Left — and MSM — Still Desperate to Prove “Bush Lied!”
So desperate are Democrats — and some of their allies in the MSM — to prove their pet theory that “Bush Lied!” in pushing to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein than they will seize on anything substantiate this unsubstantiated theory.
No wonder they were so eager to embrace the now-discredited Joe Wilson. That one-time Kerry campaign aide claimed to have actual evidence that the president mislead the American people, claiming Bush had seen his report discrediting the famous sixteen words of his 2003 State of the Union address, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
But, it was Wilson who would be discredited. If anything, his report lent credence to those sixteen words. Last week, the news media and the left were practically giddy about a report from the Pentagon’s inspector general suggesting that in the run-up to the Iraq war, then-undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith drew “inappropriate” conclusions. But, the report also found that Feith (and his team) had done “nothing illegal or unauthorized.”* Still, in covering this story, The Washington Post relied as much on a partisan report as it had on the document itself, a fact the paper acknowledged in a correction to the article:
References to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration” were also from Levin’s report.
I realize I’m a little late in getting to this story as a number of bloggers have already covered it, e.g., American Thinker, Powerline and Hot Air and A Blog For All.
It’s an interesting serendipity that the MSM makes much of this report at the same time as the trial of Scooter Libby. Some on the left are still holding out hope that that trial would produce some evidence (not uncovered in an extensive investigation) that Administration officials were engaged in a conspiracy to destroy Wilson because he had shown that Bush lied.
Neither Wilson’s report nor the IG’s provide any credence to the Left’s much vaunted notion that Bush lied. Feith offered a conclusion with which the IG disagreed. But, he did not lie. And his was only one of many reports the Administration put out in making its case for the Iraq war.
The president has made many mistakes since we first liberated Iraq. He should have reconsidered our strategy shortly after terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque last year. And he should more regularly make the case for victory in Iraq, putting it in the context (as he has in recent days) of the War on Terror.
But, while he has made mistakes, he has never misled the American people. If the Democrats, left-wing bloggers and pundits and even some in the MSM want to show he lied, they need to provide evidence that when he made the case for going to war, he said (or claimed in written reports) things which at the time he knew to be false. And they have yet to do that.
In their end, their claim that Bush lied is just empty — and angry — rhetoric.
*Hugh Hewitt offers a great summary of the report, “The IG report in fact rejects the charges of unlawful, unauthorized or misleading before offering up a fig leaf top critics of the DoD in the form of the “inappropriate” conclusion, which is itself an inappropriate exercise of IG authority as there is no definition to the term.”
69 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
How about this:
Comment by Ian — February 13, 2007 @ 9:14 pm - February 13, 2007
This is unrelated, but too good not to pass on: House Hearing on Global Warming Canceled Due to Ice Storm.
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 9:35 pm - February 13, 2007
All these people lied too.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Comment by Vince P — February 13, 2007 @ 10:19 pm - February 13, 2007
And one can add this, Vince:
The United Nations chief nuclear inspector has said Iraq is still not doing enough to convince the world it has no banned weapons.
“We have not finished our work and Iraq is not fully co-operating with us,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, adding that private access to Iraqi scientists remained a problem.
And if that isn’t enough:
Mr Blix said inspectors had been able to conduct operations throughout Iraq with relative ease and described the ongoing destruction of al-Samoud II missiles as a “substantial measure of disarmament”.
But he said such co-operation could not be described as “immediate compliance” – as required by Resolution 1441, passed late last year by the Security Council.
Saddam was merely playing the usual games, secure (or so he thought) in the knowledge that the UN bureaucracy he had paid off and the leftist governments he was bribing would do as they were paid to do and manipulate Bush-hating leftists like you, Ian.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2007 @ 11:07 pm - February 13, 2007
What angers me the most about all this, is the absolute willful treachery that people like Ian engage in.
That they have ideologically collaborated with our enemy and have eroded all public support for the defense of this country is something I don’t think this country will survive, literally.
Comment by Vince P — February 13, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - February 13, 2007
#5:
Really? Because I’m critical of Bush? Because I provide specific quotes that prove Bush is a liar? Yes, I guess that’s intolerable for authoritarians like you so you’re reduced to ad hominem attacks. Big surprise there.
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2007 @ 12:16 am - February 14, 2007
Vince P, right on.
I have to confess, I’ve never seen the appeal of the whole “BUSH LIED!!!(tm)” trip. It’s supposed to make me trust & prefer the Democrats??? It’s basically claiming the Democrats were gullible.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2007 @ 12:54 am - February 14, 2007
#6
Really? Because I’m critical of Bush? Because I provide specific quotes that prove Bush is a liar? Yes, I guess that’s intolerable for authoritarians like you so you’re reduced to ad hominem attacks. Big surprise there.
No. It’s because we reject your bastardized concept of patriotism. You and your ilk have done nothing but lie for the past 7 years and, quite frankly, we’re sick and tired of it. You’re a miserable, rotten, stinking liar and you are proven such everytime you open your hole.
You expend so much energy tearing down us, this country, our president and our soldiers and then you arrogantly can’t figure out why the hell we don’t bow down and munch on your blood soaked carpet.
The very reason the liberals don’t have the testicular fortitude to go forth with hearings on your alleged “lies” is because they know damn well that the American people will become aware of the lying, subterfuge and outright treason you have engaged in for years now.
You can drop down, fifth ring and cook.
Don’t bother to respond because whatever you have to say will be yet another contemptible lie. Suck on that.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2007 @ 1:28 am - February 14, 2007
Ian: You’re not a critic. You and the Democrats are bald-face shameless LIARS. The Democrats were right there , side by side with Bush, supporting and advocating for the war. It wasn’t until a year before the 04 elections that suddenly they broke ranks and only because Howard Dean had the audacity to be the first one of you losers to do or say whatever he thought he needed to to get votes.
Dont hide behind your sanctimonious bs. You are a liar, plain and simple.
The forces of Islam radicalism have spread to so many corners of the earth and its target is us. We’re facing threats that we never have before from an enemy that is on a mission from God and all you stupid people do is play your political game. Your politics wont matter one freaking bit for now it is inevitable that nuclear bombs will be detonated over every gay ghetto in this country.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 2:53 am - February 14, 2007
Vince, all those people deliberately omitted information from the NIE that didn’t fit the administration’s path to war? Well waddyaknow.
Comment by jpe — February 14, 2007 @ 6:06 am - February 14, 2007
I wasn’t aware any of those people were responsible for producing NIEs.
Please explain their role in the process.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 6:13 am - February 14, 2007
Tsk, tsk. Nothing but ad hominem attacks which are invariably the refuge of those lacking a valid argument. My quotes are accurate and they irrefutably establish that Bush lied. That many of you can’t deal with such a simple fact is pretty pathetic but really not terribly surprising. John Dean’s analysis in “Conservatives Without Conscience” is spot-on.
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2007 @ 8:16 am - February 14, 2007
You have not demostrated a lie. The operative thing about a lie is for someone to know that A is the truth and to instead say B.
You need to demostrate what A is. Until you do that, you are the liar.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 8:32 am - February 14, 2007
Ian, I would think that rather than take the usual tack of defend a defenseless proposition of wild-assed speculation, you’d take a moment to reflect and learn.
Bush and his Administration laid out many reasons for securing Iraq from Saddam’s rule of tyranny. Read his UN speech and SOTU speeches and you’ll see it for yourself. You point to one as “the reason”. It’s intellectually dishonest and, frankly, seditious.
Rather than spin discredited Democrat talking points employed for partisan gain at the expense of American resolve and troop security… you should reflect and learn.
Remember Ian, the crap you and your buddies layout in the public square is used by our enemies abroad to assist and embolden terrorists. It’s why Chavez is a threat to the security of the Western hemisphere. It’s why al Qaeda leaders can’t wait to take glory in Democrat naysaying as if to prove American will is broken.
You can be mad at Bush and his Administration for not doing more for gay civil rights… but on issues of natl security and homeland protection, you and your buds are dangerously close to seditious conduct. Kerry, Sen Clinton, HowieDean, Conyers, Rangel, gReid, Biden, Kennedys-all and much longer list of “war critics” in the MSM who front for the Democrats will pay the price.
I hope that, unlike the flaming failures of your GayLeft buds on same sex marriage, that on this WOT naysaying will not lead to years of second-class citizenship for Democrats.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 8:56 am - February 14, 2007
The Hollywood community will not just raise a howl of protest over any attempt to censor their work, but they frequently pitch a stink at the mere labelling of their work by the MPAA. So, how do you imagine they might react if someone started killing directors to silence them? Well, I can answer that question. Because it’s happened and the silence from Hollywood has been deafening.
Director Theo van Gogh was viciously murdered by an Islamic extermist determined to stop him from making a film critical of Islam over two years ago and to date no Hollywood group or organization has uttered a single word of protest, regret, or remorse over the incident. This is the same community so invested in it’s martyr complex they still produce at least three films a year about a half-century old blacklist and yet they have nothing to say about the murder of an artist to forever silence him.
Think if van Gogh had been butchered by a Christian there would be a little uproar? Think maybe a film might already be in the works about the incident? You know, a little cautionary tale about the extreme right-wing… What if van Gogh had been making a pro-choice film and killed by an anti-abortion activist? Think we might’ve heard from Susan Sarandon by now? Rob Reiner? An “E! True Hollywood Story?” Of course we would’ve. So, why the silence regarding van Gogh?
The answer’s simple: Bush Derangement Syndrome. If Hollywood were to start criticizing terrorists and aterorism would be agreeing with President Bush, and that’s just not going to happen out here. Better to be wrong with the racist, sexist, homophobic theocrats who butchered one of their own, than be right with Bush.
If only the President would realize how Hollywood reacts to him and use that power for good. He need only publicly express an affection for remakes, sequels, and George Clooney movies to make them go away forever.
Comment by Cisco — February 14, 2007 @ 9:43 am - February 14, 2007
#13: Bush claimed that Saddam would not let the inspectors in so the US removed him from power. That was a false statement and the press publicized it as such. Yet Bush restated the falsehood. He lied.
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2007 @ 9:51 am - February 14, 2007
Ian, there’s a great study published in Foreign Policy mag by a UI-UC student… it tables about 20+ rationales for going to war with Iraq spoken by key Administration senior policy leaders just between 9-11 and Oct 2002.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679
20+ arguments. 20+ reasons. I think most of them make fundamental sense and I remember hearing those very people articulate about 16 of them personally. No rewriting of history here, Ian. No spin.
Bush is noted as offering 15 reasons for extending the WOT to Iraq and removing Saddam.
Quit the spin from your perch on the DemocratPlantation, Ian. The only liar and intellectually dishonest person here is you. You, Ian. You.
And not to be too redundant, but you’re the guy who’s been dishonest and a liar, bubba. Stop while you’re far behind.
Add to that your recent willingness to shill for Hugo Chavez and the ethics-challenged JoeyPKennedy’s Joey-4-OIL Democrat scandal… and we have enough proof to indict you in the Court of Informed Opinion (a place you’ve never ever set foot in apparently) for being a tool of the GayLeft water-carrying Democrat loyalist brigade.
Put down the pink flag, Ian. You’ve been soundly defeated once again.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - February 14, 2007
Ian writes at #16: the reason the President went to war was a lie and he restated that lie and “the press publicized it as such”.
Gee, imagine that? Respectable press people like Helen Thomas asking the Prez why we really went to war given that every single reason… or excuse… has been proven wrong. Why didn’t the Prez just admit it: a) it’s always all about OIL; b) they threatened my daddie and mommie; and c) to help stoke the engines of the business-war industrial complex and make my cronies wealthy beyond all reason with taxpayer money.
Gee, the press as final truth-teller… and the Left thinks conservatives are nuts about liberal media bias? LOL.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - February 14, 2007
Like I wrote Ian, quit while your behind.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 12:23 pm - February 14, 2007
Cicso, I’m reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s autobiography right now in fact. This woman is so amazing.
What strikes me about the Left in this country is that they wouldn’t think twice about letting the wolves devour her. The Left is more than willing to let every critic of Islam get butchered like goat.
I wonder if Ian even knows who Ayaan Hirsi Ali is.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - February 14, 2007
#20 – He’d probably say she was Muhammad Ali’s sister, or something to that effect.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 14, 2007 @ 1:17 pm - February 14, 2007
Seditious? Well there’s one none of us have heard before. At any rate, the proper analysis is to look for the but-for reason. Which one of the rationales was necessary for the invasion? Would the people have consented to invading Iraq solely for human rights? Check the polls, and the answer is no. Repeat that for the other reasons.
See how that works?
Comment by jpe — February 14, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - February 14, 2007
#17-21: You can spin and twist all you want but the following statements are false:
The fact that the same falsehood was repeated even though it had been publicly proven to be false shows Bush was either lying and/or an ignorant and incompetent moron. Take your pick but they’re the only possible choices.
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - February 14, 2007
No Ian, the answer is that you’re still being intellectually dishonest even after being proven wrong, twice.
You can spin away on the GayLeft Democrat talking points all you want and reference great MSM press lefties like Helen Thomas and, at the end of the day, you’re still wrong.
Bush is identified as articulating at least 16 different reasons for going to war. He was right, by my count, on 14. And the entire Congress and Prez Clinton and the UN were equally wrong on the WMDs.
Go figure you’d spin. Defenseless positions in the search for vice is no virtue, Ian. You’re still wrong. Three times now and counting.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - February 14, 2007
On my plain Jane website I have a video of a 1999 news report filed by ABC News making connections between Osama and Saddam.
Plus links to some maps showing Islamic attacks from 2003 – 2007.
And a few other things too.
http://vincep312.home.comcast.net/
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - February 14, 2007
#24: So are you denying that Bush made those post-war statements? Or are you claiming those statements were made by Bush and are accurate. Remember, these statements were made after the invasion.
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2007 @ 4:24 pm - February 14, 2007
See what Ian does. Latching onto the past as if it matters now. We’re in Iraq. Sunni and Shia radicals are hoping to establish a caliphate there. The caliphate is one step on a list of Koranically specified steps that are to be followed so that the Muslims can seize control of the planet.
Ian, instead of wondering how to foil those plans , insists on perputuating his poliitcal hit list.
I am not granting him his point… whatever Ian is getting at (I take it “Bush lied”) , he’s wrong.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 5:39 pm - February 14, 2007
#27: I’m simply responding to a sweeping statement that Dan made in his post. Complain to Dan if you want to avoid discussing the past – although I don’t see conservatives avoiding the past when they complain about Clinton.
However, I think we have to deal with the past to ensure that we don’t repeat the terrible mistakes that were made. Sometimes, even conservatives have to be held to account.
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2007 @ 5:44 pm - February 14, 2007
Clinton is to blame for allowing this movement to ripen and establish itself and to raise Jihad into the consciensiousness of muslims worldwide.
I dont blame him for not reconizing what was going on for hardly anyone in the US Gov’t realized the significance of what was happening, and they hardly do today to this day. I do blame him for doing nothing about Osama except to launch missiles into Afghanistan which cemented the marrage between Taliban and Al Qaida.
Bush was following the same non-urgent policy, so were it not for the attacks , who knows if anything substanitial would have been done to stop the threat.
THough I imagine you would be amoung those harping on why are we invading afghanistan when they never attacked us.
So after you hold “The conservative” to account, what would you suggest be done about thee global jihad threat?
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 5:54 pm - February 14, 2007
Fitzgerald: They will punch the holes themselves
Hugh 2/14/2007 7:12 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015258.php#more
If copies of these khutbas can be obtained, then one will be able to see just how they do it: what they avoid, and what they willfully misconstrue, and what they use to divert attention from the essence of Islam.
And if those copies can be obtained, they should be published online, so Infidels can point out just how removed they are from the reality of mainstream Islam. They did the same in Turkey, for 80 years. They managed, by systematically constraining Islam as a political and social force, to make Turkey what it is today. That is to say, they made it into a country that has indeed created a “secular” class. That class, however, constitutes at most a fourth of the population, and is under constant threat by the Turks who, despite every effort, and all those pre-fabricated khutbas written in a ministry of religion especially devoted to constraining Islam and monitoring the mosques, have remained loyal to the true, that is the menacing Islam, with which we are all, alas, now so familiar.
Or we can skip our own punching of holes in these efforts, and wait for Muslims to do it themselves. It will not be hard to do. You only need a Qur’an, copies of Bukhari and Muslim, and the Sira in any of the authoritative, for-Muslims-only versions. That’s all. And the futility and hopelessness of the project will be clear.
No matter how many times the mantra is repeated that “moderate Muslims are the solution,” it remains untrue and unprovable. That the West needs to find ways to divide and demoralize, and thereby weaken, the camp of Islam is true. But it is not the “moderates” facing down the “immoderate” Muslims, with those “moderate” Muslims being given every assistance, and we Infidels doing nothing, saying nothing, about Islam that might “offend the moderates.”
No, the real divisions within Islam that need to be exploited are those between:
1) Sunnis and Shi’ites (Ibadi Muslims hardly count). It is to the advantage of Infidels that this sectarian conflict in Iraq continue, widen, and have spill-over effects in neighboring countries, which will undoubtedly feel they must send “volunteers” and money and weapons to aid their coreligionists in Iraq. It is no different from the Iran-Iraq War — which, from the Infidel point of view, should have gone on forever.
2) Arab and non-Arab Muslims. An independent Kurdistan might serve as a heartening example to other non-Arab peoples — especially the Berbers in Algeria and elsewhere in North Africa — who might observe the Kurdish example, and, deeply resentful of Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism, the most successful in human history, insist on re-berberizing themselves. How many of those who bear Arab names in Algeria, or who think of themselves as Arab, are in fact Berbers forcibly converted long ago, who need to rediscover their own individual and collective history and to come to regard Islam, which intelligent people born into Islam will seek reasons for fleeing, as mainly a vehicle for Arab supremacism?
3) Oil-rich Arabs and Muslims, and the other Arabs and Muslims, who right now obtain vast sums and every other kind of assistance not from fellow Muslims, but from Infidels. All Infidel aid must stop, and Arabs and Muslims without oil wealth encouraged to go to the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Qataris, the people of the Emirates, and ask them to help fellow members of the Umma. Either they will be turned down, or they won’t. If they are turned down, they will be furious. If they are not turned down, they will still be angry, because whatever they are given will, they feel, not be enough. They will resent the rich members of the Umma for squandering what should, some of those Arabs and Muslims will start to insist, be part of the collective wealth of the whole Umma. And the givers, the Saudis and others, will also resent those they are giving money to, and there will be constant mutual recrimination and resentment — which can only be good for Infidels. And of course, every dollar sent to Egypt or Jordan or “the Palestinians” for staples, will not be money available to spend building mosques, and maintaining them, and paying for propaganda and well-financed systematic campaigns of Da’wa, or for those traitorous Western hirelings to be found all over the West, doing the Saudi bidding.
These are the three potential divisions within the Camp of Islam that the Pentagon and the State Department, and Congress, and the press, and the television, and people who pay for all of that, to focus on.
Here’s an idea. Let there be a contest. Let it be announced. Let the prize be big. Not as big as Richard Branson’s $25 million offered to the person who can come up with the best idea for saving the world from further environmental damage. Let it be offered for the best set of proposals on how to contain the worldwide Jihad. Let’s set the prize at, say, $5 million.
That’s big enough.
Oh, I claim the first annual one, based on about a thousand postings setting out precisely those things that must be done, at this very website.
Where shall I pick up my check? Now I can discharge other duties, sweetly, and put it all in book form.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - February 14, 2007
#29:
To start, I’d shift the focus to Afghan effort which is in danger of failing. I’d negotiate with Iran and Syria and push the Israelis and Palestinians towrad a settlement – maybe send Clinton and Papa Bush there to whack a few heads. It’s late but I’d get a crash effort going to reduce our dependence on oil for energy.
Comment by Ian — February 14, 2007 @ 10:33 pm - February 14, 2007
Negotiate with Iran and Syria for what? What , exactly, are we looking to get from them… what are they looking to get from us.
Now given that the Iranians have made the following statements, do you truely believe that these are negiotiatable points?
And in regards to the Palestinians… is there anyone gullable enough to believe the Palestinians want peace?
“The final goal of the revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”. – commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi
an advisor to the new Iranian govt says his country’s objective is the destruction of the evil in the world perputated by England and the nations derived from England
commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television, “The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world”.
Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.
The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 10:43 pm - February 14, 2007
How could anyone who knows about the statements the Palestinians have made as recorded at this link say that the Palestinians want peace?
Islamic Mein Kampf – Islamic Struggle
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 11:38 pm - February 14, 2007
#32: You may be too young to remember but I recall when Nikita Khrushchev stated in no uncertain terms that he would “bury” the West. But we negotiated with the Soviets in spite of their avowed goal of destroying the capitalist west. War was a last resort. Now it seems to be first resort. The fact that it is US policy is shameful not to mention criminal.
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 12:46 am - February 15, 2007
Iran has been at war against the United States since 1979. How could you say war is the first resort?
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 1:16 am - February 15, 2007
Seems as though IgnoAndNaus is off his meds again. Let me pick up a few items here and there:
#31 – “I’d shift the focus to Afghan effort which is in danger of failing.”
Okay. Now, are you happy?
#34 – “But we negotiated with the Soviets in spite of their avowed goal of destroying the capitalist west. War was a last resort.”
I guess then that both the Cuban Missle Crisis and the Bay of Pigs mission were both considered “negotiations?” The TRUE fact is that if we did not get involved in an arms race with the Soviets, decimating their economy and proving to their faces that we did believe in first-strike capability, you would still see the USSR in existence today.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 15, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - February 15, 2007
Also Soviets could be deterred. they didn’t want MAD. Terrorists want all to die.
Comment by comment0r — February 15, 2007 @ 1:02 pm - February 15, 2007
#36-37: The end to the Cuban Missile Crisis was definitely negotiated and we were involved in negotiating with the Soviets for decades. There is no reason that we can’t negotiate with the likes of Iran and Syria which are nation states unlike al Qaeda terrorists.
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - February 15, 2007
Negotiate with Iran and Syria for what? What , exactly, are we looking to get from them… what are they looking to get from us.
Now given that the Iranians have made the following statements, do you truely believe that these are negiotiatable points?
And in regards to the Palestinians… is there anyone gullable enough to believe the Palestinians want peace?
“The final goal of the revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”. – commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi
an advisor to the new Iranian govt says his country’s objective is the destruction of the evil in the world perputated by England and the nations derived from England
commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television, “The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world”.
Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.
The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - February 15, 2007
#39: As I said before, there was lots of wild rhetoric by the Soviets and we engaged them. In addition, there have been moves by Iran following 9-11 showing we can work with them.
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 3:11 pm - February 15, 2007
What moves did Iran made? (Other than arming Hezbellah, Hamas, Al Qadia, Sadr) ?
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - February 15, 2007
Poor IgnoAndNaus is under the utopian delusion that since “Iran and Syria are nation states,” we can engage in a dialog with them.
Oh, I see. Sort of like the way Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler? Or the way Tojo negotiated with the USA prior to December 7, 1941?
Statehood does not immediately confer an aura of stability and reason. If that were the case, you would not have genocide in Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia or other “states” in the world.
You must also believe that people can be “citizens of the world” and “without boundaries.” Sort of like those human (panty) shields who went to Iraq before the war to chain themselves to Allied targets – until they realized that the Iraqis were going to use them as hostages.
It was another big blow to their liberal egos when the Iraqis civilians demeaned them for being “useless.” Sort of what we do to lower-case-libtrolls here. But I digress.
The old Soviets had a term for you – useful idiot.
Two strikes and counting.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 15, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - February 15, 2007
#41
Read this and learn something.
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 5:16 pm - February 15, 2007
I’m asking you to clarify what you said. WHy do I have to read an entire article? I’d still have to guess what you’re referencing since I cannot read minds.
What Iranian moves are you talking about?
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - February 15, 2007
#44: The article provides details on how helpful the Iranians were in Afghanistan especially in getting Karzai accepted by the Northern Alliance who had long been backed by Iran. After the Iraq invasion, Iran approached the US in an effort to swap al Qaeda terrorists that Iraq had obtained for some MEK terrorists in Iraq. While Bush liked the idea, Cheney apparently wouldn’t go along. The Iranians also offered a proposal for comprehensive bilateral talks but again were rebuffed by the US.
Now I’ve done enough summarizing. If you’re really interested in the willingness of the Iranians to negotiate with the US, you’ll read the article. The fact is they have helped our interests in the past and there is no reason they couldn’t be enticed to do so in the future.
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - February 15, 2007
The ones after 9/11 — when, frightened to death of the United States’s power and willingness to act, they decided to cooperate.
But that changed when they realized that by simply manipulating and using leftists like Ian, they could sap the United States’s will to act, and thus remove the danger.
Iran realizes that, with a leftist like Nancy Pelosi in office, who represents a district in which Holocaust survivors like Elie Wesel can be physically assaulted by Holocaust deniers without any consequences, or where her supporters burn American flags but demand public punishment and excoriation for those who mistreat flags of anti-Jewish terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah, they have nothing to fear. Pelosi will do nothing — and they know her thugs like Murtha can be easily purchased, as they have been previously.
The only thing that has ever brought Iran to the negotiating table is the clear indication that the United States will use force — and the Iranians know that the leftist Democrats will block any attempt to use force against Iran.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 15, 2007 @ 6:52 pm - February 15, 2007
#46:
Bush/Cheney will do what they want; they’ve said as much. The Republick Party obstructionists in Congress will prevent any meaningful restrictions on Bushco’s propensity for starting wars it can’t seem to finish. By 2008, the American public will be so sick of Republick incompetence, the Dems are likely to take solid control of Congress and win the Presidency. BTW, I look forward to hearing O’Lielly choke on the words “Senator Franken!”
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 7:26 pm - February 15, 2007
Ian: you’re so incredibily naive.
The US said we would sit down with them but they have to stop their nuclear work first. Iran refuses to do so.
Now during this entire time period the EU-3 has been engaged in negotiations (in fact we outsourced this project to them , so we are sitting them with them by proxy).
These are the exact words of the Iranian nuclear negotiator who was on Iranian TV saying in the open that Iran uses the talks jsut to buy time and they have no interest in stopping their nuclear work. You think people like this should be talked to? Are you crazy?
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=805
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 7:34 pm - February 15, 2007
“Bushco” LOL. I love that one.
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 7:38 pm - February 15, 2007
#48:
Oh, so you set pre-conditions to get your way on one of the items to be negotiated. Well, don’t be surprised if the other party is not impressed. Especially when they are within their rights to pursue enrichment. You may not like it, you may not trust them but they do have the right to develop that technology.
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - February 15, 2007
Iran having a nuke is actually not negiotable. Which is why two carriers are almost in position in the gulf.
Iran signed the NPT, so actually, they do not have a right to do what they are doing.
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 9:34 pm - February 15, 2007
#51:
Wrong. The NPT permits signatories to pursue uranium enrichment. The NPT does not permit development of nuclear weapons but Iran claims it is not doing so. Now you and Bush may not believe them but that does not alter their right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
An attack on Iran will make the current Iraq quagmire look like a picnic. The US will not be able to prevent a drastic reduction in the flow of mideast oil. Nor will it be able to prevent a retaliatory Iran strike on Israel nor a full uprising in Iraq. This time Bushco will be alone and unfortunately for us, the world will cheer any blowback on the US and its interests. Osama will be so happy.
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 10:00 pm - February 15, 2007
This statement requires that your conclusions be dismissed out of hand.
*waves hand in a shoo shoo motion*
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 10:13 pm - February 15, 2007
Isn’t it amazing at how Democrats like Ian, his mistress Pelosi, and her thug Murtha are the only ones still claiming that Iran is not doing anything wrong?
Perhaps that’s because the Europeans have finally realized that Iran is more than capable of hitting them with nuclear missiles — and their anti-Semitism isn’t strong enough to keep them blind to the certainty that Iran intends to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons.
Regardless of the cost of an attack on Iran, Ian, it is not nearly as bad as the consequences of Shi’ite and leftist Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel and the surrounding Sunni countries. And if you’re worried about a “drastic reduction in the flow of mideast oil”, imagine what can happen when a nuclear-armed Iran decides to close off the Straits of Hormuz — and dares anyone to stop them.
The Bush administration is making the simple observation that the Democrats’ “plan”, such as it is, of retaliating AFTER Iran destroys Israel with a nuclear blast requires setting off MULTIPLE nuclear blasts — ours plus Iran’s first — with the resulting consequences for the ecosystem of the Middle East, not to mention the global results.
In contrast, attacking Iran BEFORE they gain the capability to set off a nuclear blast requires that NO nuclear explosions take place, and that several million people don’t die from it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 15, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - February 15, 2007
#53: Which of my statements that you quoted are inaccurate?
Comment by Ian — February 15, 2007 @ 11:46 pm - February 15, 2007
That you proceed in an argument that takes Iran’s word for it. That premise is inaccurate.
And your implicit premise that lack of action will be less costly than action. In my opinion, the cost of inaction will be orders of magnitude greater than action.
Comment by Vince P — February 15, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - February 15, 2007
#56: I do not take Iran’s word for anything, else I would have simply stated that they are not developing nuclear weapons as opposed to saying they “claim” they are not.
You make the foolish assumption that there are only two choices: military attack and doing nothing at all. I say that the US engaging in comprehensive bi-lateral negotiations with Iran is far better than the limited choices you present. Iran is not about to develop nuclear weapons for many years so we have time to forestall that without starting a third war especially considering that the first two wars are not going all that well.
Comment by Ian — February 16, 2007 @ 9:19 am - February 16, 2007
Ian must have missed the part where Iran admits using negiotations as cover to carry on with their nuclear work.
Comment by Vince P — February 16, 2007 @ 9:44 am - February 16, 2007
#58: Negotiations with whom? Not the US, that’s for sure. And so what if they do continue their nuclear development while negotiations are going on? The US will be hard-pressed to do anything effective without using nuclear weapons on Iran in which many thousands of civilians will be killed. Then watch the rest of the world cheer when dirty bombs start going off in US cities.
No doubt we’ll then be treated to the spectacle of conservtives whining “no one could have imagined…”.
Comment by Ian — February 16, 2007 @ 10:49 am - February 16, 2007
Ian: dont raise the spector of dirty bombs.. after all, if you have your way, it will be thermonuclear hydrogen bombs that go off. I guess you can witness the destruction of AMerican civilization with the satisfication of knowing that you made it possible.
Comment by Vince P — February 16, 2007 @ 10:58 am - February 16, 2007
IgnoAndNaus also must have missed his high-school civics class with this gem of colossal ignorance:
“The Republick Party obstructionists in Congress will prevent any meaningful restrictions on Bushco’s propensity for starting wars it can’t seem to finish.”
So many errors – where do I start?
For starters, under Article II of the Constitution, the President is legally able to defend American interest wherever it appears they are threatened. In order to do that, he must first secure appropriations (that’s funding, in case you took the short yellow bus) from Congress as enumerated under Article I.
How can the GOP – a minority in both the House and Senate – block anything from happening if they don’t have the votes to do so? The only power the GOP has right now is in the Senate, where a total of 60 votes is needed to end debate on a topic to proceed to voting.
The House has no such restrictions. That is the reason why the anti-American troop resolution is going to pass the HR. And why the Dhimmicrat party will lose what little support it has among moderates.
Your BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is making you lose your common sense.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 16, 2007 @ 11:20 am - February 16, 2007
#61: Q:
A:
Comment by Ian — February 16, 2007 @ 11:38 am - February 16, 2007
Remember to keep in mind that Ian wants to negotiate with Iran
Iranian hands all over rebellion in Yemen
Olivier Guitta 2/16/2007 1:35 PM
The rebellion of Badreddine Al-Huthi, in the area of Saada, in the north of Sanaa, are reportedly supported and armed by Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been implicated in the destabilization of this border area with Saudi Arabia. According to daily newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi, the Yemeni authorities declared the area of Saada “closed military zone”. Violent fighting has erupted there in the past few days and killed at least 91 among the ranks of the Yemeni army, of which very many officers. Yemeni sources explain the fact that a majority of victims are officers by “the refusal of the soldiers to fight in light of the intensity of the confrontations”. The Al-Huthi militants, supported and armed by Iran, are also very mobile and resort to ambushes. According to sources of the Iranian opposition, the Al-Huthi rebels recently received modern weapons including anti-tank missiles which had been used by Hezbollah against Israel during the July war.
Comment by Vince P — February 16, 2007 @ 3:19 pm - February 16, 2007
IgnoAndNaus, you are being petty. You know full well that the filibuster is a procedural maneuver only used in the Senate, where the Dhimmicrats used THEIR minority period to block federal judicial appointees from an up-or-down vote per the Constitution.
Incidentally, the filibuster only applies to LEGISLATION, not “advise-and-consent” appointments. But notice how many libs are freaking out after the GOP used the same techniques to prevent the anti-American troop resolution from passing that the Dhimmicrats did in withholding judicial nominees from the bench. They got real quiet when reminded of this fact by the minority party.
That being said, it just shows your own stupidity for reading something out of context. If the House votes to cut off funding for the troops, the Senate will have to propose an identical bill – and they need only a simple majority to pass it. Last time I checked, the Senate only had 49 GOP senators.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 16, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - February 16, 2007
#63: Yes, absolutely negotiate. You may be too young but we kept negotiating all manner of important issues with the Soviets during the Viet Nam war even though we knew they were supplying the North with much of the weaponry being used against us.
Comment by Ian — February 16, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - February 16, 2007
Look how well Vietnam went !
Comment by Vince P — February 16, 2007 @ 5:27 pm - February 16, 2007
Vince, not too well. But in the long run, the strategy seemed to work. We won the Cold War against the Soviet Union. And Vietnam is regarded enough by our government that a President recently paid a visit there. Further, communism has not spread beyond that region.
I think we should be talking to Iran. I don’t know if I would call it negotiations, but since I don’t usually care about semantics, I don’t care what people would call it. This does not mean that I would believe a stinking word of what they say. In fact, I give them much less credence that GP and some others do when they take meaningless garbage (i.e., their totally irrelevant opinion on U.S. elections or policy) spewed by some Iranian clown leader to support their position on the Iraq War. It is also doesn’t mean that we have to give concessions a la Neville Chamberlain. Further, it also doesn’t mean that we can’t back up words with military action against Iran. By the way, I’m not saying that this is what Democrats support, since I really don’t know what their plan is. Just giving my opinion.
So like Vietnam, I would be willing to give a little in terms of Iraq in order for long term victory on the War on Terror. But unlike Vietnam, we have achieved some important short term victories. A subhuman evil individual has been removed from leadership and is no longer living. And a lot of terrorist pond scum have been either captured or killed.
Comment by Pat — February 17, 2007 @ 9:51 am - February 17, 2007
For those on the FarLeft who advise (like Biden, Levin, Clinton, Obama, Kerry and others) that we ought to be sitting down with the Iranians or Iraqi militants or Syrian Baathists and just trying to find a diplomatic end-run out of Iraq… the issue becomes, at what cost “diplomacy”?
We watched Saddam run the diplomatic game into the ground via the UN and, in the end, the world’s policeman had no guts to do the job needed… why? Because the “world’s best corps of diplomats” at the UN couldn’t stop taking bribes, making under-the-table profits and enriching themselves while helping Saddam hold world opinion at bay.
“If we could just talk” sounds a lot like my elementary teachers trying to explain why we should never resort to war or military engagements ever again. In order to talk, we’d have to abandon our opposition to Iran’s nuclear arms program… ’cause we’ve made that program’s termination the precursor to restoring diplomatic relations.
“If we could just talk” is a strategy a lot like the “world peace” bumber stickers and the “arms are for hugging” stickers. In the end, it takes strength, resolve, and fear in the hearts of your enemy to get them to act… not talking. Not a group hug. Not a human shield. Not the prefect protocol or diplomat’s table.
Strength. Resolve. Two things the FarLeft see as masculine qualities and, therefore, bad for America.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 22, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - February 22, 2007
Michigan-Matt, from your last comment, does this mean that you would reject out of hand anything that you perceive to be feminine qualities?
It takes strength, resolve, and fear, like you said. But in terms of fear, there doesn’t seem to be much of that with the terrorists and Iran, as things stand now, or before the last election.
My suggestions for talking with Iran or whomever does not have to take the form that you suggest or perceive talking or diplomacy to be. For example, I would have no problem with a U.S. diplomat or official say directly to the Iranian government that you have to do this, this, and that. If you don’t, you face certain consequences. And then do it, if Iran fails. So far the only formal talks from someone from the U.S. have been meaningless talks with a few U.S. senators.
Further, you talk about the bribes. Why hasn’t anyone in the Administration spoken about that formally with the U.N. If there is all this irrefutable proof that such bribes did occur, then that MUST be the number one topic (even before mentioning Iraq war) that Bush needs to address by September’s general session if not sooner. If the Administration feels that for any reason that he cannot state so, or that any mention with irrefutable proof will not be effective, then we need to get the hell out of the U.N.
Comment by Pat — February 23, 2007 @ 9:51 am - February 23, 2007