Has it gotten that bad over at National Review?

I hate to be the one say it. But, if I must, I must!

Has it gotten that bad over at National Review that they are now linking to silly liberal articles at the Washington Post that question that official report on President Kennedy’s assassination?

How hard is it for people just to accept that truth? The truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald, a military trained sniper and Castro sympathizer — shot and killed the President of the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who preaches anything other than this, is looking to fatten his pocket and fund his or her own cottage industry.

Personally, I find it absolutely disgusting that the National Review, a respectable Conservative magazine and conservative internet publication would even entertain such vapid silliness. I mean, it is bad enough that you have Matt Drudge linking to Alex Jones, who is a dishonest charlatan. Now, we have to contend with National Review doing that sort of nonsense?

I honestly have to think that what I read someone say in the conservative blogosphere once; that it is as if the conservative world is being invaded by the crazy people. Sometimes, I think this person was absolutely correct.

Chuck Baldwin on Piers Morgan’s leaving CNN and others

I have disagreed and even let this guy have it in the past for things that he is written. But when he’s right…. he’s right.

Quote:

What I am about to say, I rarely, if ever, say about anyone–even those folks with whom I vehemently disagree. I’ve never allowed myself to let my portion of the public debate get personal. But in the case of Piers Morgan, I am willfully backsliding.

Piers Morgan is an oaf of the highest order. He is a boorish braggart, a wanna-be tyrant, and an overall pompous ass. It was British snobs like Piers Morgan that incited the Colonists to revolt. Just looking at Morgan–as he smugly peered down his nose at us freedom-loving Americans–made me want to go to war with Great Britain all over again.

Now it appears that Piers Morgan will be off the airwaves soon–at least during primetime on CNN. All I can say is GOOD RIDDANCE. I also find it amusing that while Piers Morgan is riding off into the sunset, Alex Jones continues to broadcast all over the place. The Colonists won again. Oohrah!

via Chuck Baldwin — Thoughts On Piers Morgan, Alec Baldwin, Jay Leno, Mel Gibson, The National Media, And Political Correctness.

I guess a broken clock is right once a day. Check out the column, it is quite good.

 

On Trey Radel’s resignation

Some interesting news to wake up to today:

Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.) will resign from Congress on Monday, according to multiple sources.

Radel, 37, was caught buying cocaine last year from an undercover federal agent in Washington and spent nearly a month in a rehabilitation facility. He returned to Congress after the winter recess.

Radel sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announcing his resignation, saying it “is my belief that professionally I cannot fully and effectively serve as a United States Representative to the place I love and call home, Southwest Florida.” He said that 2014 has already “been tremendously positive as I focus on my health, family and faith.”

via Trey Radel to resign House seat – POLITICO.com.

Of course, some bloggers are griping about it. Gateway Pundit:

Democrats may be found guilty of perjurystatutory rape or running a prostitution ring from their home – yet they never resign.

Republicans, on the other hand, are expected to resign for their sins.

HotAir’s Ed Morrissey has the answer to that:

Most Republicans wanted him gone after the arrest. Instead, Radel insisted that he would hold his seat after going through rehab. Unless I missed a memo, there hasn’t been any unusual events surrounding his return this month. Perhaps Radel found his welcome back to the caucus chillier than Polar Vortex I or II.

[....]

I’m still not sure what changed Radel’s mind. His return was about as uneventful as he might have hoped. Unless more revelations are on their way, he had a pretty smooth glide path to obscurity in 2014 already.

Furthermore, let me add to that to answer Hoft’s complaint; who is Anthony Weiner, chopped liver?!?!? He resigned his office, after the revelations about him. This is why I am not a regular reader of Gateway Pundit or Breitbart; because:

  1. Both are confirmed neoconservative blogs that are not above propaganda
  2. Both sensationalize their headlines to the point of fudging the truth

This is why you do not see them in my blogroll or in my rss feeds in the sidebar. Some people believe that there is no difference between paleoconservatism and neoconservatism; I disagree and the above is a perfect example why.

Now back to the matter of Radel; he most likely went back to Florida and was greeted with the icy reception from hell; and quickly decided that his future in politics was basically over. There is a reason for this, it is because Conservatives, especially social conservatives, do not want some coke headed buffoon representing them in Congress. Unlike the Democrats who could honestly care less about such things. It is called morality; and some Republicans and Conservatives, at least some of them anyhow; still care about such things.

So, to the bloggers on the right; no there is no conspiracy here. Nor is there any sort of double standard. It is simple the Republican base wanting a true, moral, Conservative in D.C. and not some two-bit coke head living a lie.

…and that, is all.

Others:  CNNReal Clear PoliticsHot AirNew York TimesBizPac ReviewScared MonkeysNational ReviewOutside the BeltwayMediaiteRoll CallTaylor MarshBusiness Insider,  Talking Points MemoNBCNewsTampa Bay TimesNPRThe Gateway PunditNational Review

So-called queer “Conservative” quits the GOP, takes his balls and goes home

One Word: Good.

We do not need people like him in the GOP no how.

The properly named Daily Beast reports:

Eventually even Sisyphus gets tired.

Jimmy LaSalvia is a lifelong conservative activist. He likes low taxes and limited government and refers to the political party that disagrees with these views as the “Democrat” Party. He’s also gay and for years has been leading the fight for a place in the Republican Party for fellow gay conservatives; LaSalvia even started an advocacy group called GOProud when he found the Log Cabin Republicans to be far too liberal. But, on Monday, LaSalvia finally threw in the towel and changed his registration to be an independent. On his blog, he wrote “So, now I feel huge sense of freedom. I am an independent conservative. (That sounds much better than ‘gay Republican.’)”

In an interview with The Daily Beast, LaSalvia explained why he left the GOP. “I came to the realization that the leadership of the Republican Party just doesn’t share my principles and my values” said the conservative activist. “I am a limited government conservative and they’re big government people. I do not tolerate bigotry in any form and they do.  So I came to realize that they are wrong and I can’t continue to defend them or to let them stain my reputation any longer.”

 

Here is the problem with the above, homosexualiy according to the Word of God; that being the Holy Bible —- which is, in my belief system is the King James Bible — is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

Here are the Holy Scriptures on the subject, including a quote from an inferior version of the Bible for those who cannot read proper english:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.  – (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.  (1 Corinthians 6:9-20 KJV)

Same group of verses in the Amplified Bible:

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

10 Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilersandslanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit orhave any share in the kingdom of God.

11 And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.

12 Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.

13 Food [is intended] for the stomach and the stomachfor food, but God will finally end [the functions of] bothand bring them to nothing. The body is not intended for sexual immorality, but [is intended] for the Lord, and the Lord [is intended] for the body [[a]to save, sanctify, and raise it again].

14 And God both raised the Lord to life and will also raise us up by His power.

15 Do you not see and know that your bodies are members (bodily parts) of Christ (the Messiah)? Am I therefore to take the parts of Christ and make [them] parts of a prostitute? Never! Never!

16 Or do you not know and realize that when a manjoins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her? The two, it is written, shall become one flesh.

17 But the person who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him.

18 Shun immorality and all sexual looseness [flee from impurity in thought, word, or deed]. Any other sin which a man commits is one outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

19 Do you not know that your body is the temple (the very sanctuary) of the Holy Spirit Who lives within you, Whom you have received [as a Gift] from God? You are not your own,

20 You were bought with a price [purchased with a[b]preciousness and paid for, [c]made His own]. So then, honor God and bring glory to Him in your body.

These beliefs are the core doctrines of Christianity. The Word of God. There is no tolerance, there is no looking away from that, it is the Word of God; period, end of discussion.

But yet, this so-called queer “Conservative” Jimmy LaSalvia says that I am bigoted, because I choose to believe this? That, in itself, is intolerance. Jimmy says that we Christians are bigoted, because we refuse to back away from what the Bible says and endorse this idiotic, Satanic idea that homosexuality is just normal. Sorry, Jimmy. But, you are simply guilty of what you accuse we Christians of being — Intolerant.

True Conservatism, tolerates other people’s opinions and does not wish to expel them from any sort of a political group. Ronald Reagan knew the truth and that truth is that Conservatism to work, required a three-legged stool. That stool was a three-legged stool, consisting of religious conservatives, national security conservatives, and economic/libertarian conservatives. Without one of these that stool would collapse under its own weight.

Another way of putting it is this: You try and expel social Conservatives or properly named, Conservative Christians out of the GOP? You will never win another election ever again. Conservative Christians; the larger group evangelical and the smaller group, Fundamentalists like myself; represent the biggest voting bloc in the GOP. If we go, so do your votes. You cannot win elections simply upon the idea of promoting only fiscal conservatism and defense. It simply will not work. It was tried in 1964 with Berry Goldwater and the GOP lost and I mean badly. The Christians HATED Berry Goldwater! In the end there was an ill fated attempt to mend fences with them; but it was too little too late.

So, there are few things that I would wish of Jimmy LaSalvia:

  1. I wish that he would truly accept Christ and turn his back on that sodomite lifestyle.
  2. I wish that would learn a bit of tolerance for those whom he disagrees with
  3. or at least, I wish we would stop lying to people and telling them that he is some sort of a Conservative. Because when you get down to the reality of the situation, it is impossible for homosexuals to be Conservatives or even Christians. Just be real and tell everyone that you are liberal and go to the Democratic Party where you truly belong.

That is all.

 

John Podhoretz gets exposed for the intolerant Trotskyite that he truly is

This is great;  a Trotskyite Zionist goes for a debate; and the minute he sees that he is losing the debate — he storms off the stage, takes his marbles and goes home.

I am referring to the greatest Trotskyite, Zionist, Neoconservative of them all — John Podhoretz.

See here, here, here and here.

Money quote:

Bottom line: I’d had a long day and I didn’t see the point in spending more of it getting booed and shushed. So I left. So sue me.

If only we could sue you and your family for all the trillions of dollars — and the 4000+ lives that were  wasted in the Iraq War —- which you and your satanic Father were cheerleaders for, after 9/11. Actually, I would very much like to see criminal charges filed against you and few of your Trotskyite friends as well. However, as we realists know; that will never happened to a protected class as yourself.

You want to know what got wrong with Conservatism? You want to know why the GOP is in the shape that it is in? Look no further than this man here and his idiotic Trotskyite magazine that he runs. They are the true enemies of America; they are the ones who put us in the war that almost broke this Nation and ruined its standing in the world.

It is a pity that there is not true justice in this Nation of ours; otherwise, this man and his friends would be sitting in jail cells.

 

Video: Charles Krauthammer gets it right

This comes via The Corner:

He is, of course, talking about the budget deal. The budget deal that everyone else hates. I say l let ‘em hate it. The corner says this:

“The only choice of those who would reject the deal would be to go up until the deadline of January 15th,” he said on Special Report, “and the only leverage Republicans would have would be to shut down the government.

“We tried that in October. It was a disaster,” Krauthammer said, arguing that that the news stories in January would have been about such a shutdown, not Obamacare’s continuing problems. Rejecting the spending deal, he said, would have been “mindless.”

Krauthammer praised the GOP for taking the deal, lauding them for preserving 70 percent of the sequester cuts over the next two years and ending the “endless extension of unemployment benefits.”

I said the same thing back when the shutdown was happening; it was a bad idea. Why punish those who are just going to work everyday? It was a stupid idea. Ted Cruz did not have a plan, once he took the House Republicans into the ditch.  This compromise was a smart idea, and it will buy the Republicans some time, till after the election. Hopefully, the new ones coming in will play the right political game and not the wrong one again.

 

 

Video: Republicans are turning on Ted Cruz

As I wrote on here before twice, the Republican picked the wrong game to play here and now, they’re paying for it. Not to mention that the Republicans have been utter hypocrites on the entire Obamacare issue.

The Story:

A Republican congressman said Monday that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is largely responsible for the first government shutdown since 1996.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that while he believes many individuals are at fault, including President Barack Obama, he said Cruz and others who bought into the quixotic campaign to defund the Affordable Care Act “took a lot of folks into the ditch.”

“But if I had to cast blame anywhere, I would say it was Sen. Cruz and those who insisted upon this tactic that we all knew was not going to succeed,” Dent said. “What he did essentially, Sen. Cruz, basically, he took a lot of folks into the ditch. Now that we’re in the ditch, you can’t get out of the ditch, the senator has no plan to get out of the ditch, those of us who do have a plan to get out of the ditch and will vote to get out of the ditch will then be criticized by those who put us in the ditch in the first place.”

Dent said that he will continue to urge House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to bring a “clean” continuing resolution — one that includes no language to undermine the health care law — to a vote.

via GOP Rep Blames Cruz For Shutdown: ‘He Took A Lot Of Folks Into The Ditch’ (VIDEO).

Excellent Reading: Jim Antle asks: “What’s Wrong With the Republican Right?”

This is some excellent reading here. I just wish more of the Republicans AND Tea Party types would read it and listen:

No longer will it suffice for Republican politicians to come to Washington and compile respectable, or even stellar, ratings from conservative groups. If federal spending is ever to be restrained as the baby boomers enter retirement, we will need politicians who are willing to employ unconventional methods in the fight.

Conservatives need rebels and boat-rockers, not conformists and time-servers. So I argued in my recent book on the political prospects for limited government. Sen. Ted Cruz would seem to fit the bill. The Texas Republican has been a one-man demolition crew, aiming his wrecking ball squarely at Capitol Hill’s customs and conventions.

But, surveying the scene in Washington, is Cruz an example of the old saying about being careful about what you wish for?

via What’s Wrong With the Republican Right? | The American Conservative.

One part that I really like in particular:

To be sure, in politics it sometimes pays to consider the long game. Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide in 1964, giving the Democrats the supermajorities they needed to usher in the Great Society. But in time, the GOP became Goldwater’s party to a far greater extent than Nelson Rockfeller’s.

Ronald Reagan lost the fight against the Panama Canal Treaty, just as he failed to win the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 or 1976. But Reagan’s subsequent victories are remembered long after most of those who had earlier beaten him were forgotten.

It would be premature to count Cruz out over a fiscal impasse that has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. But it might be worth asking a few hard questions.

Is the current confrontation likely to reverse or materially change the Affordable Care Act? Is it moving public opinion against Obamacare or against the Republicans? What is it accomplishing?

Perhaps if the answer is simply that it is raising Ted Cruz’s profile, it will still benefit conservatives over the long term. Since Goldwater and Reagan retired, the right has long lacked figures who can compete on more or less even terms with the Doles, Bushes, McCains, and Romneys of the world.

But it should not simply be assumed that this answer is good enough. Conservatives once fought Republicans whose “dime store New Deals” were only incrementally different from what the Democrats proposed.

Over time, they began to rely on things like American Conservative Union scores to assess lawmakers’ fidelity to principle. Groups like the Club for Growth emerged, challenging the business interests that had traditionally run the Republican Party for influence in the primaries.

Today it is no longer enough for most conservatives to have a Republican who will vote with them most of the time. Conservatives insist on politicians who will fight when it counts most. And they realize that some fights—Obamacare, the Wall Street bailout, the Gang of Eight immigration deal—matter more than tax breaks for hedge fund managers.

There is one more step in this evolution: evaluating whether conservatives are actually producing results. Too often, conservatives measure that by the volume of liberal outrage a Republican political figure inspires.

I believe that every last person that even remotely thinks about getting into politics of any sort; ought be tied to a chair and forced to read that part right there until he can recite it by memory!

I suggest you go read the rest of that one; it’s good. I don’t want to quote the entire thing here. We need more thinkers and less reactionaries in that party. Plus too, I said the same thing, when it comes to the long game. Jim Antle gets that; and that’s a good thing. :D

Interesting Reading

I think everyone should go check out Erick Erickson’s piece called The Disconnect.

In it, Erick explains the huge disconnect between the GOP Establishment and the Conservative grassroots. It is a good read; and I am not saying this as a Paleo-Conservative laughing at the neoconservatives either. I found the article a very good read.

Check it out!

Memo to Sarah Palin: Don’t let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya!

Good riddance to bad rubbish:

The Video: (apologies for the auto play, there is no way in the embed code to turn it off. :( )

The Story:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president responded to a Fox News Channel viewer’s Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative talker Mark Levin abandoning the Republican Party and creating something called the “Freedom Party.

Palin suggested she is open to the idea and said that if the GOP continues to abandon its conservative principles, other would follow suit.

“I love the name of that party — the ‘Freedom Party,’” Palin said. “And if the GOP continues to back away from the planks in our platform, from the principles that built this party of Lincoln and Reagan, then yeah, more and more of us are going to start saying, ‘You know, what’s wrong with being independent,’ kind of with that libertarian streak that much of us have. In other words, we want government to back off and not infringe upon our rights. I think there will be a lot of us who start saying ‘GOP, if you abandon us, we have nowhere else to go except to become more independent and not enlisted in a one or the other private majority parties that rule in our nation, either a Democrat or a Republican.’ Remember these are private parties, and you know, no one forces us to be enlisted in either party.”

via Sarah Palin floats idea of leaving Republican Party [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller.

As I wrote in the comments section of another blog:

I got one thing to say to her.

Don’t let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya. Who needs her? She’s about the worst spokesperson for the GOP ever.

Let her and Levin go create some third party and LOSE.

GOP is the only way, the thing to do is elect people who are real Conservatives. Like Ron Paul, Like Pat Buchanan, Like Mark Sanford. and not these idiot Neocons.

Yeah, Mark Sanford screwed up; big frigging deal! So did Bill Clinton and everyone still loves him. :roll: But, yet, a Conservative messes up and its the end of his career? I call bullcrap on that one. Anyhow, the point is this: We need to elect real Conservatives in the GOP — people that will uphold the Constitution, uphold the rule of law and if the GOP is not doing that — then we elect those who will —- it is just that simple. Starting third parties is a ticket to loserville, just ask Ross Perot.

Others: Scared MonkeysHot AirHullabalooConservatives4Palin andProfessorBainbridge.com

Just my two cents.

No, Sorry, Dick (head) Cheney, I do NOT trust you or your idiotic successor in the White House!

Ol’ Dick (head) Cheney says that we ought to just trust the Government.

The Video: (Via Think Progress)

Okay here is the little small problem with trusting Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, they lied, as in like 935 times in a row, during their Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Prove it, you say? Sure.

Via The Center for Public Integrity, which is as follows:

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.

Anyhow, here is why I don’t trust Neocons, nor do I trust Democratic Party liberals or Neo-leftists:

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

  • On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “
  • In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
  • In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear.”
  • On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
  • On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
  • On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. 

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

A video:

The real sick and sad part is this; the same people that are having a hissy fit on the right about this program existing under Obama, are the same ones who were perfectly fine with it existing under Bush. In other words, they trusted the program under Bush. like idiots. My question to that crowd is this; why do  you not trust Obama? Because he is black or because he is a Democratic Party liberal?

Anyone and I mean anyone, who puts their trust in this Government of ours, based upon partisanship is nothing more than a darned fool in my opinion. Both of these political parties are two sides of the same coin and that is corruption and big Government socialism. Both parties promote it, both parties contribute to it. Government hand outs are Government hand outs; whether it be in the forum of welfare or Government subsidies. It is big Government statist and it flies in the face of our Constitution and in the face of what this great Nation was founded upon.

Others: Prairie Weather