posted on April 25, 2007 08:59:38 PM new
Liberals can repeat that same old [FALSE] mantra about 'he lied' as long as they live. Doesn't make it true. Only shows how uninformed THEY are. tsk tsk tsk
He didn't lie and most who are aware of what happened KNOW that. The ones who want to continue using that garbage for what they hope will be their political gain....are seen for what they are....LIARS.
He didn't lie. Nor did clinton....nor did Bush 1. The world KNEW saddam had womd...he USED THEM.
=========
And I thank God everyday that we have men and women who have volunteered to fight these religious fanatics....RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE.....and aren't COWARDS like our liberal leaders are and those who support our running out ....running away from the terrorists.
"Some of the Fort Bragg not currently deployed were stunned by the loss of life."
"I think they're cowards for doing what they're doing," said Sgt. 1st Class Ricardo Pryor, 36, a logistics specialist who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. "These guys can't fight us head on, so they use tactics like that. But we will prevail."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 25, 2007 09:04 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2007 11:34:54 PM new
Contrary to the desperation induced rantings of the illiterate and uninformed the Democrats are not running from anything.
They are providing a solution to the mess orchestrated by the bushit administration.
Some may call them cowards despite the fact that bushit and DICK Cheney and others in the present administration did NOT, would NOT, fight in Vietnam.
I feel very assured that no lunatic ravings will convince the world that bush did not lie....and continues to do so.
posted on April 26, 2007 12:47:52 AM new
Thanks for posting the Richard Clarke article, Coincoach.
The CBC's Fifth Estate recently had a good program called "The Lies That Led to War", the political, diplomatic and media spin that convinced Americans to invade Iraq.
Since the US-led invasion four years ago, the fifth estate has covered Iraq and the war on terror from virtually every angle--the military, media, intelligence, politics--revealing aspects of the story that you didn't find anywhere else. Now, as the White House warns about the latest threat in the region, this time from Iran, it's worthwhile looking back to examine the deception, suspect intelligence, even lies, that convinced the world of the rightness of targeting Saddam Hussein.
posted on April 26, 2007 07:00:51 AM new
Thanks for that link, Kiara. I look forward to reading it all after doing some errands.
Linda--I know no such thing. This administration has been caught in many lies regarding Iraq, not the least of which is this Tillman lie. This is how they show their support for the troops. Ask Pat Tillman's brother, who was also a Ranger in the same convoy, how he feels about this administration and how they handled his brother's death.
posted on April 26, 2007 08:18:47 AM new
Maybe because since the beginning of history, that's what has happened almost EVERY time??
The isolationists/peaceniks have always delayed the inevitable and as a result gotten MORE people killed. They simply cannot comprehend evil for evil's sake. Whether it is "peace in our time", "Hitler is a man we can do business with", or anything else. They stick their head in the sand and then years later attempt "revisionist" history. Lately we heard the chant about Truman being evil, etc for dropping the bomb and how the Japanese had "a different culture". The fact is THEY started the war, and THEY tortured and maimed huge numbers of civilians and POWs because they felt superior.
So now is the turn for Bush to be the cause of the all the problems and all the little clucks will keep chanting it when the Iranians engulf the WORLD in a big conflagration and massive economic devastation. They'll stand there and blink their eyes when you answer their question of "Why on Earth would they do that??" with "Because they wanted to."
The FUNNIEST thing about these situations is who winds up taking it in the neck. Not the "neocons", not "the people who drive SUVS".
Peepa does his moronic troop casualty list, but would never have a count for the tens of thousands who die when they lose their jobs and have no health care, the people who die because hospitals have cut back due to economic cutback, and civilian populations in the path of the Islamic empire builders. Then think of the loss of funding to all of the entitlement programs near and dear to a good wacko's heart. There are many ways the battle "could be fought here".
posted on April 26, 2007 09:19:53 AM newHe was the LAST dem president with the backbone to stand up to our enemies
That is why under Reagan the United States gave Iraq weapons and equipment to defeat Iran.
That is why under Reagan, we had the Iran contra affair.
Nothing like the Republicans giving aid to the enemy.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 26, 2007 09:32:39 AM newThanks for that link, Kiara. I look forward to reading it all after doing some errands.
Coincoach, on the right side of the page you can click to see the full video of the program. There are comments by Donahue, Coulter and O'Reilly concerning the media coverage.
posted on April 26, 2007 10:19:50 AM new
CC doesn't need convincing , kiara. She already has bought into the 'America's bad/terrorists need to be understood' liberal concept.
======
But I LOVE the total DENIAL of the liberals that their president believed the SAME EXACT THING - as did his WHOLE administration.
Now that so many of them have flip-flopped....of course it's ALL this Presidents fault.
"it's worthwhile looking back to examine the deception, suspect intelligence, even lies, that convinced the world of the rightness of targeting Saddam Hussein."
While not out and out saying so.....IF they believe THAT to be true of AMERICAN POLICY.....then they automatically throw CLINTON and his admin. into those SAME LIES. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 10:23:38 AM new
ld - Reagan received the praise from world leaders.....ones from FREE nations, not terrorists nations, giving him much credit for being the one who ENDED THE COLD WAR.
Denial of the facts doesn't change history.
Might want to learn some yourself.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 10:38:53 AM new
And it was the anti-war crowd that was using the EXCUSE of saddam HAVING womd and THEIR FEAR he would use it against our troops.
They were using THAT specific issue....saddam HAVING and USING those womd against our troops....in order to try and convince SOME Americans we shouldN'T send our troops in there.
How QUICKLY they forget what positions THEY were taking before we invaded.
======
And even clinton said, in an interview with larry king:
"Clinton told King:
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
===
NOW, had we NOT acted and saddam had either sold those SAME womd to terrorists and they were used against the US...or our interests anywhere in the world.....THEN they'd have been SCREAMING Bush didn't protect us.
As they were SCREAMING after we were attacked on 9-11.
IF we were to move in error, and I don't believe it was an error, then better we errored on the side of protecting America/American interests against terrorists....than to have errored and have to deal with the aftermath - like we did because clinton didn't 'move' against the FIVE previous terrorists attacks.
==============
So clinton LIED TOO.
not!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 26, 2007 10:45 AM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 10:57:04 AM new
""But it's always interesting to watch their responses when proof like this is offered....they just don't want to acknowledge it.""
posted on April 26, 2007 11:02:06 AM new
For all those liberals who have joined in the SURRENDER TO TERRORISTS group....
might want to actually READ and REMIND yourself just what YOUR leader, clinton, was saying about saddam.
Now...was HE lying too?
Did he bomb Iraq because HE didn't believe they HAD chem/bio/nw????
I don't THINK so.
Here's a trip down memory lane for those who aren't chosing to live in COMPLETE DENIAL of the FACTS:
"Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said."
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq."
"They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
NOTICE clinton bombed them WITHOUT WARNING - while THIS president gave saddam PLENTY of time to follow the UN resolutions...or even to LEAVE Iraq.
He didn't. He's DEAD. An EVIL man has paid for what he did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 26, 2007 11:05 AM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 11:13:19 AM new
I have never seen any proof whatsoever that there are Americans who want to surrender to terrorists.
No proof...just repeated rantings from the lunactic right....who BTW, have offered NO solutions to ending the war in Iraq.
And that is because the bushit administration does NOT wish to end it...it's far too profitable for them. Americans maimed and slaughtered for THEIR profit.
posted on April 26, 2007 11:14:18 AM new
It didn't need explaining.
Most decent American's can see it for the anti-American propoganda that it is.
Whether CC does or not...no telling.
But anyone who believes that the past THREE administrations didn't believe EXACTLY the same thing as the REST OF THE WORLD BELIEVED....as did THIS administration....and ONLY THIS admin is/was lying.....
...just can't see evil for what it is. They're just in TOTAL DENIAL of the FACTS. And I see that as being supporters of that same evil....and saddam....saying they felt he should have been left to continue his evil deeds.
tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 11:16:43 AM newNOTICE clinton bombed them WITHOUT WARNING - while as THIS president gave saddam PLENTY of time to follow the UN resolutions...or even to LEAVE Iraq.
He didn't. He's DEAD. An EVIL man has paid for what he did.
I bet Emporer Bush and Darth Cheney are glad they avenged the asassination attempt on Bush Sr.
One day Bush and Cheney will have to pay for their crimes against humanity as well and I hope it will be in Texas.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 26, 2007 11:18:27 AM new
And I also want to point out to the SURRENDER to the terrorists group....
that THIS admin. was only following US NATIONAL POLICY......policy that the clinton administration put in place....The Liberation of Iraq Bill......that called for and made it OUR, US, National policy to REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER.
This President just did that. And that is what the liberals and pacifists just can't deal with.
President Bush followed National Policy.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 11:19:29 AM newLiberals can repeat that same old [FALSE] mantra about 'he lied' as long as they live. Doesn't make it true. Only shows how uninformed THEY are. tsk tsk tsk
Cheney can keep repeating the same mantra on how Iraq being responsible for 9/11, it doesn't make it true. This coming from the Vice-president. You would think he would be informed since he is second in command of the pom-pom squad.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 26, 2007 11:19:33 AM new
There's the big mouthed all knowing linduh who speaks for "most" Americans...the one who screams that no one can speak for her speaks for "most" Americans
You just WISH they had your twisted thinking.....
""saying they felt he should have been left to continue his evil deeds.""
posted on April 26, 2007 11:31:53 AM new
Linda,You have made several posts with the same old rhetoric. Did you, by any chance, watch that Fifth Estate video? I doubt you will believe any of it, although they have documented quite a bit. One of the things it talks about is how Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neocons came up with this planned war in Iraq before 9/11.
A New Doctrine for American Dominance
Paul Wolfowitz drafted a secret strategy that was a blueprint for American domination of the world in the future. The U.S was the most powerful military and economic force in human history and they wanted to use that power to advance American interests.
It proposed using pre-emptive force against anyone perceived to be a threat even if it meant going it alone in defiance of friends and allies.
Although the strategy was secret, details leaked out. Dame Pauline Neville Jones was a senior civil servant in the British Foreign Office at the time.
"It sent a shiver down my back. I just said to myself, no country, however powerful, can operate on the world in this way by itself and hope to have friends and ultimately succeed."
This plan was rejected by George Bush, Sr. and Clinton, but apparently got an okey dokey from George Bush (43.)
In this Wolfowitz report, it states that they need to wait for a "Pearl Harbor"-like incident to use as an excuse to invade. 9/11 fit that bill.
The Fifth Estate report is not the only place I have heard this. So spare me your accusations and name-calling. If even a small portion of this is true, America and the world have been duped by these evil war-mongers.
posted on April 26, 2007 11:36:12 AM newMost decent American's can see it for the anti-American propoganda that it is.
It was a factual account of incidents that led up to the war in Iraq. Some may wish the truth to be buried but others do not. Some may wish to believe it never happened but others deal with the reality. We all deal with the consequences.
posted on April 26, 2007 11:40:17 AM new
The proof you seek from the liberals here who have said Iraq would have been better off IF saddam was still in power.....
....is there in the vendio archives just waiting for you to search them out.
But I still laugh at you never providing ANY proof....of anything....and yet demanding I do so.
No double standards allowed.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 12:04:28 PM new
Kiara, Thank you again for posting that link. The Fifth Estate did an excellent job with interviews and investigaton. Very informative.
posted on April 26, 2007 12:09:29 PM new
"They were using THAT specific issue....saddam HAVING and USING those womd against our troops....in order to try and convince SOME Americans we shouldN'T send our troops in there."
Saddam had WOMD for many years, using it against Iran during Iran/Iraq war and against the Kurds. We said nothing because we approved of this Iran/Iraq war. We even provided Iraq with helicopters and chemicals, though that was explained as crop dusting equipment.
posted on April 26, 2007 12:44:59 PM new
And CC our troops when we first invaded also found protective gear in Iraq so they could protect themselves from the chem/bio weapons.
Guess they just had those for no reason.....or to listen to you wacko conspiracy lovers....maybe WE planted them there. brother....
You liberals had better WAKE up and actually acknowledge what America is facing. AND will face even with a dem president in office.
This 'hatred' of America didn't start with this admin.....and to believe that is to live in some other place in time.
GET REAL. Pay attention to what the terrorists are saying. This is NOT a dem vs rep issue. This is a terrorist vs FREE PEOPLE issue.
Try and be on our side once in a while.
Hamas Parliament Speaker Calls on Allah to Kill Jews and Americans
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) -
The acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Sheikh Ahmad Bahr of the Hamas faction, called on Allah to kill the Jews and Americans "down to the very last one" during a sermon broadcast two weeks ago on Sudan television.
"America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel," Bahr said, according to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute. "They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah," Bahr continued. "That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere."
Bahr exalted the virtues of the Palestinian woman who sends her son off to die as a "martyr." "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one...defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them," Bahr said.
========
At SOME point in time....I hope ALL AMerican's see the wacko left for what they are........SUPPORTERS OF THESE NUTCASES.....and NOT on Americans side.
Nope....they're supporting these madmen....denying they exist. Saying they mean us no harm....it's only FALSE FEAR this admin is pushing.
RIGHT.......wake up liberals.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 01:04:24 PM new
Wake up anti-war SURRENDER NOW liberals.
You'd better quit BLAMING America....and get back to reality of the HERE AND NOW.
Make reading the JIHAD WATCH something you do each and every day. STAY informed of what the terrorists are saying they want to do.....THEN side with them on how BAD AMerica is.
THEN SIDE WITH EVIL against your OWN country. tsk tsk tsk
=======
Lieberman's Choice
By Hugh Hewitt
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The escalating defeatist rhetoric flowing out from Congressional Democrats illuminates a crucial fact:
The momentum has shifted in Iraq, and the Petraeus offensive is increasingly recognized as at least potentially successful in producing an Iraq that is stable politically and competent to suppress both al Qaeda and sectarian ethnic cleansing.
The change in the wind petrifies Democrats who bet their political futures on the inevitability of defeat of our mission and violent chaos in the wake of our departure.
To have played this contemptible game would be risky enough even if defeat followed, but to have done so when the tide had turned could and should expose the party as the collection of feckless and partisan hacks it has become.
Harry Reid knows this, and has thus abandoned any pretense of caring about victory or of providing General Petraeus with the support he and his troops so abundantly deserve.
Others have catalogued just how complete the Majority Leader's evolution into defeatist cheerleader has become, and there is no reason to expect he will do anything except continue the war against the war throughout the summer and fall, and perhaps even risk the cut-off of all funds to our forces.
There are four fine pieces of analysis available to anyone seriously interested in understanding what is happening in Iraq, three reported on by contributors to the Weekly Standard who traveled to Iraq in the recent past and spent considerable time with General Petraeus and in the field with American forces.
The three pieces of reporting are by Max Boot, Reuel Marc Gerecht, and Fred Kagan. The fourth is a summary of the three pieces with additional analysis by blogger Wretchard of The Belmont Club.
Taken together, the reports of progress and the obvious attempt by the Reid-Pelosi-Murtha Democrats to undermine the American mission before it can succeed put a heavy burden on one man - Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman.
It is increasingly obvious that if the political war in Washington is to be stopped from hurting and possibly fatally crippling the war against the Islamists, Senator Lieberman is going to have to change parties, pulling a reverse Jim Jeffords. (Whether any other Senate Democrat is a potential switcher is impossible to say, but Senator Lieberman certainly understands the stakes and has fought the good fight for years now.)
I don't think any amount of political payoff could tempt Lieberman as it did Jeffords. The switch would not be because of a desire for more special ed funding or some set of perks he just cannot get from the Dems. Of course he'd want seniority and leadership, but the motivation would have to be the obvious: He can stop the war from being lost and he understands the consequences of such a defeat.
Indeed, every single Democratic senator has to realize that their ongoing support for their caucus is encouraging the enemy, undermining the mission and demoralizing the troops.
But more than any other Democrat, Lieberman knows what will follow in the wake of an American defeat. He knows what either an Iraq governed by radical Shias and death squads or a fractured Iraq that hosts in its Sunni regions a flourishing al Qaeda would spell for the neighboring states and ultimately for Israel, Europe and eventually the United States.
He knows as well that a nuclear Iran has to be confronted and its ambitions denied or the world will lurch towards unimaginable horrors.
On Tuesday I interviewed journalist and author Lawrence Wright, long a contributor to The New Yorker. Wright's The Looming Tower won the Pulitzer for general non-fiction last week, and its chilling account of the rise of al Qaeda awakens any objective reader to the facts that this worldwide Islamist threat is not the creation of the Bush presidency, and more than retreat from Iraq would stall its growth or limit its appeal. There is no alternative to fighting it wherever it appears, just as there is no alternative to cabining Iran's ambitions. (The transcript of Tuesday's interview with Wright is here, and the audio here.
A two-hour interview with him from last September is here, and the audio of that program is here and here.) Wright's September 2006 New Yorker article, 'The Master Plan,' on the grand strategy of the new generation of al Qaeda is more evidence that we have no alternative to victory in Iraq, and that the Democrats' proposed course of action is simply suicidal.
Joe Lieberman knows this.
Indeed, anyone who reads seriously about the enemy and the various fronts in the war knows this and many other hard truths as well.
If Lieberman led a small band of serious Democrats who were effectively restraining the party's defeatist extremists, his continued stay among his life long friends and colleagues could be understood as far more comfortable for him and far more useful in the long run as the Democratic Party struggles to keep the hope alive of a Scoop Jackson/JFK/Truman wing of the party returning to some influence.
But that isn't in the cards. General Petraeus needs the balance of '07 and '08 to give our forces a fighting chance to win a fighting victory.
If Senator Lieberman crossed the aisle and caucused with the Republicans, the Reid-Pelosi charade would instantly halt and with it the daily undermining of the war.
The House Democrats elected on a platform of national security seriousness would also be empowered by the return to their joint conferences of senators committed to victory not defeat on a date certain.
Joe Lieberman knows the score and he knows his own ability to preserve the progress already being made in Iraq and the possibility of victory. He would endure incredible hatred if he was to switch and it would take enormous courage to walk that road.
But if he really does understand the stakes and really does believe the statements he has made over the years - and I think he does - he has run out of time and the choice is stark and immediate.
=======
Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and for the links to the referenced articles......
Might be good reading for the BLAME AMERICA FIRST crowd.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 26, 2007 01:14 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 01:11:08 PM new
Poor frightened little linduh, shivering and quaking and hiding under her bed hoping the big bad terrorists don't hop on the same plane flying American troops home and GET HER!
It's sad how she takes such great delight in the maiming and deaths of our military and hopes it keeps going on and on indefinitely...
which it will since the bushits don't want it to end either!
