Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Into the Gutter Go Democrat's
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.|