Clearly 'Ol Slick is still making things up to suit his UN-American goals. One wonders if he's taking advice from John Kerry to bash the military for our enemies?


By Dick Morris
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 23, 2005

By traveling to Dubai, just a few hundred miles from the combat zone, to denounce the American in volvement in Iraq as a "big mistake," Bill Clinton has made a big mistake of his own.

Normally, a top leader of the Democratic Party and the spouse of a presidential candidate can and should feel free to say anything he chooses. But a former president of the United States should be more careful before he tells hundreds of thousands of young men and women, many of whom served under him, that they are risking their lives for a mistake.

To do it in the Arab world compounds the error. His denunciation of our war effort so close to the spots where our troops are fighting summons memories of Jane Fonda.

Yes, Clinton's attacks were highly specific. He praised getting rid of Saddam, but criticized President Bush for being overly optimistic about how easy it would be to leave Iraq afterward. He also attacked the administration for not leaving the "fundamental military and social and police structure intact." Really? That infrastructure killed, tortured, maimed, and mutilated hundreds of thousands of people. Should President Harry Truman have left the Gestapo in place?

Moreover, Clinton knew that the sound bite that would emerge was "big mistake" — a remark far outside the normal bounds of criticism of a president by one of his predecessors. Continued here

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Sudden silence from the left

Since Bush and then Cheney came out swinging against the lies from the leftist moonbat's, the silence coming from liberals is deafening. Could it be that some of them are finally admitting they've been wrong? Hey, anything is possible, even that.

With an improving economy (see: here, and here)during a war that democrat's insist can't be won, is about to be won by democratizing Iraq in next months vote. As Bush has said all along, the closer elections come, the more desperate terrorists become, and that includes liberals here in America.

The bombings have happened outside of America because the war was taken to the enemy. It is being won with speed, low casualties compared to past wars, and with steadfastness to the mission. Democrat's have done nothing but whine on and on about it since it began, even after their party leaders voted for it.

Now democrat's have been caught with their pants down once again, in having to acknowlege with their votes to NOT bring the troops home, thus betraying their liberal base of misfits who desperately want Iraq to become another Vietnam where over 50,000 American troops were killed.

Fortunately, president Bush listens to his Generals and the Iraqi leadership to stay the course set, by promoting democracy – thus defeating terrorism and liberalism simultaneously.

The left doesn't understand how this is happening as their constant polling seems to suggest that the public is against the war and the administration.

Patience and common sense are the lacking ingredients in all liberal minds.

© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.

|

In a long overdue speech concerning critics of the war, president Bush finally has exposed the democrats talking out the sides of their mouths.

The president and his team will launch an aggressive defense against the misleading and vicious attacks - primarily by hypocritical Democrats - that "Bush lied” about the war in Iraq. Democrats constantly state the opposite of reality and truth because they have literally nothing to offer the country, but whiney protests that only damages the nation and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

The media is also to blame for supporting democrat lies against the administration. In a NEW Confirmation by Pew Research Poll found that the media is heavily biased against Republicans and president Bush. Pew Poll: Bush Not Treated Fairly by Press


"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Bush said.

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," Bush said.

"We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory," he said Friday.

Democrats believe they can push this president around with false accusations about the war. They should remember that Bush is steadfast in his convictions and that they are only making themselves look weak, damaging the war effort and inciting terrorists' to continue killing.

"If you’ll notice, Democrats say ‘Bush Lied’ but they never cite specific examples,” Fred Barnes said. "That’s because they were saying the same things and many of their comments are captured on tape.

"To say that the president lied about the reasons to liberate Iraq is just incorrect. Ask the people of Iraq and they'll tell you that Saddam had to be removed. There is no doubt about that."

Bush offered a forceful defense of the war in Iraq, saying it is the central front in the war on terror and that extremists are trying to establish a radical Muslim empire extending from Spain to Indonesia.

The Case For War

The real issue, as it stood throughout all of 2002, started with this declaration by the President in his State of Union address in late January of that year:

"Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives.  First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice.  And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world." – PRESIDENT BUSH


Will democrats keep backing liar Joe Wilson?
"I remain of the view," Wilson told the EPIC forum crowd two months after the fall of Baghdad, "that we will find chemical and biological weapons, and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons."

Wilson made this extraordinary statement after he had started leaking to the media about President Bush's alleged WMD deceptions and just weeks before his celebrated New York Times op-ed piece.

This one sentence would seem to undercut the argument waged by him and literally millions of other self-deluding "progressives" around the world that "Bush lied" about Iraq's WMD threat. Since Bush's most hostile critics in the intelligence community believed Saddam possessed such weapons, one has to ask why Bush would have needed to fabricate evidence.


Eight months later (a pretty pathetic rush to war, if you ask me) Bush made the same cogent, powerful argument directly to the United Nations on September 12, 2002. The UN Security Council responded by unanimously approving Resolution 1441 on November 8 which gave Iraq "a final opportunity" to "provide accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of its past and present WMD activities.

Almost three weeks went by before inspections resumed in Iraq on November 27, 2002. At this point there was still a general consensus among intelligence agencies around the world - not to mention policy experts and politicians from both sides of the aisle in the U.S. dating back nearly 10 years - about what type of WMD Iraq was potentially concealing.


Democrats have been acting very childishly fabricating evidence against the president using Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame and their false accusations. In the end they shall not succeed as Bush is putting his foot down to crush the liberals and their anti-American rants that should be interpreted as treason for which Joe Wilson will someday face trial for, including his lies against the president of the Untited States of America. The anti-American liberal media (cbs, nbc, abc, pbs, cnn) will then either not report it or will spin it all against America and the president for the benefit of desperate democrats who continue losing support.

SAFER with GOP

There is no doubt whatsoever that America is better off with Republicans at the helm defending the nation than weak-kneed democrats who's only objective is taking the people's money and power away for themselves in selfish bitterness and resentment. Democrat's have proven they are not worthy of governing America, as they have no plans to take the country forward. See: What's the Plan from The Real Clear Politics blog post.

In answering questions, democrats have been forced to acknowledge their lack of vision and that their only alternative is to bash Bush using the media with falsehoods. Howard Dean has lost it again as he unapologentically slanders blacks with racism.

Ex-Veep Al Gore is up his old game of "Global Warming" claiming, 'it is more serious than terrorism.' There is no actual proof of anyone dying from so-called 'warming', but there are plenty of death records due to Islamic terrorism. One has to ask: Is it any wonder why the Clinton administration failed to protect the nation in the years leading up to 9/11? Were the democrat's more concerned about trees and pollution's than terrorists' killing thousands of people all over the globe in Jihad?

The priority for democrat's is not about protecting the people, it is about scaring them into giving their money and power to liberals, for nothing in return except empty social programs that are in constant states of disrepair, thus requiring more tax money in a never ending charade of complaints.

© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.

|

On Wednesday, terrorists struck in Amman Jordan hitting three separate U.S.-based chain hotels at nearly the same time. 11/9: DEATH TOLL IN JORDAN HOTEL BLASTS REACHES 57, 115 INJURED

These despicable bombings come after 13 straight nights of riots in France by Islamic terrorists.
See: FRANCE TO DEPORT FOREIGNERS WHO ARE GUILTY OF RIOTING


These are the same terrorists democrats and other appeasers against the war, seem to wish would strike inside of America as they whine about brining our troops home from Iraq including the terrorists who would follow right behind.

Although no terrorists attacks have happened on America's homeland since 9/11 due to the war being waged in Iraq, democrats would rather we take more punishment in our own cities and suburbs, perhaps with some hotels here in America being hit.

Liberal democrats still believe that terrorists are just misunderstood, that if only they could be talked to, they could be talked out of their anger and magically made harmless.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

These homicide bombers have set goals; to kill innocent civilians and spread fear in order to gain control of countries they strike. Terrorist want to force their brand of Islam onto everyone in the entire world, while wiping out Jews, Christians and anyone else who will not obey them. See: Girls Shot In The Head: Persecution Of Christian In Indonesia Continues, Attack Follows The Gruesome Beheadings Of Three Christian High School Students At The End Of October.

The time may be coming quickly when people will have to choose sides between freedom and Islam. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist as evidenced by how many appeasement attempts have failed against Islam.

Once again we warn that if democrats are put in charge of America's security, freedom as we know it will soon cease to exist. It would be replaced first with terrorism and then appeasement of terrorists' until they destroy America in the name of peace.

© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.

|

Mr. Allan Ryskind of Human Events Online has written the best chronology of events leading up to the war. He also proves beyond doubt that democrats are trying desperately to undermine the president of the United States and our security for their own political survival, that in reality are only making things worse for themselves, our troops overseas, and the new government in Iraq.


Democrats Push Big Lie About War
by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Nov 4, 2005

President Bush lied us into war and the revelations produced by the Scooter Libby indictment only confirm this terrible scandal.

That’s the essence of the vicious slur Democrats are hurling at the GOP these days, with Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) shutting down the U.S. Senate to dramatize the charge.

The White House, as the Democrats would now have it, had virtually no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, but the President, Dick Cheney and their gang were so intent on removing Saddam from power they invented facts. And when critics such as Joe Wilson spoke truth to power, the “Scooters” in the administration slimed their reputations.

Unpatriotic Mud-Slinging

The episode involving Libby and Wilson, summed up Reid, “is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President.”

This is unpatriotic mud-slinging, with a touch of Black Helicopter looniness tossed in. To believe that the White House concocted a fable about WMD in Iraq, you would have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving not only the Bush people, but both Bill Clinton’s and George Bush’s CIA director, George Tenet; Bush’s first term secretary of state, Colin Powell; Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; Clinton’s key NSC Persian Gulf adviser, Kenneth Pollack; and numerous WMD experts at the United Nations.

How many people, for instance, know that Wilson himself, the Democrats’ big stick to beat up on Bush, believed that when the war began Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Here is what he wrote in his now infamous July 6, 2003, column in the New York Times, attempting to disprove, unsuccessfully, that the Bush Administration was wrong when it insisted Iraq had been seeking nuclear materials in Niger:

“I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program—all of which were in violation of U.N. resolutions.”

What Wilson said in this column, of course, contained the core rationale the administration gave as to why this country went to war. Was Wilson in on the White House conspiracy, too?

Even though Wilson argued that his oral report to the CIA refuted Bush’s claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger—the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence forcefully asserted quite the opposite—he did believe what virtually the whole world believed: that Saddam Hussein had plenty of WMD and was energetically attempting to acquire more.

Madeleine Albright, appearing on the Sept. 21, 2003, edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” had been certain that Saddam had stockpiled those terrible weapons. She admitted she was very “surprised” that they hadn’t yet been discovered, adding: “But what worries me most now,” is “where is it [WMD], and could it be in the hands of terrorists?”

From 1995 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2001, Kenneth M. Pollack served as director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, where he was the principal working-level official responsible for implementation of Clinton’s policy toward Iraq.

Prior to serving Clinton, he spent seven years in the CIA as a Persian Gulf military analyst.

Was Clinton’s seasoned expert on the Gulf also in on the Bush plan to fabricate evidence? The conspiracy buffs may think so, for in 2002, when Bush was in office and worrying about what to do about Saddam, Pollack wrote a book titled The Threatening Storm. The subtitle was more provocative: The Case for Invading Iraq.

After analyzing all the WMD evidence at his command, and Saddam Hussein’s career as an aggressor, a mass murderer and a political thug who could not be trusted to keep his word, Pollack concluded: “Unfortunately, the only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces.”

When the WMD weren’t found, Pollack wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly for its first issue in 2004.

He was critical of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war, but he made several informative observations in his critique. Among them:
• “The U.S. intelligence community’s belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush’s inauguration and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure.”

• “In October of 2002, the National Intelligence Council, the highest analytical body in the U.S. intelligence community, issued a classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD representing the consensus of the intelligence community. Although after the war some complained that the NIE had been a rush job and that the NIE should have been more careful in its choice of language, in fact, the report accurately reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton Administration officials like me for years in verbal briefings.”


‘Manufactured’ Intellligence

A declassified version of the 2002 NIE was released to the public in July 2003. Among its findings:

• “Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.”

• “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. . . .”

• “Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess [that] Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”


Pollack, citing this crucial report, then said: “U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the late spring of 2002, I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraq WMD. Those present included nearly 20 former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq.

“One of the senior people put a question to the group. Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes.)

“Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years [without outside fissile material]. Israel, Russia, Britain, China and even France held positions similar to that of the United States.”

Pollack’s account alone puts the lie to the charge that Bush took us to war on “manufactured” intelligence.

And does anyone seriously believe that Bush’s then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was deliberately deceiving the American people when he made his spectacularly convincing speech against Saddam before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, just weeks prior to the war? 

Powell’s major accusation, that Iraq was awash in WMD, came from CIA Director George Tenet, who had also served as Bill Clinton’s CIA director in the last four years of the Clinton presidency.  

George Bush had been assured by Tenet that there was “slam dunk” evidence against Saddam, so the secretary of State descended upon the CIA in Mclean, Va., spending four difficult days sifting through the intelligence, sometimes with his deputy, Richard Armitage.

After the final rehearsal in Washington, Tenet, according to Bob Woodward’s most thorough report, “announced that he thought their case was ironclad and he believed that they had vetted each sentence.”

Powell then informed Tenet that the CIA director would have to sit behind him at the UN, a visible sign that he was backing the secretary of State’s findings.

Powell’s presentation on Feb. 5, 2003, was a tour de force, with even ultra-liberal Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory succumbing.  “I can only say,” she wrote, “that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.”

History will determine whether the Bush Administration did the right thing in invading Iraq and we may yet discover definitively why so many experts appeared to have misjudged the WMD threat.  But we can conclude that the President took us to war based on convincing, uncooked data compiled by intelligence analysts in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. 

Those who say Bush “lied us into war” based on “manufactured” intelligence are either ignorant or malicious.  Either way, they are dangerously undermining whatever chance we still have of rescuing Iraq from chaos and catastrophe.


Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.

|

Today, Tuesday November 1, 2005 the senate democrats have thrown their party into the gutter with a desperate move in going behind closed doors to whine about the Libby indictment and falsely claiming that it is about the justification for going to war in Iraq.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said. "As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration."

A cloud over the administration? Guess again Harry. It is democrat's who are caught in the storm because the indictment was never about the war, AT ALL!

"Once again, it shows the Democrats use scare tactics. They have no conviction. They have no principles. They have no ideas," Frist said. "But this is the ultimate. Since I've been majority leader, I'll have to say, not with the previous Democratic leader or the current Democratic leader have ever I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."

Democrat's are trying to manufacture evidence that the war was unnecessary, but claimed Iraq had WMD's for years before the war including right up to it. In fact, Bill Clinton still insisted Iraq had the weapons last year.

Fitzgerald: "This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."


Up to the start of the Iraq war, virtually every single Democratic critic of the war today was shouting for Saddam’s head during the Clinton administration.

"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

"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 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, 1998

"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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002

"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 . . . . 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." Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002.

That all changed when the Democrats switched sides. It became party policy to oppose the administration by opposing the war. By early 2003, George Bush was more unpopular than Saddam Hussein with democrat's, and liberals.


Enter Joe Wilson, former ambassador and outspoken administration critic. He was sent by the CIA on a fact-finding mission to Niger after President Bush spoke the infamous ‘Sixteen Words’ in a State of the Union speech.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Joe Wilson returned from Niger and accused the president of lying. The charge caught on among Democrats, despite the fact the British government still stands behind their intelligence assessment finding that this claim was "well founded."

It turns out that Wilson’s CIA assignment came at the suggestion of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, who is a high level CIA employee but not a covert agent. Wilson denied it until the 9/11 Commission subpoenaed a CIA memo that confirmed Plame recommended Wilson for the assignment.

The Democrats turned their attention away from Nigeria yellowcake uranium (that subsequently proved to be true) and attacked the administration for leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the press. But everyone in Washington knew who Plame was, it was no secret she was a CIA agent. In fact she and her husband spread it around for self promotion.

It is illegal to reveal the name of a covert CIA employee, but only under certain circumstances, not one of which applied to Plame. But that didn’t matter, once the smell of blood was in the water.

The emotional outcry prompted the appointment of a special prosecutor, whose investigation determined what was already obvious before the investigation began.

Leaking Valerie Plame’s name wasn’t a crime. She didn’t hold covert status, hadn’t been outside the country on assignment for more than five years, and her identity was already well-known in Washington circles.

Any potential indictments would be the result of conflicting testimony between Libby and Rove and the two reporters they spoke with, Judith Miller and Matt Cooper of TIME Magazine.

If indictments are handed down, the president will lose his most trusted advisor, Karl Rove. The Vice President’s office will lose its Chief of Staff. And there is even talk of indicting Dick Cheney, which would certainly result in his resignation.

Why? Because somebody spoke the name of a non-covert CIA officer whose involvement in sending Joe Wilson on a fact-finding mission was material to rebutting charges that Bush lied in a State of the Union speech by quoting British intelligence reports -- which the Brits still to this day maintain are accurate!

What makes this so remarkable is, as I noted earlier, America is in a war in which it faces existential threats from enemies actively seeking weapons of mass destruction that they have already proven they would cheerful use against American civilians in the homeland. It doesn’t matter to al-Qaeda whether they are Democratic or Republican civilians.

But instead of fighting the enemy, America is fighting itself. Democrats have lost in a monstrous way by insisting the reasons for going to war were invalid, even though many long time demmocrats voted for it. Do they really want to say they were tricked or duped like Barbara Boxer did? That would mean they're too stupid to be part of congress in the first place!

Demoralized democrat's are reaching into the gutter and hoping to find gold. But the only thing they're going to get is more mud all over their faces. If democrat's don't stop their whining lies, America may be doomed.

© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.

|