They Can't Be Serious

Did you know that Scooter Libby being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for his testimony to the grand jury equals "the administration lied to get us into the war"?

That's what I'm hearing Dems say. I also heard a Democrat consultant today on The Big Story on Fox tell John Gibson that there were no WMDs, there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, and... hell, I don't even remember the other thing. Probably something about no attempt to purchase yellowcake from Africa, or about Halliburton...

Do they believe any of this? Can they still be beating the WMD drum? They must figure that anything you say loud enough and long enough becomes true by default. Let's go over it again, shall we? Everyone from Bill Clinton, to Al Gore, to John Kerry, to the Russians, to the Israelies, to Saddam's neighbors, to the current administration believed he had WMD. The meme is, we didn't find any, so there weren't any. Well, we did find a few strays here and there. We did find dual use facilities to re-start the WMD program as soon as sanctions were lifted. I even remember Saddam saying, shortly after he was captured, that he WANTED the world to believe he still had the WMD. After all, he was "defeating" us, so he couldn't look weak to the world. So, the conclusion of multiple reports has been that he did have them once, he may have gotten rid of them (I'm still thinking he got rid of them by sending them to Syria or something equally clever), but he certainly wasn't willing to provide proof of it. Remember his level of cooperation with the last UNSC resolution? All he would've had to do to avoid war was to prove he'd gotten rid of them. Show us where. Tell us how. Nope. And don't trip to lightly over the sentence that says we've found a few. The Dems still say we haven't found ANY. I got this on an e-mail today:

"* 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."

Not precisely no WMD. Not what we expected. But, the point was that Saddam was dangerous with WMD. If he just had to flip the switch after sanctions were lifted to start production again, isn't that just as bad as having stockpiles given our underlying concern?

The Dems so conveniently forget that Saddam DID have al Qaeda ties. He sent emmissaries to meet with Bin Laden. He offered the guy safe haven. Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to OIF. Why did Zarqawi think he'd be safe there if Saddam wasn't friendly to terrorists in general, and possibly to al Qaeda in particular? This is to say nothing of his support for Palestinian terror, or his harboring of other terrorists, or even the terror training camp in the North. This has also all been in official reports. And, we may never know the whole story, but it seems that some Iraqi Intelligence Service agents were hanging around in places perilously close to where 9/11 planning and preparations were taking place. Saddam also helped get one of the first WTC bombers into safe haven in Iraq and paid his way for 10 years. What the reports have said is that there is no PROOF that Iraq had OPERATIONAL ties to the al Qaeda 9/11 plot. It does NOT say he had no ties to al Qaeda, or even that it's not possible that there were in fact ties to 9/11. No proof he did does not equal proof he didn't.

I won't even go into Joe Wilson and Valery. OK... just a little. How does he come back as this incredible refuter of the entire reason for the war when what he came back with was that, indeed, Iraqi agents HAD visited with Niger officials, but the officials wouldn't sell them yellowcake because of the sanctions. People say his report "might even support the possibility that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake in Niger." MIGHT? Plus, I've been to Africa. Africa is a good deal bigger than just Niger. Not only didn't his mission to Niger completely refute the possibility that the Iraqis tried to buy yellowcake there, it in no way could speak to what may have occurred in other nations. The guy came back with bubkis in terms of refutation of the claim Saddam tried to buy uranium. Then he lied about not only who sent him, but what he found, plus a few other whoppers.

What Fitzgerald DID say about the indictment of Libby was that it had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and that the White House cooperated fully. Let's keep in mind that it was four other people in this, supposedly, "corrupt" administration that told a story different than Libby's that resulted in his indictment in the first place. And, the underlying crime that was investigated was not proven at all. Wilson came up with bubkis in his visit to Niger, and the Dems came up with bubkis in the investigation of the Plame outing.

My question is why they keep calling everyone else liars when it is clear to anyone who has paid any attention at all that it is THEY who are lying. Add to that that they do everything in their power to divide the country: like accusing Bush of lying us into a war; saying that the war is a catastrophe and that nothing good has come out of it--ignoring the fact that it's a burgeoning democracy in the heart of the Middle East; voting in Clinton's term to make regime change our policy in Iraq because Saddam is dangerous with WMD, then claiming when we act to accomplish regime change that the reasons weren't good enough; talking about the danger Social Security is in during the Clinton years, then saying it'll all be fine when Bush moved to do something about it; talking about the economy like it's collapsing when it's actually flourishing; fighting against highly qualified court nominees; harping on the "stolen" election in 2000 and saying shenanigans occurred in Ohio in '04, despite the fact that from reports I've seen, the only shenanigans were by Dems; on and on and on, all the while claiming Bush and the Republicans are dividing the country.

There is a problem when people begin to think that anything they say or do, no matter how dishonest, is OK because they SHOULD be in power and they're not, so whatever gets them back in is fair game. Say Bush lied. It's OK to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Say the war in Iraq is a failure. It's OK to ignore all the good that is being done, and what a tremendous success it will be when a Iraq is a functioning democracy and our ally. And, worst of all, it's OK to pretend that the WOT is a figment of the right's imagination. It's OK to pretend that some understanding could be reached with the Islamofacists. They don't REALLY want the world to exist under a sharia caliphate. They're just a little disgruntled. A good "progressive" politician could reason with them. After all, they pretty much left us alone under Clinton. (smirk)

The left has officially blown my mind. The half-truths and outright lies come so fast and furious that you can't refute them all. On "The Big Story" that democratic consultant reeled off her list of three things in 5 seconds. They were nonsense slogans. But it would've taken several minutes to fully refute them. The Dems know that if they can just burn certain quick slogans into people's minds, that's what the ignorant will remember. And to truly educate people on the truth, the Republicans would have to take more time than our soundbite driven media can give them (if they will give someone on the right any time at all).

Drives me nuts!