Democrats and their allies in the media are claiming that Scott McClellan’s new book confirms that the Bush administration deliberately lied about Saddam’s WMD. I think it’s important to keep this issue in its proper perspective.
For more than a decade prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was a bipartisan, multi-administration, and multinational consensus that Iraq had WMD. “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2004. “It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.” She had said the same thing the previous year: "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent."
Former Sen. John Edwards echoed Clinton in 2007: “Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials.”
I have put together an informational Web site that includes dozens of Clinton administration documents. These documents prove there were no differences between what the Clinton and Bush administrations said regarding Saddam’s WMD.
If the Democrats and the media want to continue with the “Bush lied” narrative, it is dishonest to omit the fact that those “lies” started before Bush became president.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Lyin' Biden
Today, Charles Krauthammer notes that Barack Hussein Obama's made a gaffe concerning meeting Iran's leaders without preconditions and now, "realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation," has decided "to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy."
The Democrats know Obama has serious problems with his foreign policy, and, not willing to admit it, have resorted to lying about it. Of course, Sen. Joe Biden, the most dishonest person in the U.S. Senate, has taken a lead role in mischaracterizing Obama's gaffe.
On CNN this morning, Biden had just started into his litany of falsehoods when the McCain campaign challenged the Delaware senator. "Senator, we just got this statement in," said CNN correspondent John Robert. "It was just handed to me from the McCain campaign. They claim that 'you're missing the point' about the unconditional summit saying that the actual issue is whether the office of the president of the United States should lend its prestige and legitimacy to a dictator like Ahmadinejad saying, 'When a tyrant or dictator is afforded the promotion of an equal footing, unconditional summit with the president of the United States, those bad actors are emboldened and it threatens the security of the United States and our allies.'"
"The fact of the matter is Barack Obama did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad," Biden responded. "He said he'd sit down with the Iranian leadership."
That is a flat-out lie. (Or maybe Obama would merely stand if he were to meet with Ahmadinejad.)
First, Ahmadinejad is part of the Iranian leadership. Second, Obama clearly said that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. According to USA Today in 2007, "Democrat Barack Obama says he probably wouldn't have invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University but would be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader as a way to protect U.S. interests."
CBS News also reported last year that Obama said he would meet with Ahmadinejad.
Biden also said that Republicans such as Bush and McCain "ought to read history." He said this shortly after asking, "Can you -- my question is, can you imagine JFK, Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman getting this into the mess we're in in Iraq?"
That would be the same JFK who got us into Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs (JFK did not sit down with Castro, did he?) and the same Harry Truman who got us into Korea. And, of course, Biden voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The Democrats know Obama has serious problems with his foreign policy, and, not willing to admit it, have resorted to lying about it. Of course, Sen. Joe Biden, the most dishonest person in the U.S. Senate, has taken a lead role in mischaracterizing Obama's gaffe.
On CNN this morning, Biden had just started into his litany of falsehoods when the McCain campaign challenged the Delaware senator. "Senator, we just got this statement in," said CNN correspondent John Robert. "It was just handed to me from the McCain campaign. They claim that 'you're missing the point' about the unconditional summit saying that the actual issue is whether the office of the president of the United States should lend its prestige and legitimacy to a dictator like Ahmadinejad saying, 'When a tyrant or dictator is afforded the promotion of an equal footing, unconditional summit with the president of the United States, those bad actors are emboldened and it threatens the security of the United States and our allies.'"
"The fact of the matter is Barack Obama did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad," Biden responded. "He said he'd sit down with the Iranian leadership."
That is a flat-out lie. (Or maybe Obama would merely stand if he were to meet with Ahmadinejad.)
First, Ahmadinejad is part of the Iranian leadership. Second, Obama clearly said that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. According to USA Today in 2007, "Democrat Barack Obama says he probably wouldn't have invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University but would be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader as a way to protect U.S. interests."
CBS News also reported last year that Obama said he would meet with Ahmadinejad.
Biden also said that Republicans such as Bush and McCain "ought to read history." He said this shortly after asking, "Can you -- my question is, can you imagine JFK, Franklin Roosevelt, or Harry Truman getting this into the mess we're in in Iraq?"
That would be the same JFK who got us into Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs (JFK did not sit down with Castro, did he?) and the same Harry Truman who got us into Korea. And, of course, Biden voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Friday, May 16, 2008
CNN's idea of full disclosure
CNN this morning allowed Jamie Rubin to attack President Bush and Senator McCain in response to Bush's speech before the Knesset yesterday. According to Rubin, "There's no more gruesome place for the president to suggest that other Americans, other Democrats are somehow appeasers because they want to sit down at the negotiating table with Iran, especially when, let's face it, his own secretary of defense has said we should negotiate with Iran. Many, many Republican officials have said we should negotiate with Iran. All of Bush's silent treatment of Iran and Syria has gotten us nowhere."
Of course, Bush never referred to Democrats in his speech. In fact, the U.S. senator Bush did mention was a member of his own party. In addition, Rubin is being disingenuous when he says Bush's "own secretary of defense has said we should negotiate with Iran." The difference is that Obama has clearly said that he himself would meet with Iran's leaders WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS.
CNN correspondent Kyra Phillips informed viewers that Rubin was a "foreign policy adviser in the Clinton administration. For full disclosure I want to get that in. But for the campaign, excuse me, Clinton campaign." What she did not disclose it that Rubin is married to CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour was on CNN shortly before Rubin to discuss Bush's speech before the Knesset. Amanpour employed the same spin that her husband did: "Well, the reaction has been quite stunned because this is quite a harsh thing for an American president to level at a fellow American right in the parliament of those people who survived Hitler's atrocities, is now comparing a fellow American's potential policies to appeasing Hitleresque kind of tendencies."
This looks as if the Rubins decided in advance to carry the Democrats water, first with Amanpour taking up the Democrats' spin as a journalist. Knowing that she could only carry the water so far in that role, hubby took over with the more incendiary and partisan charges. And, of course, CNN never once disclosed the fact that the two are husband and wife.
Of course, Bush never referred to Democrats in his speech. In fact, the U.S. senator Bush did mention was a member of his own party. In addition, Rubin is being disingenuous when he says Bush's "own secretary of defense has said we should negotiate with Iran." The difference is that Obama has clearly said that he himself would meet with Iran's leaders WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS.
CNN correspondent Kyra Phillips informed viewers that Rubin was a "foreign policy adviser in the Clinton administration. For full disclosure I want to get that in. But for the campaign, excuse me, Clinton campaign." What she did not disclose it that Rubin is married to CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour was on CNN shortly before Rubin to discuss Bush's speech before the Knesset. Amanpour employed the same spin that her husband did: "Well, the reaction has been quite stunned because this is quite a harsh thing for an American president to level at a fellow American right in the parliament of those people who survived Hitler's atrocities, is now comparing a fellow American's potential policies to appeasing Hitleresque kind of tendencies."
This looks as if the Rubins decided in advance to carry the Democrats water, first with Amanpour taking up the Democrats' spin as a journalist. Knowing that she could only carry the water so far in that role, hubby took over with the more incendiary and partisan charges. And, of course, CNN never once disclosed the fact that the two are husband and wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
