Skip to comments.Hannity - Live Thread
Posted on 10/24/2005 11:49:49 AM PDT by AliVeritas
All welcome. Come and discuss.
(Excerpt) Read more at wabcradio.com ...
Cuss and discuss? Starts in about 10 minutes.
Allen will be on. Brit. Flamegate and the real story on Fitzgerald. Chuckie slamming (always good).
What did I miss dc?
Loved the ebay spot... genius.
no ping for me... I feel soo unwanted
I got a kick out of the user who asked if it comes with a bag of ice. :)
thanks for the ping
Howdy....need a tissue?
Now lets talk about Able Danger Sean!
RATS haven't given up. Same playbook, different year:
Pittsburgh Tribune Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/s_164229.html
The Rockefeller memo: Whiff of treason
Sunday, November 9, 2003
A leaked memo from the office of West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller urges fellow Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to use its probe into Iraq war planning as a staging ground to beat President Bush.
It calls for an independent investigation of the president next year, timed for maximum negative impact on Mr. Bush's re-election effort.
The implications of the document are plain.
" ... (W)e have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war."
Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., condemned the memo as "politics in its most raw form." Mr. Rockefeller, who voted for the war and is the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the memo was a draft never circulated.
But he did not repudiate its contents.
Hence, as to their constitutional purpose, the hearings are irrelevant. Their object is not to seek the truth and in so doing offer a means to improve intelligence-gathering, which is the committee's portfolio.
They are instead to be a platform for garnering information against the White House by trolling classified material and employing it to the maximum political effect.
If this is not an ethics violation it ought to be. If this does not contain the whiff of treason, the word has no meaning.
THE SENATE INTEL REPORT: SO MUCH FOR 'BUSH LIED'
New York Post ^ | 07/10/04 | John Podhoretz
Posted on 07/10/2004 5:21:28 AM EDT by conservative in nyc
THE Senate Intelligence Committee report on the intelligence failures governing run-up to the Iraq war is a devastating document
for those who might have thought the sole reason to go to war in 2003 was Saddam Hussein's presumed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
The thing is, I don't know a single such person.
Those who supported the war, in overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for it.
Those who opposed and oppose it, in equally overwhelming numbers, weren't swayed by the WMD arguments. Indeed, many of them had no difficulty opposing the war while believing that Saddam possessed vast quantities of such weapons.
Take Sen. Edward Kennedy. "We have known for many years," he said in September 2002, "that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And yet only a few weeks later he was one of 23 senators who voted against authorizing the Iraq war.
Take French President Jacques Chirac, who believed Saddam had WMDs and still did everything in his power to block the war.
So whether policymakers supported or opposed the war effort was not determined by their conviction about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, politicians supported or opposed the war for the same reasons they support or oppose almost anything.
Some believed the war was necessary; others believed it counterproductive. Some believed their vote, for or against, would help their party. Some took whatever side they believed the voters back home wanted.
And some like the two men who make up the Democratic presidential ticket clearly chose sides based on their fear of being on the wrong side of a triumphant war as they looked ahead to facing the American people in 2004.
Yes, those of us who backed the war believed Saddam possessed WMDs but not in such quantities that it would make taking out his regime an impossibility (as seems to be the case with the nuke-possessing North Korea).
We also knew he had used chemical weapons inside his own country and against Iran.
We knew he was one of the world's leading terrorist sponsors, offering safe haven in Baghdad to some of the world's worst terrorists and paying $25,000 a head to encourage suicide bombers to strike inside Israel.
And we knew that the sanctions regime against him was eroding. We feared that Iraq would soon break loose from international restraint and would then be in a position to do things we didn't think Saddam had yet been able to do like build a nuclear weapon and give it to a terrorist group.
The basis for the war in Iraq was not that Saddam could kill us all in 2003. It was that he might be in a position to do us and the world incomparable harm in the coming decade, and that the lesson of 9/11 was that (as President Bush said in June 2002) "if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
Nothing in the Senate report vitiates that terrifyingly vital set of concerns.
The report condemns the CIA for overstating the intelligence it did have on Iraq's weaponry. But it doesn't claim that the CIA actively discarded or disregarded contravening evidence.
There was almost no evidence that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction until after the war was won and we began looking for them.
Let me cite the most dramatic example I've found so far in this lengthy report.
In July 2003, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson claimed he had proof that the administration ignored anti-WMD information because he had gone to Niger for the CIA and reported back that there was no evidence Iraq had obtained uranium there.
The White House knew of his mission, Wilson said, and therefore had trumped up charges about Iraq's nuclear program.
This was the first source of the "BUSH LIED" trope that has become a staple of the Left over the past year.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has an eye-opening refutation of all this:
"Because CIA analysts did not believe that the [Wilson] report added any new information to clarify the issue," the report states flatly on page 46, "they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. CIA's briefer did not brief the vice president on the report, despite the vice president's previous questions about the issue."
The Senate report has determined unquestioningly that Dick Cheney never heard about Wilson's trip. A major "BUSH LIED" pillar has just collapsed.
Indeed, the report destroys the entire edifice of the "BUSH LIED" temple. Here's the key sentence:
"The committee found no evidence that the [intelligence community's] mischaracterization or exaggeration of weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure."
This sentence, on the second page of the report's conclusions, was agreed to, unanimously, by the members of the Senate committee, including every Democrat.
Some of them, disgracefully, are already claiming that they don't think that sentence means what it says.
In other words, THEY LIE.
More here: Democrat's Secret Plan Exposed: Undermine America
Heeeeeeeeeeere! LOL - working and lurking
I saw that on Ebay!! Too funny.
Sorry, was on the phone with a certain show host (if I tell, you must die), got distracted... You are usually the first on the list. I must fix my MS Word.
Where are they getting these leaks?
"Now lets talk about Able Danger Sean!"
I second that emotion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.