Bush has finally fought back against unwarranted attacks from the left:
Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.
"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Bush said.
He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program.
"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," Bush said.
Its about time someone call the Dem's out...the MSM won't do it...everyone was on the same page with intelligence about WMD...no one made anything up...the Left continues to make up false claims, are proven wrong time and time again....and they pay no price for it.
Bush Fights Back on WMD Claims
Saying its "amazing it took the White House this long to get it back together and fight on this issue,” Fred Barnes said President Bush and his administration are ready to state their defense for fighting the war on terror and liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
"If you’ll notice, Democrats say ‘Bush Lied’ but they never cite specific examples,” Barnes said. "That’s because they were saying the same things and many of their comments are captured on tape.
"To say that the president lied about the reasons to liberate Iraq is just incorrect. Ask the people of Iraq and they'll tell you that Saddam had to be removed. There is no doubt about that."
Once again, there is no proof the the Lefts actual lies...if they had proof they would tell us...nothing on Bush, nothing on Cheney, nothing on Rove....yet they get to make up whatever claims they want...the MSM runs with it, and in the long run it does hurt Bush...
Lets see how much coverage this speech gets, probably not as much as ANYSenatorenator talking trash.
Friday, November 11, 2005
FINALLY...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
You have some really good research here with excellent commentary. I too was glad to see Bush stand up. I always admired him for going about business and ignoring the idiots, but sometimes you just have to face them.
This could well be his toughest period right now, and although he seems to be fumbling through, i.e. Harriet Meiers, I think he may have his focus back and ready to go the distance.
As long as the Democrats are not held to task on their statements by the media, people will pick up their baseless rhetoric and spew it back out. It is up to us to set the record straight.
Whit...put some more comments on here...then people might go to your site
Lie 1. Longstanding effort to convince the American people that Iraq maintained ties to al Qaida and may have played a role in 9/11. This was always just a plain old lie. (And if you want to see where the real fights with the Intelligence Community came up, it was always on the terror tie angle and much less on WMD.) The president and his chief advisors tried to leverage Americans' horror over 9/11 to gain support for attacking Iraq. Simple: lying to the public the president was sworn to protect.
Lie 2. Repeated efforts to jam purported evidence about an Iraqi nuclear weapons program (the Niger canard) into major presidential speeches despite the fact the CIA believed the claim was not credible and tried to prevent the president from doing so. What's the explanation for that? At best a reckless disregard for the truth in making the case war to the American public.
Lie 3. Consistent and longstanding effort to elide the distinction between chem-bio-weapons (which are terrible but no immediate threat to American security) and nuclear weapons (which are). For better or worse, there was a strong consensus within the foreign policy establishmnet that Iraq continued to stockpile WMDs. Nor was it an improbable assumption since Saddam had stockpiled and used such weapons before and, by 2002, had been free of on-site weapons inspections for almost four years. But what most observers meant by this was chemical and possibly biological weapons, not nuclear weapons. Big difference! The White House knew that this wasn't enough to get the country into war, so they pushed the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam for which there was much, much less evidence.
Lie 4. The fact that the administration's push for war wasn't even about WMD in the first place. No one really knew what Saddam was doing between 1998 and 2002. And US intelligence made a lot of very poor assumptions based on sketchy hints and clues. But the solution, at least the first part of it, was to get inspectors in on the ground and actually find out. That is what President Bush's very credible threat of force had done by the Fall of 2002. But once there the inspectors began making pretty steady progress in showing that many of our suspicions about reconstituted WMD programs didn't bear out, the White House response was to begin trying to discredit the inspectors themselves. By early 2003, inspections had shown that there was no serious nuclear weapons effort underway -- the only sort of operation which could have represented a serious or imminent threat. From January of 2003 the administration went to work trying to insure that the war could be started before the rationale for war was entirely discredited. They wanted to create fait accomplis, facts on the ground that no subsequent information or developments could alter. The whole thing was a con. It wasn't about WMD.
In the president's new angle that his critics are trying to 'rewrite history', those critics might want to point out that his charge would be more timely after he stopped putting so much effort into obstructing any independent inquiry that could allow an accurate first draft of the history to be written. In any case, he must sense now that he's blowing into a fierce wind. The judgement of history hangs over this guy like a sharp, heavy knife. His desperation betrays him. He knows it too.
--Josh Marshall
Game, with a little research you can find the lies for yourself. As I have told you before try googling. Ahmed Chalibi, white house iraqi group, office of special plans.
This isn't fighting back. this is the same ol speech we have heard over and over. It gets weaker everytime we hear it.
Should I bother here? is anyone even reading this thread anymore?
Mike,
I keep checking back to see if Stephanie Rose has anything inane to contribute. But it looks like most people have moved on.
:-)
Okay, here we go:
We'll start with Jim's "lies":
1. It is not a lie that Saddam and Al Qaida (or however the heck it's spelled) had connections, if not operational, definitely financial and logistical. As for 9/11, nobody's ever stated as fact that Saddam had anything to do with it. In the early days, there was speculation, there were theories, there were questions raised, but nobody in the Admin has ever tried to convince anybody that Saddam was involved with planning or executing 9/11. Furthermore, it can never be proven that he did NOT collaborate, there can only remain zero evidence that he DID... Remember, absence of proof is not proof of absense.
The 9/11 commission itself provided several links between Iraq and Al Qaida.
2. Niger has two significant exports: In order of significance, Uranium (yellowcake), and livestock. Saddam sent officials to Niger, we know that. Think for a second, did he really go there for cows and garbanzo beans? You have to believe that if you don't believe he wanted to buy Uranium (Niger's #1 export).
3. The claim that chem-bio weapons are not a threat of sufficient concern is factually incorrect. It is reasonable and even prudent to assume that Saddam would have gladly sold chemical or biological weapons to anti-USA terrorist groups, who would then in turn use them against us at their leisure. There is no way to know that he has not already done so, and it is wonderful that we have not suffered a major chemical or bio attack (with the slight exception of all the anthrax shortly after 9/11), and hopefully the good folks using the Patriot Act will catch the evil thugs before they can strike.
Nuclear weapons' development is harder to conceal, due to the need for reactors, processing facillities, etc. However....The New York Times of all places on May 22, 2004 reported the discovery of 500 tons of Uranium, some of it was partially enriched...telltale evidence of a nuclear weapons program. There's your evidence against that "lie".
4. That's good that Jim recognizes that the war wasn't solely about WMD. At least he doesn't eat that particular Lib talking point hook line and sinker... The problem here is it is assumed in Jim's argument that the administration "knew" that their rationale could be discredited. For one thing, every stated reason for going to war has proven correct, since we have found a couple hundred tons of Uranium (partially enriched, a process that isn't necessary for non-weapons projects), as well as strong evidence from the inspectors themselves that forbidden things were being hidden right under their noses. As for the conclusion offered by Jim, it is nothing more than conjecture, without any direct supporting evidence. The point seems to be that nobody knew anything at all, and Bush wanted war anyway, and at the same time, knew that he didn't have a sure foundation. So which is it? Did nobody know anything, or did Bush know everything? The whole basis of Jim's conclusion that it was a con is his assumption that the Admin pushed only WMD, but had other reasons for war. Unfortunately that was never the case, so it's not a con, it's an over active imagination on the part of the people who feed Jim his talking points and leave him out to dry without giving him anything to back them up with. So does that make Jim the victim of the anti-bush left political class? They use him as a pawn to further their message, but don't back him up when confronted with fact, reason, logic, and good old common sense.
And a side note if you believe Bush invented the whole "saddam is a threat" thing, go google Clinton iraq 1998 and see what comes up.
Interesting that Saddam had 500 tons of yellow cake uranium. Makes you wonder why in the world he would need to go to Niger and get more, doesn't it?
Because like any ore extraction process, it takes a great deal of raw material to extract a useable quantity of pure substance. Do you know how many tons of ore it takes to extract a single pound of Gold? Last I checked somewhere on the order of 500 metric tons of raw ore. Uranium is even more difficult to extract and refine partially due to it's radioactive nature. You do the math.
Post a Comment