Mar 26 2008
Many of us conservatives still supporting the war efforts in Iraq and this President overall (which makes not ‘true conservatives’ of course) have many times stated the liberal democrats undermine our war efforts and do more for our enemies than for our nation, or for our troops fighting to protect our nation. I have said their calls for surrendering Iraq sound like they get their talking points from al-Qaeda HQ. The Surrendercrats work with the Surrender media to drain our resolve and sow hopelessness in our cause (as we saw when the stated the Surge had failed before it had even begun), as well as to cripple our security outright by exposing it through cooked-up conspiracy theories (which they did when the exposed the terrorist surveillance program where NSA leads were now being sent to the FIS Court as evidence for probable cause, which they did when the exposed the international money tracking efforts to locate terrorists and active cells by following the money flows, as they did when they exposed how the CIA transports key prisoners from the battlefields to safe houses for interrogation).
Prior to the war in Iraq three notoriously liberal congressman went to Iraq to say Saddam was a reasonable guy (ignore the gassing of Kurds and the invasion of two countries) who could be trusted not to get mixed up with al-Qaeda. Worst yet, they began what Joe and Valerie Wilson tried to finish by claiming Bush would lie and present false evidence to get us into a war with Iraq. Turns out there was no false evidence because it was Joe Wilson who lied about forged documents being used by Bush to sell the Iraq war.
Here is how Stephen Hayes responded to Rep Jim Mcdermmot and his scurrilous lies on ABC’s This Week:
The controversy ignited on September 29 when Bonior and McDermott appeared from Baghdad on ABC’s “This Week.” Host George Stephanopoulos asked McDermott about his recent comment that “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.”
McDermott didn’t backpedal at all: “I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation. . . . It would not surprise me if they came out with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it. First they said it was al
Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they’re going back to and saying it’s al Qaeda again.” When Stephanopoulos pressed McDermott about whether he had any evidence that Bush had lied, the congressman replied, “I think the president would mislead the American people.”
An American official floating unsubstantiated allegations against an American president during a visit to Baghdad would be troubling enough. But McDermott compounded his problem by insisting, despite its twelve years of verifiable prevarication, that the Iraqi regime should be given the benefit of the doubt on inspections and disarmament. Said McDermott on “This Week”: “I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value.”
Some Surrendercrats know no bounds when proving Darwin was right about how some individuals are just destined for extinction – like they are wired to be destroyed by their own stupidity. Well, it seems these paragons of surrendermania were the dupes, the ones representing a lie. In fact, they were not in Baghdad representing American interests, they were there representing Saddam’s interest, and we know that because he paid for their trip:
Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
The three anti-war Democrats made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. While traveling, they called for a diplomatic solution.
Prosecutors say that trip was arranged by Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a Michigan charity official, who was charged Wednesday with setting up the junket at the behest of Saddam’s regime. Iraqi intelligence officials allegedly paid for the trip through an intermediary and rewarded Al-Hanooti with 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil.
The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators “have no information whatsoever” any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.
“Obviously, we didn’t know it at the time,” McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. “The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That’s the only reason we went.”
This is not the first time McDermmott has taken money from terrorist sympathizers and our enemies, there have been other incidents like this one from May 2003:
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who famously traveled to Baghdad last fall and pronounced President Bush a liar, accepted a cash payment less than a month later from an Iraqi-American businessman with ties to Saddam Hussein.
McDermott collected the payment from Shakir al-Khafaji, the same Detroit-based Baghdad apologist who paid former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 two years ago to make a pro-Saddam documentary about Iraq.
Appearing live from Baghdad on the Sept. 29 broadcast of ABC’s “This Week,” McDermott proclaimed, “The president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” The comment generated a firestorm of criticism in the U.S. that earned him the moniker, “Baghdad Jim.”
A little less than a month later, on Oct. 25, McDermott accepted a check from al-Khafaji for $5,000, made out to the antiwar Democrat’s “Legal Expense Trust.”
McDermott set up the trust to fend off a lawsuit filed by Ohio Republican John Boehner stemming from McDermott’s relationship with a Florida couple who wiretapped a 1997 conference call between Boehner and then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, along with several other Republicans.
The revelation that on the eve of war, a pro-Baghdad U.S. congressman was accepting cash from a Saddam ally was first reported in this week’s Weekly Standard.
As the saying goes, ignorance is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. Being unknowing puppets of Saddam Hussein is still a dereliction of duty (as well as a sign that maybe one is sleep walking through life oblivious to the dangers around). Being paid agents for a man we were still technically at war with (we only had a cease-fire in place since Gulf War I) is a crime. Not knowing you were a paid puppet doesn’t really gain you any brownie points. It’s like saying “I did not know a car could kill someone if you struck them with it” – dumb is not an excuse.
Mcdermmott and his idiot pals may have given Saddam the wrong ideas. They may have given him false hope he could play is way out of war. For all we know now McDermmott’s baseless lies about our President may have made it impossible for us to avoid war with Iraq. Who knows how Saddam might have capitulated to the UN’s demands if he felt there was no other way out?
Ignorance is not an excuse to be working for an enemy during times of war. It may minimize the sentence handed out, but it doesn’t negate the crime itself. Come one folks, you don’t need a 2×4 upside the head to figure this one out. These people are taking money from enemies of this nation to stop us from destroying said enemies of this nation. In a fight to the death, which this war on terror is (either we win and they die or they win and we die), you don’t work to help the enemy – and you don’t take money in return (which is so dumb it actually supports the idiot-defense).