Are you SICK of Bush bashing, Yes or No?

**renaissanceman** · 07-11-2008, 11:14 AM

PLEASE read this article before you respond.

"Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...
Mark Alexander
From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 46; Published 18 November 2005 | Print Email PDF

(Publisher's Note: There are occasional Demo-Gogue updates at the end of this essay.)

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution notes: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The Left is at it again.

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.

Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.

Here are their accusations:

Reid: "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." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)

Durbin: "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." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)

Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)

Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.

Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.

The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:

President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

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. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping 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. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

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."

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. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

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."

**Advertisement** · 07-11-2008 11:14 AM

**renaissanceman** · 07-11-2008, 11:18 AM

After the 2000 election:

When 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 -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.

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 in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

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. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."

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, and 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. ... There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. ... Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."

In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."

These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.

On 22 July 2003, four months after the launch of OIF, Bill Clinton said in a nationally-televised interview, "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons [in Iraq]." That's "incontestable" as in irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, undeniable and indisputable.

So, Harry and Nan, Ted and Dick, what's your real agenda?

Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.

Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.

For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."

"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.

In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?

Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.

One of only a few sane Democrat voices:

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

**renaissanceman** · 07-11-2008, 11:22 AM

UPDATE: 2006 -- The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:

"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean

"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry

"Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq. ... Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today. ... The answer for this is, let's elect more Democrats in 2008. That will help solve the problem." --Hillary Clinton

More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

UPDATE: 2007

April 07 -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adopts Newsweek's surrender line and declares the United States has lost the war in Iraq. "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

Ted Kennedy defended Mr. Reid's assertion: "Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and it has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. ... What is failure is this bankrupt policy, this ineffective no-win policy of the administration?"

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner called on Mr. Reid to retract the statement: "He is telling our enemies they have won. While Mr. Reid may be willing to throw in the towel and declare this a lost cause, I am certain that American troops are not. ... Mr. Reid's comments are demoralizing to our troops, and just plain wrong."

July 07 -- John Kerry, arguing for American defeat in Iraq, claimed, "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen".

Well, here's a summary of what what happened after America abandoned Vietnam: Some one million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials; 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's "re-education" camps; Tens of thousands were abused or tortured; Prisoners were incarcerated for as long as 17 years, according to the U.S. Department of State, with most terms ranging from three to ten years.

In Laos, tens of thousands were sent to "re-education" camps and an unknown number died. In Cambodia, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia's 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide" perpetrated by the infamous Khmer Rouge. John Kerry claims to have supplied weapons to the Khmer Rouge during his four-month tour in Vietnam.

Next time he's asked if he told the truth about post-war Vietnam, Kerry should reply, "It didn't happen."

"Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have...revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. ... We're not going to baby sit a civil war. ... [OIF] is proven to be a foreign policy disaster." -- Barack Obama

August 07 -- There is a confluence of analysis from the warfront in Iraq that OIF has turned a corner. Clearly, good news is bad news for those Leftists who have staked their political fortunes on America's failure, surrender and retreat from Iraq. Asked about the political implications should commanding Gen. David Petraeus report significant progress in Iraq, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) replied, "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."

Good news out of Iraq is "a real big problem"? Guess that depends upon whose side you're on.

This can be seen in one article here http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=342

We need to start having HONEST debate about politics in America.

There are some who want to keep you riled up about the "Big Bad Wolves" in the GOP.

Maybe they want to keep you from thinking about how utterly ineffective Democrat (ic) "Leadership" has been these last few years?

PLEASE folks, dont get me wrong.

There is PLENTY to be upset with the Bush administartion about.

We are NEVER going to really address those issues if we are too busy rehashing slander and innuendo.

**Vee030473** · 07-11-2008, 01:55 PM

Yes I am sick of the bashing and complaining because it gets us nowhere. Negativity only makes more negativity. Finding a solution to it all, that seems to be a novel and trivial idea nowadays.

**dangerousfem** · 07-11-2008, 02:29 PM

yes I am

**Bahet** · 07-11-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by renaissanceman

There is PLENTY to be upset with the Bush administartion about.

We are NEVER going to really address those issues if we are too busy rehashing slander and innuendo.

Says the guy who went back a decade to find old quotes for the sole purpose of rehashing slander and innuendo.

Personally I am sick of Bush bashing, liberal bashing, Democrat bashing, etc. However, you can't demand people stop one in the same breath as you bash the other. This post wasn't about being sick of Bush bashing. It was about liberal and Democrat bashing.

And yes, I know I bash Bush. I don't like him and think he's incompetent. But I don't make posts bashing him while under the guise of singing Kumbya and wondering why we can't all just get along either. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am just as entitled to dislike Bush as anyone else is to dislike Obama. I also have to wonder if those who demand we respect Bush because of his job title will give that same respect to Obama if he is elected. Somehow I doubt it.

**mesue** · 07-11-2008, 05:01 PM

The facts speak for themselves, IMO and many other folks I know, Bush and Cheney lied and committed treason when they lied to the American people and sent over 4000 of our young people to their deaths and also lets not forget the over 40,000 wounded troops.

I want this war ended now. I support the troops, I want them home safe and I want them to have what was promised to them when they joined the military and I don't want them to have to fight for their benefits or be denied benefits. It is sad what is done to some of our veterans once they come home.

**Mom2Shaun** · 07-11-2008, 05:19 PM

Am I sick of Bush bashing? Nope! Not at all!

**YNKYH8R** · 07-11-2008, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Mom2Shaun

Am I sick of Bush bashing? Nope! Not at all!

LMAO!

**fjp999** · 07-11-2008, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Mom2Shaun

Am I sick of Bush bashing? Nope! Not at all!

AMEN.

If he cant stand the heat he should have never stolen two elections!!!

**Heidi** · 07-11-2008, 09:49 PM

Yes I am!

Thread: Are you SICK of Bush bashing, Yes or No?

Thread Tools

Display