Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...

[Tigermike 3,053]

Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...

Mark Alexander

From Patriot No. 05-46; Published 18 November 2005 |  |

The Left is at it again.

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.

Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.

Here are their accusations:

Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)

Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)

Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)

Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.

Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.

The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Nancy Pelosi: "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."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We 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."

After the 2000 election:

When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida 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. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.

So, Ted, Dick and Harry € what's your real agenda?

Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder  by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.

For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?

Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.

(Editor's Note: This essay is based on a Patriot Alert (http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=340) that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)

One of only a few sane Democrat voices:

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

UPDATE: December 2005 -- The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:

"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean

"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry

More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

link

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Bush and Cheney are traitors to American democracy and those who support them aid and abet them in their traitorous efforts and are American hating traitors themselves.

Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...

Mark Alexander

From Patriot No. 05-46; Published 18 November 2005 |  |

The Left is at it again.

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.

Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.

Here are their accusations:

Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)

Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)

Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)

Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.

Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.

The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Nancy Pelosi: "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."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We 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."

After the 2000 election:

When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

Hillary Clinton: "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida 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. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.

So, Ted, Dick and Harry € what's your real agenda?

Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder  by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.

For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?

Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.

(Editor's Note: This essay is based on a Patriot Alert (http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=340) that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)

One of only a few sane Democrat voices:

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

UPDATE: December 2005 -- The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:

"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean

"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry

More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

link

209430[/snapback]

[Tigermike 3,053]

Cutting & pasting from moveon.org is so, so, so, democrat.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I really like how the Dems do not take ANY resposibility for their own actions and statemements. Not once has Reid, Kenedy, or Durbin ever said that they were part of the lies etc. They saw the exact same info Bush did or had access to it. Whether Kerry ever even attended a meeting in the Senate is open for debate.

So, while we have soldiers overseas with bullseyes on their backs we have to listen to Dems tell the enemy, "Hold out a little longer, prolong the war. We cant win."

Retreat and Defeat will be the new Dem tag line in 2006. The Dem Party will forever be known as the "Tax and Spend, Retreat and Defeat Party." This may well finally throw the Dems into permanent second rate party status. It is a shame. We need someone to hold the Rep's feet to the fire. We need two parties.

Dean as Party leader? :roflmao:

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I really like how the Dems do not take ANY resposibility for their own actions and statemements. Not once has Reid, Kenedy, or Durbin ever said that they were part of the lies etc. They saw the exact same info Bush did or had access to it.

209515[/snapback]

You keep repeating the same lies over and over as if you have no interest in the truth. Take responsibility for your ignorance and do something about it. Okay, I'll give you the link, but you got to read it yourself.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm

Face facts-- you believe this b/c you've heard Bushco tell this lie over and over. It makes no sense on its face. No congress ever sees the same info as the executive. Bush is lying to you. Why not get upset over that? Quit letting yourself be duped, brother.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You keep repeating the same lies over and over as if you have no interest in the truth. Take responsibility for your ignorance and do something about it. Okay, I'll give you the link, but you got to read it yourself

Your link doesn't in the least validate what Turbin Durbin, Kennedy, et al are whining about. Based on what they got, those in Congress and the Senate knew YEARS in advance about what Saddam was doing. Not EVERY MEMBER of those houses are due to see every piece of evidence. Intel Committe Members were allowed to see more, and that only backed up what was already known.

You're parsing the facts here, by trying to say it's the GOP who is repeating the same lies over and over, and you know damn well that isn't the case at all. They saw the evidence and made the call based on that. Seeing MORE evidnece wouldn't have changed a damn thing, and you know it. Stop playing politics w/ this country's security.

Reading that link, it's clear that there was far, FAR and away more info than we required for Congress to act. The petty counter claim that Congress didn't see what Bush and his Cabinent members saw is patently absurd.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

You keep repeating the same lies over and over as if you have no interest in the truth. Take responsibility for your ignorance and do something about it. Okay, I'll give you the link, but you got to read it yourself

Your link doesn't in the least validate what Turbin Durbin, Kennedy, et al are whining about. Based on what they got, those in Congress and the Senate knew YEARS in advance about what Saddam was doing. Not EVERY MEMBER of those houses are due to see every piece of evidence. Intel Committe Members were allowed to see more, and that only backed up what was already known.

You're parsing the facts here, by trying to say it's the GOP who is repeating the same lies over and over, and you know damn well that isn't the case at all. They saw the evidence and made the call based on that. Seeing MORE evidnece wouldn't have changed a damn thing, and you know it. Stop playing politics w/ this country's security.

Reading that link, it's clear that there was far, FAR and away more info than we required for Congress to act. The petty counter claim that Congress didn't see what Bush and his Cabinent members saw is patently absurd.

209534[/snapback]

You miss my point. If you've read my prior posts, you should know that I have said the Senate, including most Dems, largely abdicated their responsibility on the run up to this war. The evidence presented by Colin Powell at the UN, even though false, was still not that convincing to most folks in the world. The Dems that voted for this vague authority to invade Iraq were afraid of being called weak. The debate before the 1991 war was real-- this one, with little exception, largely was not. So we were failed, IMO, by our President and our Senate. The fact remains, this oft repeated assertion is a flat-out LIE:

They saw the exact same info Bush did or had access to it.

Bush keeps saying, Fox keeps repeating it, and you guys keep believing it. At this point, those that keep believing this are responsible for their ignorance, regardless of the failures of Bush or the Senate Dems.

Simple point.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Bush keeps saying, Fox keeps repeating it, and you guys keep believing it. At this point, those that keep believing this are responsible for their ignorance, regardless of the failures of Bush or the Senate Dems.

Simple point.

But you've not shown it to be a lie, despite the fact you say it over and over. Congress never should be able to see EVERYTHING that the WH has in terms of intel. Those in Intelligence Committees see more, which is understandable. But the WH simply had more of the same in terms of intel. Saying that the Senate or Congress didn't have the same intel is did the WH is a straw man arguement. That intel was only more of what they had seen, and would have only supported that which they already knew.

The Left is REALLY trying to pick nits here, attempting to paint a false picture of Bush bullying everyone into making a choice with which they otherwise would not have. Spare us. They can fold like a house of cards on issues like this, but sure as hell , they'll stand up to the President on such matters as warrentless eaves dropping? If that's the case, then all our elected Representives are pansies, and thankfully we have a President who has spine enough to follow his convictions.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Bush keeps saying, Fox keeps repeating it, and you guys keep believing it. At this point, those that keep believing this are responsible for their ignorance, regardless of the failures of Bush or the Senate Dems.

Simple point.

But you've not shown it to be a lie, despite the fact you say it over and over. Congress never should be able to see EVERYTHING that the WH has in terms of intel. Those in Intelligence Committees see more, which is understandable. But the WH simply had more of the same in terms of intel. Saying that the Senate or Congress didn't have the same intel is did the WH is a straw man arguement.

209560[/snapback]

Then the WH and their apologists should quit saying THAT THEY SAW THE SAME THING. You just admitted that is a LIE. Thanks. Bush and company should quit saying it.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Then the WH and their apologists should quit saying THAT THEY SAW THE SAME THING. You just admitted that is a LIE. Thanks. Bush and company should quit saying it

It's not a lie. Quit your yammerin' already. I already fully explained this once. Scroll up if you need a refresher course.

[quietfan 233]

Article 3, Section 3a of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Treason is viscous, nasty word and I believe it is tossed around far too easily by BOTH sides of the political debate. I do not believe any of our leaders, Republican or Democrat, have committed any "overt acts" that meet this definition. None of them is guilty of "adhering to [our] enemies".

Some of our enemies may find "comfort" in what they perceive as division in our ranks, but the reality is that the very debate they may view as a weakness is in fact a major strength of healthy, open democracy that is their greatest threat. Al Quaida could not survive in a free democracy like ours that permits--even demands--open debate.

So I say to both sides, liberal and conservative, cherish the freedom to voice an opinion that is a cornerstone of our democracy, but stop using the word "traitor" so casually in trying to smear your political opponents. To invoke treason so quicky in a political discussion is to diminish the significance of those evil acts that are true treason. There are many ugly names brandished against voices from the other side in this democracy--"fool", "crook", "liar", etc--but to me, "traitor" is the ugliest and has no place in the debate. I encourage both sides to avoid it and leave it to the prosecutors and courts to root out real traitors.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Tex, The Intelligence Committee, the one Kerry belonged to has 99% access to all the Intel. They are invited to the WH prior to any real decisions and shown the same things the President is shown. They are FULLY up to speed with him before he can get us into conflict. Kerry didnt show up for roughly 70% of the meetings. Kerry even taslked about having to go look at the Intel on the weekends. Thay are not denied anything on the Intel Committee.

To say anything less is idiotic. This is just more Responsibility Dodging by the Dems, nothing more. Bout time you opened your eyes and quit reading only what the Left tell you to read. Do you really think that when the President of the US talks with Congressmen and Senators that he can hide everything? Are you still looking over your shoulder for black helicopters? Do you have any idea how many folks in DC would be blowing the whistle on this. Perle et al said this was righteous and then backed off. Unfortunately we now have the revisionists out there trying to redo history. Tenet, Clinton's CIA Director said this was a "Slam Dunk." Think he didnt have access?

Please dont be a fool.

"Retreat and Defeat in 2006!"

If the Senate Dems didnt do their their jobs, the should recalled and removed from office. Can I hear you call for that? Didnt think so. Because you know it is not true, on its face it is not true. That anyone with a brain cell would listen to some crackpot like Feinstein is beyond me.

http://www.factcheck.org/article241.html

Kerry's apparent absence from 38 of the hearings actually figures out to an absentee rate of 77.6%.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

That anyone with a brain cell would listen to some crackpot like Feinstein is beyond me.

209607[/snapback]

No one with a brain cell would have posted that because someone with a brain cell would have easily seen that the letter was to Feinstein and from non-partisan Congressional Research Service. You clearly either didn't read it or have no brain cells.

Besides, you trust George Bush and dare to question anyone else's judgment?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Article 3, Section 3a of the Constitution:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Treason is viscous, nasty word and I believe it is tossed around far too easily by BOTH sides of the political debate. I do not believe any of our leaders, Republican or Democrat, have committed any "overt acts" that meet this definition. None of them is guilty of "adhering to [our] enemies".

Some of our enemies may find "comfort" in what they perceive as division in our ranks, but the reality is that the very debate they may view as a weakness is in fact a major strength of healthy, open democracy that is their greatest threat. Al Quaida could not survive in a free democracy like ours that permits--even demands--open debate.

So I say to both sides, liberal and conservative, cherish the freedom to voice an opinion that is a cornerstone of our democracy, but stop using the word "traitor" so casually in trying to smear your political opponents. To invoke treason so quicky in a political discussion is to diminish the significance of those evil acts that are true treason. There are many ugly names brandished against voices from the other side in this democracy--"fool", "crook", "liar", etc--but to me, "traitor" is the ugliest and has no place in the debate. I encourage both sides to avoid it and leave it to the prosecutors and courts to root out real traitors.

209587[/snapback]

Develop some appreciation of parody.

[Tigermike 3,053]

That anyone with a brain cell would listen to some crackpot like Feinstein is beyond me.

209607[/snapback]

No one with a brain cell would have posted that because someone with a brain cell would have easily seen that the letter was to Feinstein and from non-partisan Congressional Research Service. You clearly either didn't read it or have no brain cells.

Besides, you trust George Bush and dare to question anyone else's judgment?

209745[/snapback]

It makes perfect sense I suppose to trust someone's judgment whose only rant for the past six years is anti Bush. Bush stole the election. Bush lied. Yada, yada yada. What are you folks going to do three years from now when he is not in office?

[DKW 86 7,440]

That anyone with a brain cell would listen to some crackpot like Feinstein is beyond me.

209607[/snapback]

No one with a brain cell would have posted that because someone with a brain cell would have easily seen that the letter was to Feinstein and from non-partisan Congressional Research Service. You clearly either didn't read it or have no brain cells.

Besides, you trust George Bush and dare to question anyone else's judgment?

209745[/snapback]

It was on Fienstein's site was what I was talking about. It it is not like anyone would trust anything that dingbat OR HER FRIENDS in private or public places said anyway.

As for Bush, how many times have I talked about poor Republican leadership in the last week? I am by a wide margin the more open minded and clear thinking debater between you and I. I criticize Reps and Dems too. I criticize Bush for his mindless pork barreling the American taxpayer. I criticize Dems for no new ideas and mindlessly obsessive criticism of ANYTHING Bush has done in 5-6 years. Hey the economy is very good. We havent been attacked since 9-11. I guess if I had ZERO new ideas, I would eventually get into nothing but criticism of everybody else too.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

That anyone with a brain cell would listen to some crackpot like Feinstein is beyond me.

209607[/snapback]

No one with a brain cell would have posted that because someone with a brain cell would have easily seen that the letter was to Feinstein and from non-partisan Congressional Research Service. You clearly either didn't read it or have no brain cells.

Besides, you trust George Bush and dare to question anyone else's judgment?

209745[/snapback]

It was on Fienstein's site was what I was talking about. It it is not like anyone would trust anything that dingbat OR HER FRIENDS in private or public places said anyway.

As for Bush, how many times have I talked about poor Republican leadership in the last week? I am by a wide margin the more open minded and clear thinking debater between you and I. I criticize Reps and Dems too. I criticize Bush for his mindless pork barreling the American taxpayer. I criticize Dems for no new ideas and mindlessly obsessive criticism of ANYTHING Bush has done in 5-6 years. Hey the economy is very good. We havent been attacked since 9-11. The death rate for our soldiers in a war zone is less than in DC for Christ's sake! I guuess if I had ZERO new ideas, I would eventually get into nothing but criticism of everybody else too.

209758[/snapback]

The truth is, on political matters you are utterly delusional and blindly partisan. You can't just deal with Abramoff without bringing up Babbit, whom you claim was worse-- all evidence to the contrary. That is just one more illustration of your blind partisanship. You dismiss the document from the CRS because it is on a Dem's website. I guess if she posted the Constitution on her website, you would dismiss that, too--- oh wait-- you already have.

You offer up your qualified criticisms of a Republican from time-to-time, but get upset if a Dem offers the same criticism. In my "platform", I recognized that I support Bush on his guest worker program. I don't dismiss the idea merely because it is his. I think it illustrates one his rare connections with reality and I praise it. But the reality is, I think most of his decisions are bad and that he is a terrible leader. My favorite Senator is Chuck Hagel. I think he is one of the straightest shooters in Washington. The fact that he is a Republican doesn't effect that. I think Lindsey Graham has above average intergrity, although I may disagree with him on some things. I used to consider myself a Republican leaning independent and then I watched the party become a cartoon. There are other Republican senators I respect. There used to be even far more.

The Republicans control every branch of government. It would be pretty hard to blame the Dems for the workings of the Federal Government right now since they don't have control of anything. And yet you and others tend to focus far more on some odd, and often manufactured, complaint about some liberal group than on the actual workings of government. I have lived in a number of states over the years and for those that require party membership to vote in primaries, I have never registered as anything but an independent.

In 2000 I voted for McCain in the primary and would have likely supported him over Gore had he got the nomination. I had already seen Bush up close for 6 years as governor and saw nothing that led me to believe he was ready to President. Didn't hate him, just wasn't impressed. You and buddies, on the other hand, not only hated Kerry, you even talked about his wife, focusing on such meaningless crap as how she pronounced her name.

Keep deluding yourself, buddy. You are one open-minded and clear-thinking debater.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Keep deluding yourself, buddy. You are one open-minded and clear-thinking debater.

Tex, one reference to supporting one Bush Idea in four years????

Woohoo, only you would call that real progress. The Dems havent had a new idea in 30-40 years and they call everyone else narrow minded?

Look, in reality I am just like Reagan. I am a Democrat whose Party turned so far to the Left that there is no longer any place for me nor the Millions like me in it. We have been forced to the Republicans by the screaming shrillness of the Dems.

I would have voted for Leiberman. Why did the Dem bigwigs kill is candidacy? I would have voted for Gore until he sold his soul to the Left. In 1988 I would have fully supported his candidacy. Now I and many more see him as frankly insane. Is he the Best the Dems have? Howard Dean? Is he sane?...... Is he? Dean is so out of touch that not even the Dems fully support him. I mean come on...

Kerry, a rich white giggolo with a poorer academic record than Bush? That is the face of the Dem Party? A guy that has had so many of his statements proved to be lies. Christmas in Cambodia? A 35 year lie that no one in the Press had the brains to research, question, and expose as a total lie, etc.

The atrocities he did and saw in Vietnam, he didnt report them to his senior officers, to the press, etc while he was there. No he waited until his return when he could become the darling of the Left. He also RE-ENACTED them on camera his so called expoloits. Why? Future campaign material?

Bush, I never voted for his Daddy. I never voted FOR him either. As you said, I plainly state that the he is the lesser of two bad choices in both elections. Gore and Kerry are both now puppets of the extreme Left in this country. Kerry in all his years in the Senate isnt known for one real initiative since he got there.Gore was only known as Tobaccos best friend. The old video clip of him in front of the tobacco growers is just a hoot. You see him yelling at them about his support FOR tobacco in 1988 and then in 1996 you have him telling that tearful BS story at the the Dem convention about his sister dying. WHAT A CROCK!

So Yes Tex, with a clear conscious I can say I would support a Dem for any office, and have recently here locally, if they are qualified and arent totally sold out to the Gore-Dean-Kerry extremists in the Dem Party.

[WarTim 3,457]

That anyone with a brain cell would listen to some crackpot like Feinstein is beyond me.

209607[/snapback]

No one with a brain cell would have posted that because someone with a brain cell would have easily seen that the letter was to Feinstein and from non-partisan Congressional Research Service. You clearly either didn't read it or have no brain cells.

Besides, you trust George Bush and dare to question anyone else's judgment?

209745[/snapback]

It makes perfect sense I suppose to trust someone's judgment whose only rant for the past six years is anti Bush. Bush stole the election. Bush lied. Yada, yada yada. What are you folks going to do three years from now when he is not in office?

209748[/snapback]

They will make up new and improved lies to spew out against the conservative that beats their candidate AGAIN.