Well That Was Interesting

I guess the Liberals had the chance to put up or shut up last night when Lawmakers forced a vote for immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq.
~~~~~~~~
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


House Republicans maneuvered for swift rejection Friday of any notion of immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sparking a nasty, sometimes personal debate over the war following a Democratic lawmaker's own call for withdrawal.

Just a day after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., stoked a surging political fire over President Bush's Iraq policies by proposing that troops return home now, Republicans brought a measure to the House floor urging that a pullout begin immediately.

The symbolic vote was intended to fail, and furious Democrats accused the GOP of orchestrating a political stunt.

"A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.

Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position _ either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict. They also hoped the vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue _ the war _ that has seen plummeting public support in recent weeks.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not retreat," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R- Ill., said of the nonbinding resolution.

Democrats claimed Republicans were changing the meaning of Murtha's withdrawal proposal. He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months. Democrats said they planned to counter by voting against the GOP provision en masse.

At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message _ stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message _ that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran.

Democrats booed and shouted her down _ causing the House to come to a standstill.

Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that Republicans were making uncalled-for personal attacks. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Democrats gave Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran with close ties to the military, a standing ovation as he entered the chamber and took his customary corner seat.

The fireworks, as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break, came just days after the GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Spotlighting questions from both parties about the war, senators approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

"It's a pathetic, partisan, political ploy," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D- N.Y. Added Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif.: "It's just heinous."

"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House and it is outrageous," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, however, said the resolution vote was not a stunt. "This is not an attack on an individual. This is a legitimate question."

"They've been itching for a fight for a long time," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said of the Democrats.

Bush, traveling in Asia, also fired back at his critics, saying a troop withdrawal would be "a recipe for disaster."

Most Republicans oppose Murtha's call for withdrawal, and some Democrats also have been reluctant to back his position.

Aware of the scene unfolding across Capitol Hill, Sen. John Warner, R- Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, appealed for "bipartisanship on the war in Iraq, instead of more political posturing."

A growing number of House members and senators, looking ahead to off- year elections next November, are publicly worrying about a quagmire in Iraq. They have been staking out new positions on a war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public, has resulted in more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths and has cost more than $200 billion.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said Thursday. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

A U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the congressman who usually backs the Pentagon.

"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders give to Pentagon reporters.
How this whole thing got started Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~
Anyway the vote turned out to be 403 against and 3 for the pullout of troops in Iraq. As a matter of fact John Murtha voted against his own bill!!
So it was time to call the screaming Democrats on thier own game and they didnt even back it up.
You would think this would put an end to the Reckless, White Flag waving, Liberals spouting off every time they open thier mouths, "Our Troops Need To Come Home NOW!"
But lastnight they proved they dont even believe thier own agenda, and are now furious that they had to put up or shut up.
I wonder what the rest of the 30 coalition countries are thinking about all this?
Not to mention the troops!
Liberals have become an embaressment to our allies.
But now can you Liberals just be quiet about all this and let our troops finish the mission they set out to do?
I doubt it!!!

Louis Freeh Charges 9/11 Commission Cover Up

Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission Thursday saying it ignored – or "summarily rejected" – the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001.




Writing in the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, Freeh gave a blistering review of the Commission and says new revelations indicate it is "a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself."


The former Bureau Director, who resigned his position just months before Sept. 11, 2001, points out that the U.S. government had learned of the identity of Mohammed Atta the year prior to the attacks. Atta was one of the ringleaders of the group, and piloted an American Airlines plane that slammed into one of the Twin Towers.


Freeh recounts that military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Atta as an al-Qaida agent operating in the U.S.


"Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents," Freeh writes. "Why?" he ponders, suggesting the failure to share such intelligence may be a smoking gun pointing at federal malfeasance in the case.
Freeh maintains that the Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is "undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry . . . Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant."


Two members of the House, Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.), have reported that shortly after the 9/11 attacks they provided then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley with a "chart" displaying pre-attack information about al-Qaida that had been collected by Able Danger.


But a spokesperson for the White House said that "a search of National Security Council files had failed to produce such a chart."


The final 9/11 Commission report, released on July 22, 2004, concluded that "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks."


Writes Freeh: "This now looks to be embarrassingly wrong."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe we need another commission to look into the 9-11 commission!!
I alway's thought the Liberals were covering up for Bill Clinton's mistakes.

Thank You Mr. Vice President

November 17, 2005
Cheney says war critics 'dishonest, reprehensible'

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.

Cheney called Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.



US Vice President Dick Cheney attacks critics of the Iraq war during a speech to the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala in Washington, D.C., November 16, 2005. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)
Democrats cried foul but President George W. Bush, at a news conference in Kyongju, South Korea, defended Cheney. He said it was "patriotic as heck" to disagree with him but that Democrats were irresponsible for accusing him of misleading Americans about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

"What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America," he said.

Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush would keep fighting on the issue. He told reporters with Bush in South Korea that the criticism had reached a critical mass and that it "requires a sustained response."

The comments were the latest salvo in an aggressive White House counterattack on war critics, launched as Democrats step up their criticism of the war and polls show declining public support for the conflict.

Cheney repeated Bush's charge that Democratic critics were rewriting history by questioning prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction even though many Senate Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the invasion.

"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program.

Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," he said in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Liberals lost thier backbone last November and havent recovered since.
Medication and Therapy are now in order!!!

This Is One Video You Have To See

It's time to set the record straight about Iraq. That's why we've released this new web video, "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq." Watch it now on GOP.com.


Watch, and you'll see Senator Hillary Clinton talking tough when it came time to confront Saddam, saying "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security ..." Or Howard Dean calling Iraq an "international outlaw." Or House minority leader Nancy Pelosi stating unequivocally, "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."


Watch Democrat after Democrat on tape, reaching the same conclusion the President reached about Iraq.


Now that the politics have changed, those Democrats are trying to rewrite history. We welcome a robust debate about the conduct of the war. But for these Democrats to make politics their bottom line, abandoning their long-held positions when times get tough, sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people and to the terrorists. Whatever the politics in Washington, our troops need to know that our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will defeat this enemy.


Be a part of setting the record straight by watching the video on GOP.com, and sending it to your friends and family. You are where this Democrat dishonesty ends.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This ploy by the Lunatic Liberals is not going to get off the ground if we Republicans can help it!
This Video Shown Here, shows one Liberal after another telling thier version of what Saddam was capable of and why he had to be stopped!
Now they are moaning and whining about the consequences of THIER actions and blaming it all on President Bush.
Nothing will ever make the Liberals happy until they try thier hardest to smear our President and our Troops.
The Liberal Lie stops NOW!!!
Watch This Video....
Watch Video Here

Why Are The Liberals Lying?

"Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war... In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office." —Jonathan Gurwitz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On way to Asia, president blasts war critics

By Peter Wallsten

LOS ANGELES TIMES


KYOTO, Japan - With his approval ratings slipping at home, President Bush flew overseas for the second time this month -- but not before taking a parting shot at critics of his Iraq policy.

Bush, who arrived in Japan this morning for a four-nation Asian swing, used a refueling stop in Alaska to accuse Democrats of "playing politics" in their allegations that the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

He recited old quotes from three senior Senate Democrats -- John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, Carl Levin of Michigan and Harry Reid of Nevada. All three backed the war in 2001 and 2002, but have recently led the criticism that the White House misled the public when it tied Iraq to al-Qaida and said that Saddam Hussein's regime had pursued nuclear weapons.

"'I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion,'" Bush said Reid had told CNN in 2002.

"They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now," the president said to cheers from U.S. airmen at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

The president, meanwhile, will put the Iraq debate on the back burner during his visits to Japan, South Korea, China and Mongolia.

The nuclear ambitions of North Korea -- which Bush famously included in his "axis of evil" in 2002 -- are likely to be a prime topic later this week at the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference in Busan, South Korea. Other topics include preparations for a flu pandemic, the Japanese ban on U.S. beef, and the presence of U.S. military forces in the region.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now tell me who is not being truthful about the leadup to the War in Iraq?
Here is what Teddy Kennedy

Said then: Read Full Statement Here
And here is what Teddy (Hiccup) says now: Read Statement Here Quite a Switch isnt it?
How about Jay Rockefeller?

Here is what Rockefeller said then:
Rockefeller in his 2002 speech warned that:

Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.
And:

He could make those weapons [WMD] available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.
I called Rockefeller’s office this summer and asked which terrorist groups the West Virginia Democrat was talking about. Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller’s communications director, responded.

He was talking about the Palestinian groups that had established relationships with Saddam," she said. "Abu Nidal was living in Baghdad before the war.
Perhaps. But one week before his floor speech, Rockefeller suggested something quite different in an interview with the Charleston Gazette. He said: "If you go pre-emptive, do you cause Hussein to strike where he might not have? He is not a martyr, not a Wahabbi, not a Muslim radical. He does not seek martyrdom. But he is getting older," Rockefeller told the paper. "Maybe he is seeking a legacy by attacking Israel or using al-Qaeda cells around the world." [Emphasis added.]

One month before the war began, Senator Rockefeller spoke of a "substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.� In some interviews Rockefeller did say that he hadn't seen evidence of close ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. But asked about an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on February 5, 2003, Rockefeller agreed with Republican Senator Pat Roberts that Abu Musab al Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war and his links to a poison camp in northern Iraq were troubling. Rockefeller continued:

The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.�
One final note. The resolution that Rockefeller supported specifically mentioned the presence of al Qaeda fighters in Iraq:

Members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks that occurred on September 11, are known to be in Iraq.
Remind me, who isn’t being straight with the American public about the Iraq War?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rockefeller Now:
Read Statement Here
How about Harry Reid?

Nancy Pelosi?
Sandy Berger uh I mean Burglar?
Madeline Albright?
John Kerry?
Former President Clinton?
The list goes on and on..
Our friends over at
Truth Or Fiction.Com
Have quite a few statements from Congressman and Senators what they said before we ever went to war in Iraq.
My point is: The Liberals seem to have come up with a new, well not really a new tactic but one they have been working on for quite a while to make our President look like HE manipulated intelligence in the lead up to the war in Iraq.
But as usual this whole thing is going to backfire on the Liberals because the same Senators that voted FOR the war, were privy to the exact same intelligence that our CIA had, the British intel had, The UN, Russia, Italy, Japan, Northern Ireland, France, Germany, and for that matter the whole Middle East!
The question really isnt THERE WERE NO WMD!!!!!!!
The question really ought to be WHAT THE HELL DID HE (SADDAM) DO WITH THEM?
He had them, he used them, he would have used them again, so what the hell did he do with them? Oh sure when our UN (Crooks) went over on thier "Inspection" and "Said" they found "Nothing" but lets get rid of Saddam anyway UN Resolution 1441
Saddam had violated 17 Security Council resolutions and created the biggest UN fraud/scandal ever seen by the American people and the World, THE OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM!
The Liberals cant have it both ways. They would like to, but they knew just as much as the President did before we went to Iraq and dont let them make you believe any different. I still think Saddam had the WMD. The question I have is: Did the UN weapons inspectors cover up where Saddam hid them? Did the Weapons inspectors just take Saddam's word that he didnt have them knowing full well he did? Or Did they help him hide them on purpose? I wouldnt be the least bit surprised that the Crooks in the UN since they were making money off the "Oil For Food Program" helped hide the large stockpiles of weapons themselves!
Another question I have is: Why are these Senators so hell bent on getting a Timetable for the withdrawl of our Troops from Iraq? Could it be that they know once Saddam's trial starts, the truth will come out about where the WMD went? And they just want to make the President look bad now? Which in actuality makes the Senators look even worse because they are bitching that they voted for this war and nothing has been found, which of course isnt true because WMD has been found in Iraq, just not the large stockpiles that EVERYONE assumed would be there! What's also interesting is when our troops first entered Iraq, and found abandoned sites where the Iraqi Army had been, and fled, they found Gas Masks left behind. Wonder why? Remember the infamous "Red Zone"? Where Saddam himself said: If the US troops cross this line we will gas them!! Wonder why he would say such a thing if HE HAD NOTHING TO GAS THEM WITH? How stupid can these Liberal Senators get before they realize this crazy attempt to discredit the President isnt going to work?
The Liberal Lie continues...
President Bush didnt Mislead, or Manipulate intel.
And I hope President Bush goes on the attack constantly and makes those Senators eat thier own words!

Our Forefathers Must Be Spinning In Thier Graves

This idiot has to be stopped!

Atheist wants God off U.S. money


Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 07:53 JST
SAN FRANCISCO — An atheist waging a legal battle to delete the words "under God" from a patriotic oath recited in U.S. public schools vowed Monday to sue to have the phrase "In God We Trust" removed from U.S. coins and bank notes.

Both U.S. currency and the Pledge of Allegiance should be fully secular to reflect the Constitution's division of church and state, and "to have all Americans treated equally by their government," Michael Newdow said.



Newdow said he plans to file his new lawsuit electronically in federal court in Northern California by the end of the week.

"Can you imagine if, in some Catholic church, they passed the collection plate and the coins said there is no God?" Newdow asked rhetorically.

"They wouldn't take that. I have a church, and I can't take currency for fundraising."

Newdow is a doctor, lawyer, and a priest in his own church.

His church is based on three "suggestions," Newdow said. Those suggestions are "question, be honest, and do what's right."

"We hold a definite view that being honest means you cannot reasonably conclude there is a God," Newdow said.

Newdow's civil suit arguing it is unconstitutional to make school children to recite the words "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance cleared a lower court hurdle this year and is working its way through the legal system.

The Supreme Court nixed an effort by Newdow to keep religious references out of the January inauguration ceremony for President George W Bush.

"We are a nation of religious refugees," Mathew Staver of the conservative Christian group Liberty Counsel said during the inauguration controversy.

"Prayer has been an essential part of America and her history. Our history is pervaded by religious expressions. We are a nation of religious refugees, and it is therefore commonplace to see and hear expressions of religion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank The Lord President Bush was re-elected and has chozen Conservative Nominees to be Supreme Court Justices!
Can you imagine the outcome if it was President Kerry? And he appointed more Liberals to the bench?
Christmas which we ALL grew up with is already under attack, the Pledge of Alligiance, Now Money?
Oh I hope when all this reaches the Supreme Court the Justices will be clear thinking and abide by how our forefathers founded this Country with Religion being a major part of it!
Between Liberals and the ACLU we wont even have Santa Claus anymore!
UPDATE:
Over at American Values Under Attack It's already started. Coca Cola has already dumped Santa Claus!
There on his site you will find a form where you can write Coca Cola and tell them exactly what you think :-)

To All Those That Have Served-Veterans Day

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

"[L]et us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us re-consecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain." -Dwight D. Eisenhower








There are a number of services and tributes going on all over the Country, here is some information:
Department Of Veterans Affairs

Tribute To Our Veterans
~~~~~~~~
God Bless All Those That Served!!!!

Finally!!!!

Associated Press:

Bush Forcefully Attacks Critics of the War in Iraq, Chiding Politicians for Making 'False Charges'


President Bush speaks about the war against terror at Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, Pa., Friday, Nov. 11, 2005. In a Veterans Day speech, 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. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
11-11-2005 12:33 PM
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

TOBYHANNA, Pa. -- President Bush forcefully attacked critics of the war in Iraq on Friday, accusing them of trying to rewrite history and saying they are undercutting American forces on the front lines.

"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.

Defending the march to war, Bush said that foreign intelligence services and Democrats and Republicans alike were convinced at the time that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"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.

He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program.

He said they also know that the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"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.

The president's remarks at the Tobyhanna Army Depot were part of the administration's effort to bolster waning U.S. public support for the war in which at least 2,059 U.S. troops have died. 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.

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

Bush said the United States and its allies are determined to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of extremists and prevent them from gaining control of any country.

Bush singled out Syria for particular criticism, saying its government had taken "two disturbing steps" in recent days. He cited the arrest of Syria pro-democracy activist Kamal Labwani and a "strident speech" by President Bashar Assad. In that speech, Assad said his government would cooperate with a U.N. investigation that implicated Syrian officials in the killing of a Lebanese leader, but warned he would no longer "play their game" if Syria "is going to be harmed."

Bush said Syria "must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wish you would unleash on them more often Mr. President!!!!

Well It's Time Someone Noticed

2005 11:31 a.m. EST
Pew Poll: Bush Not Treated Fairly by Press

Nearly 50 percent of Americans believe the press is unfair to the Bush administration, according to a new Pew Research Center. Similarly, an increasing number of Americans say the press is too critical of the administration.

"Republican perceptions of press coverage of Bush have changed dramatically,� noted the survey.

More than 60 percent of self-identified Republicans believe the press is unfair and too critical of Bush. Just 16 percent of self-identified Democrats believe the press is unfair, and 45 percent say the press has not been critical enough of the president.

Republican perceptions are bolstered by a report released in July by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. In "No Second Term Media Honeymoon for Bush,� the Center found network coverage of President Bush was twice as negative – two times as many negative-leaning stories as positive-leaning stories - in the first 100 days of the president’s second term.

UPDATE: On WMD Found In Iraq

(This Patriot Action Alert concerns the TRUTH about Iraq's WMD. Please forward this message to your list!)

On the heels of the "White House -- CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter into a much bigger political brawl. Their charges have no substance, and are completely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections.

Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached.

Here are their accusations:

"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy

"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid

"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.

Naturally, the Democrat's media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi: "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."

Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We 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."

After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."

Hillary Clinton: "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida 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."

Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bob Graham: "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."

For the record: Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.

So, ask Ted, Dick and Harry, what is their real agenda?

One might fairly conclude that they are willing to reduce U.S. national security to political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of "lying." Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office -- to defend our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their most recent antics -- and all of America should look upon these disgraceful Demo-gogues, and anyone who supports this dangerous folly, as traitorous louts.

WMD Found In Iraq

I usually dont promote books, but this one is a must read.
~~~~~~~~~~


Did You Know That Weapons Of Mass Destruction Have Been Found In Iraq?
Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine The War On Terror...



1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found NO weapons of mass destruction.

The question is: WHY do they believe this lie?

Turn on the TV at any given moment, and you're likely to see some earnest media "expert" telling you confidently that America faces a serious threat from suitcase nukes, that Al-Qaeda terrorists are streaming across the Mexican border, that there was no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that Iraq is another Vietnam. There's just one problem with all this: none of it is true. Richard Miniter explains why these and other popular media factoids and urban legends are not only wrong, but severely damaging to our war effort, in Disinformation: The 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror.

In Disinformation Richard Miniter reveals:

Three common myths about the Bush Administration that have been spread widely by Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11

The 9/11 hijackers used box-cutters to take control of the four planes they hijacked, right? Wrong -- and how this popular myth got started

How bin Laden declared war on America five separate times and pursued his jihad war against the United States throughout the 1990s -- contrary to liberal media claims that no one had heard of him before 9/11

Bush knew? No -- as is clear from this close examination of the CIA memo that supposedly warned him about possible hijackings before 9/11

Are U.S. troops in Iraq to make the world safe for Halliburton? No -- in fact, Halliburton has not made a fortune in Iraq, and is even trying to sell its division that runs Iraqi operations

A war for oil? Why the U.S. is not fighting one in Iraq or anywhere else

Clear, uncontested, proven links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda

Suitcase nukes? Relax: most of the information causing the panic about them has come from one Russian general who has changed his story many times

Borders out of control? How, as unlikely as it sounds, there are actually no known cases of Al Qaeda terrorists sneaking across the Mexican border

Why so many people are so eager to believe these War on Terror myths, no matter how outlandish they are

Miniter marshals the evidence -- all the evidence -- that shoots down this dangerous disinformation and refutes the legions of shallow media talking heads who mindlessly repeat it. If you want the real truth about the War on Terror and what we must do in order to win it, Disinformation is the indispensable starting point.



If those arent WMD what are they?
And why on earth would the Media NOT be covering this?

Ever Wonder Where The French Troops Are?

Good Question!!!

You wont see them in Iraq.
Hell you wont even see them on thier own streets. After 2 weeks of rioting in Paris, France Read Full Story Here they still havent shown up to put an end to this crap.





I am beginning to think they are non-existant.