn't hiding anything? Some people (myself included) suspect he moved his WMDs or WMD components out of the country in the 8-month "rush to war" before we invaded, most likely to Syria.
Further, Intelligence expert John Loftus just a few months ago wrote about some rather damning documentary evidence from the minuscule portion of Iraqi documents that have been translated from the mountain of documents we seized after the invasion.
There are also those who suspect that the hushed Israli air raid on a mysterious Syrian target back in September 2007 may have involved an about-to-blossom WMD program. Might Syria have been using material they received from Iraq?
Even if there had been no WMDs, there were still plenty of reasons for invading Iraq:
1. Saddam had failed to comply with something like 17 UN resolutions. As a leading member of the UN, the United States' credibility was on the line in allowing this to pass unpunished.
2. Saddam fired on US warplanes flying the no-fly zone more than 200 times times in the year leading up to the invasion. Each one of those 200 firings was an act of war.
3. Saddam was funding Palestinian terrorists who were killing innocent Israeis, and one of his officials met with Mohammed Atta, one of the 911 terrorists, months before the attack. He may have had other connections with al Qaeda and the Taliban.
4. We needed (and still need) to deal with Iran, the foremost source of funding for terrorism in the world, and we could not do so with our flank exposed in a hostile Iraq.
Why would these Leftist want to malign a sitting president in the middle of a war in Iraq and a global war on terrorism? Many of them live here, their safety is at stake, and they enjoy the fruits of a healthy United States, so why jeopardize all that? Perhaps because they fundamentally misunderstand the nature and reality of evil in the world?
Would true patriotic Americans resort to lies and deception in order to gain political points at the expense of American credibility and national security?
Technorati tags: Bush, Iraq, WMDs, George Soros
Featured Article
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Someone Lied About Bush Lying
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A new book shows Saddam did support al Qaeda and the Taliban:
'Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
Why would a leftist malign a sitting president who misled the country into a war he wanted for reasons that do not stand up to scrutiny?
Are you not a rightist who wanted to remove a president because he lied about a blow job? Great priorities there.
I really don't care if you think there were other reasons to invade Iraq: this country does not go to war, or rejustify a war, based on what you think or even what our lazy incurious elitist close-minded snob of a president thinks. We have laws and a Constitution to guide us, and Bush sold the war on WMD and the connection between AQ and Iraq, both of which were dubious at the time, and have been proven to be without any truth -- something that a leader who wanted to avoid useless sacrifice of young Americans might examine, but which Bush and his Wild Bunch repeatedly ignored and derided.
It must be humiliating and brain-clogging to try to defend such a loser.
When he was president, Bill Clinton was charged with upholding the Constitution and the laws of the land--he should have been the model of law-abiding behavior. If the person in highest authority with regard to our nation’s laws shows casual disregard and contempt for law and morality, what kind of example does that set for the country?
Yet he chose to perjure himself, tamper with witnesses, tamper with evidence, and drag the country through the gutter. Anyone with an erg of decency would have resigned, rather than subject the country to such disgrace.
As for your empty attempt to join Soros in maligning President Bush over his actions to protect the credibility of the United States and keep the country safe, the best way I can answer you is to invite you to read this post over again and hope the light might come on.
It's like trying to argue facts with die-hard Darwinists or Christian-hating atheists. They hold a world view based upon emotions, pride most prominently, and they are incapable of viewing a matter objectively and honestly. I know of which I speak because that was me only a few years ago.
Post a Comment