Monday, November 14, 2005

Sticky Quagmire of Democrat Lies

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril -- especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

Now, let me say to all of you here, as all of you know, the weightiest decision any President ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes it's the only answer.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and, when necessary, action.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era.
President William J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

Another winner from
Cox and Forkum. Is that Senator Kennedy on the right?

If you missed Chris Wallaces masterful interview with sputtering Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) you missed some great political theatre. You will recall that Rockefeller, the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the leaders of the current crop of Democrat amnesiacs currently pushing the big Bush lied lie.

You can read the whole exchange here. It has less drama than the televised version. And what do you make of the freudian slip "We should not report it?" Is he anticipating answering questions regarding his own amnesia?

Rockefeller spins to the point of sputtering incomprehension. So forgive me if I simply put the focused questions by Chris Wallace. If only the entire media so intent on passing along Democrat talking points would do the same. Here's a sample:

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, pre-war intelligence was a big issue in the last campaign, widely debated. George Bush won that election. There are now 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Is it really useful to go back over what Dick Cheney or someone else said in 2002?
Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did.
Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate. But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the president, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
If you want to read more reflections on Rockefellers sputtering replies, see: Don Surber and Flopping Aces.

No comments:

fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator