Apr 10 2008
Best Reason I’ve Seen For McCain As President And The GOP In Congress
One thing America is sick of is the use of the law to settle differences of opinion. And the cutthroat crap in DC has been debilitating to the functioning of our government and juvenile in its claims. And so when the wacky left remind us they have plans for payback for Clinton’s impeachment, they make the best case why not to vote dem this year:
War Crimes
09 Apr 2008 07:11 pm
A provocative headline, I know, perhaps needlessly so, but it remains one of those hidden secrets in Washington that a Democratic Justice Department is going to be very interested in figuring out whether there’s a case to be made that senior Bush Administration officials were guilty of war crimes.
If a democrat Justice Department is going to spend any time investigating the man who stood upon the rubble of the World Trade Center and promised the terrorists they would be hearing from all of us soon enough, and then did what he promised he would do with Congressional and public backing at the time he did it, then there is no better reason to make sure there is a GOP Justice Department in place come next January. And we might as well neuter any similar dumb ideas in Congress as well.
Obama doesn’t have the balls. This is a fever swamp wet dream, Fitzmas times 100. Will not happen.
Ah, I see. So “following the rule of law” now means you are exclusively a member of “the wacky left”. Got it.
So – lying to the country, lying to the UN, lying to the Red Cross, and torture — none of those are worth “investigating”. But I assume having impeachment hearings over a bj is still okay, right?
Also – if Bush “did what he promised”, then where is Osama Bin Laden?
Breschau, using lies to accuse one of lying doesn’t advance your credibility.
Lying to the country (quite a few examples, I’ll use the “Saddam-9/11” one here):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
Lying to the UN:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/18/iraq.iraq1
Lying to the Red Cross (and then prosecuting the JAG who blew the whistle, in a nice touch):
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002819
Torture:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1
So, Missy – exactly where did I lie?
Breshau:
This has nothing to do with the law, it is politics plain and simple. But go ahead and run on it, it is the best news McCain could hope to get.
There is no point explaining to the Left what a lie is. These are the same people who supported the man who actually lied under oath (vs. have a difference of memory with a newscaster’s memory) and said, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, “it depends on what the meanin of is, is”.
There is no hope for those who are deranged. And by the fact that they can’t see the decency and courage of George W. Bush, it tells us a lot about them.
Explaining what a lie is to the left is irrelevant. What is happening is America is coming to the realization the left lies to itself, it is delusional.
Mentally unstable people rarely win elections.
Of course, Bush could issue pardons on his last day for any possible actions that could be related to the administration of the GWOT.
Let me be clear:
1) I think most of the Bush Administration should be investigated. If they are found innocent or unprosecutable, fine. If not, charges should be filed. (Taxpayer money can be spent investigating why Lieberman’s website crashed, but not on the concept of if the Executive Branch broke the law? That’s an interesting set of priorities you all have.)
2) The investigations will never happen. This entire concept is wishful thinking amongst frustrated members of the left.
But the Right’s rank hypocrisy is stunning, nonetheless – given their behavior during the 1990’s.
And the inability of any one of you to address even a single issue I brought up – to even *attempt* to disprove a single point – says much about you.
Simple concept: what did I lie about? Prove even one.
Breschau,
Trying to disprove a lie that never happened is a difficult thing to do and you know it…so let’s start slowly…
Where exactly did President Bush say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?
Thank you for putting words in my mouth which I never came close to saying. Please look above, and point out where I stated: “President Bush said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.” In fact, the link I provided was when (years afterwards), Bush finally had to *admit* that there was no tie between Saddam and 9/11.
Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. (And where is Osama nowadays, anyway? Wasn’t Bush supposed to bring him to justice?) But Bush has consistently pushed the idea of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that has just never existed.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Obviously, I need to be more specific for this group. So let’s try this very specific example instead:
Bush said “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” in his State of the Union Address. Bush had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the sale likely never took place and that the documentary evidence had been forged.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
breschau,
To this day the UK stands by their assessment. And it was none other than Joe Wilson who investigated and reported back to the CIA on his first trip to Niger that Saddam’s reps were in that country.
And no one used the Niger forgeries for the claim about the contacts. Those came much later.
You don’t lie, your just plain ignorant.
Breschau,
“Lying to the country (quite a few examples, I’ll use the “Saddam-9/11″ one here):”
That pretty much says it all! Since you now state that you didn’t say that Bush said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 then what exactly did “Saddam-9/11” mean when referencing his lying?
Whippet1:
Uhh – okay. I guess I need to repeat myself:
Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. (And where is Osama nowadays, anyway? Wasn’t Bush supposed to bring him to justice?) But Bush has consistently pushed the idea of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that has just never existed.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Breschau,
Wrong again. The reason Iraq was a risk was the good chance Saddam and Bin Laden would team up to create a lot of future 9-11s. That was the risk we took out. It was not a link to 9-11, it was the risk of future 9-11s. Anyone who doesn’t get this is looking for extinction.
Liberals are always looking in the mirror – no wonder the bumble and bump into messes all the time.
AJStrata:
“Ignorant”? Well – thanks for keeping the mood civil around here. I really didn’t expect you to be the first one to go for personal insults.
“it was none other than Joe Wilson who investigated and reported back to the CIA on his first trip to Niger that Saddam’s reps were in that country”
Oh, and did Wilson ever report that Saddam was trying to purchase uranium? Because he says pretty clearly that he did not:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
And are you really saying that Bush should have trusted the British government over *his own intelligence people*? Wow.
AJ,
I’m unable to link from work for some reason, however if you are interested Flopping Aces has a great series on the connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. I’d post them for Breschau if I could but I’m sure he wouldn’t be interested in following the links… those kinds of details tend to get in the way of his talking points, I’m sure.
I will try it again later.
Breschau, “ignorant” in your case is no insult – it’s simply a very accurate diagnosis of your mental condition, 0ne which you could cure with just a little bit of effort on your part.
i don’t remember him standing on the rubble and saying he was going to out covert agents, spy on us citizins illegally, and torture people. maybe i missed it.
From your short post it is apparent you missed a lot Norm.