Revisionist war games. (Yep, they said it!!)

Gottcha!!!!!!!

I wish I would have seen that interview! I'm on my way to check out this website right now www.AndrewSullivan.com

Great post!

I'd be interested in Rockefeller's reaction to being called on the mat like this. Did anyone see Fox News Sunday?

DemocRats and socialists all lie. It's an inherent characteristic, a common thread, so ingrained that they really can't seem to help themselves.

The reason they hate and bemoan the existence of Fox News (and indeed all conservatives - Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.) is that they do manage to get the truth out to the rest of us. They consitute a major thorn in the paw of liberals' grand agenda.

I wish I would have seen that interview!

I saw the interview. My blood pressure was high enough to run a drawbridge until Tony cut him off at the knees! 'Deer in the headlights' Rockefeller was really having to scramble. I think Tony was having a rather good time.

Couldnt get the website to work (www.AndrewSullivan.com). What's the deal?

The transcript of the interview is here (Click here)

Saw it. It was priceless.

I saw it also, one of the great moments in television.

Good stuff ~ Bump!

I saw the interview and Rockefeller was stunned but kept spinning, trying to talk his way out of his dilemna but came off looking totally stupid ad inept. He said something like "Everyone PERCEIVES President Bush as having said that the threat was imminent, so that's just as good as him having said it."

Great post. I mailed Alan Colmes a letter with similar rantings because the Democrats have made Bush's so-called lie worse than Clinton's. Here were my observations:

According to you Democrats, lying about war is worse than lying about sex. And while I would generally agree with that, let me give you my perspective: Clinton's lie was much worse. Clinton didn't just lie about sex, he lied about war to cover for sex. He bombed 4 sovereign nations in the span of 8-months to cover for his "personal" ordeals. War is war...and it's hell, and whether you're killing people from 15,000 feet or 500 feet...people still die. And the last time I checked, bombing a sovereign nation is still an ACT OF WAR.

Clinton just happened to bomb Afghanistan and the Sudan the day before Monica was to begin her Grand Jury testimony. So outrageous was this operation, that Clinton didn't even consult his Joint Cheifs of Staff as to the operation. So worried was Janet Reno, that she actually questioned the legallity of the act. It is now a known fact that this bombing further outraged Bin Laden, as Clinton was supposedly trying to kill him. Unfortunatley, as a General in charge pointed out, the intelligence was not only "shaky" as to his whereabouts, the operation was incomplete as we didn't follow-up on further intelligence reports that did indicate were Bin Laden might be. Maybe that's because Clinton's one-week war on terror was only a destraction (a lie) from his "affairs" back at home.

And speaking of failed intelligence reports...or lies, as they have now become known to Democrats, it was a report that Clinton relied on that claimed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant (in Sudan) was a VX Nerve producing facility. It wasn't...and we got socked with a multi-million dollar lawsuit, as well as destorying a medical facility that was responsible for over 50% of this country's medicines. The deaths in this bombing weren't just limited to those killed in the plant. As reports now indicate, Al-Shifa produced drugs to fight Turberculosis and Malaria...and THOUSANDS may have died since they didn't have access to these medicines (one report said 10,000). Contrary to claims...this was more than just an "aspirin factory." I didn't see you libs out lamenting the thousands of deaths that occurred because proper medicines were unavailable to the populous of this country. I didn't hear the claims that CLinton "lied" about this failed intelligence. Then again, why should you have been? The objective US media NEVER reported this story.

You want more lies? How about the 100,000 mass-graves in Kosovo that have never been discovered? Or how about Cinton's claim that we should "never forget Racak" as he used the Racak Massacre as a pretext for war in Serbia? The Racak Massacre has already been proven to be a fraud by KLA soldiers who lied about the "execution style" murders of innocent women and children. A Finnish foresnic team in conjunction with the UN has stated that Racak was a straight-up fire fight after 4 Serb cops were killed a couple days before. The bullet wounds were inconsistent with "execution style" injuries. Yet our great objective "elite" media has ignored these findings, as they gave Clinton a pass on these "failed" intelligence reports. Was this a lie?

A simple review of Clinton's claims (and the democrats) in 1998 explicitly imply the exact same threat that Bush spoke of for the reasons for this war in Iraq. And regardless if Clinton waged a "full scale war," the Democrats still didn't question the validity of those statements or the intelligence that led to those conclusions. No. In fact, many of them made the same claims themselves. Yet, today, it is you Democrats who all of a sudden want investigations...and even impeachment. Bring it on. And let's throw in the 4 bombings of Iraq, that were also acts of war based on similar intelligence reports. Were these all lies? Maybe while were at it, we can also find out what intelligence failures led to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. I don't recall the great outrage to find out what "intelligence failure" led to this disaster.

Which brings up another statement you made: You said if Clinton had done what Bush had done in Iraq, the Republicans would've been all over him. Here's a little fact for ya' Alan...Clinton did do what Bush did...and a lot more (see above). Yet, I don't recall the Republicans or the media reacting anywhere near the way you guys have over this war. You have not only impugned the character of this President, you have emboldened the enemy in Iraq as you attack Bush over 16 words in a 5000+ word speech. You are giving both aid and comfort to our enemies and allies alike who can now question the validity of our president's motives...even though it is your evidence and motives that are really in question. Your (and your friends) desires to cripple this president have not only damaged this country, they are damaging the lives of those fighting to protect us...and our lives, alike. Both your statements are inconsistent with the record.

On a final note about lies: There is a big difference between flat-out lying to the American people and what, at the most, is subjective reading of intelligence information that "may" have been inconclusive. The fact is, this is nothing new...as Clinton (see above) and just about every administration has did it. This doesn't even come close to what LBJ did in Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin. This doesn't excuse what BUSH did if he lied...but he did not lie. There is also a difference between lying and selectively choosing information to support your policy...based on a plethora of intelligence information that is both pro and con. This information was supported overwhelmingly by more than just Bush...including many of the same Democrats who are attacking Bush. Just because politicians of opposing Parties have a different perspective on information doesn't make one Party wrong...or liars. This is what politics are about...and this is especially what intelligence is about, since it isn't a science. But if we even hint at impeaching presidents over policy disagreements (not lies), we will have done more damage to this country than we realize.

And there is a difference in lying about a personal matter and disagreeing over policy matters. Whether you like it or not. Bush's so-called lie, was based on information that was presented to him and that he believed threatened the USA. His "so-called" lie was not about personal gratification or a means to satisfy himself. On the contrary, he believed he was doing something to protect the citizens of this country. What Clinton did was just the opposite. His "admitted" lie, was nothing more than a lie to protect himself. It was pure selfishness and had nothing to do with the good of the country. In fact, it was so outrageous, that it did irreparable harm to the country as he did all he could to protect himself...including smearing others in the process. "Clinton's lie" was nothing more than a selfish act to protect his interest...Bush's so-called lie (which it wasn't) was about protecting this country's interests. You're right...there is a difference.

A Final observation: You people who claim that Bush's lie is much worse since it put more people in harms way. I disagree. Between the reported 4,000 civilian deaths in Kosovo (not including combatants), the deaths in Bosnia, the estimated hundreds to the thousands of deaths in the Somalian fire-fight, the collateral damage resulting from Al-Shifa and his one-week war on terrorism, the deaths resulting from the 4 separate bombings of Iraq...and even the operation in Haiti, Clinton's death count is just as high...if not higher. By the way, was the Haiti invasion a political act to appeal to black voters? And as you said, these weren't even full-scale wars. Unfortunatley, unlike Bush, the media didn't care about the death and destruction that Clinton caused...or the lies that led to these conflicts. But why let facts get in the way of your (and your media friends) selective reading of history?

Ping! Also, check out the link in post #8. I almost fell on the floor laughing!

"I wish I would have seen that interview!"

I'm with you on that! This definitely answers the question, "who shocked JR?"!

Very impressive summary - do you write professionally? If not, you should.

Thanks, but know I don't. I sometimes can't put together complete sentences...and my spelling; watch out. I'm just very passionate about this stuff. Now, If I had Huang's skill, I might.

"... I saw the interview. ..."

That was beyond an interview - it was surgery, without benefit of anaesthesia. And I agree, "Tony the knife" seemed to be having a grand ole time cutting and slashing. It was fun to watch.

I saw this one. I was laughing so hard I practically fell over.

Rockefeller tried to go around Tony Snow three times and Tony got him every time. Rockefeller looked like he had swallowed a fistful of worms.

"... Rockefeller tried to go around Tony Snow three times and Tony got him every time. Rockefeller looked like he had swallowed a fistful of worms. ..."

Positive proof that all he inherited was money....