Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Is Lying About Iraq?
CommentaryMagazine ^ | 11-07-2005 | Norman Podhoretz

Posted on 11/09/2005 8:11:51 AM PST by KJC1

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: caseforwar; cia; cialeak; josephwilson; medialies; plame; plamegate; podhoretz; prewarintelligence; wmds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last
This is a great read. Long, but well worth it.
1 posted on 11/09/2005 8:11:52 AM PST by KJC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KJC1

ping for later


2 posted on 11/09/2005 8:14:03 AM PST by RedCell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

"What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed"

Bush won't fight back. Arnold won't in California.

A lie goes around the world before the truth gets its shoes on but, the truth has to get up and going.

Neither Bush or Arnold seem to be fighting back.


3 posted on 11/09/2005 8:18:28 AM PST by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1
I think the biggest lie now is that the "war" is going badly. The war was won, Iraq is meeting every election milestone, and there is no significant military action against our forces.

I blame the administration at this point, they don't have the political courage to say things are going well. They think that if there are casualties the next day they will look bad. They need to EXPLAIN things to the public. I'd like to know who the heck they think is going to do it, if they don't.

4 posted on 11/09/2005 8:18:40 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1
Excellent article. The one line I take issue with, various forms of which have been floating around this forum for a while now is this: "To lie means to say something one knows to be false." To lie is also to say something one has little reason to believe is true. If I say my neighbor's dog were hit by a car and killed today, I'm lying even though I don't know for sure that I'm wrong. It is also a lie, for all moral purposes, to utter a technical truth that is designed to mislead someone into believing something false. It's a distinction without a difference. What I'm driving at is we don't want to diminish the standard of lying. In the long run, that doesn't serve anyone. Now under these strong standards, I think the administration did tell some fibs in the run up to war. That's what administrations do. I know of no administration, Republican or Democrat, that did not tell similar lies. And none of the administration's fibs change the fact that this war was a just cause that we should have undertaken even without the exaggerations. That, to me, is the bottom line.
5 posted on 11/09/2005 8:21:12 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
I'm really scared now, not for Bush but for my country. Scared that empty left wing arguments may actually prevail, leading to disaster for our Mideast allies and our own security. And furious that the administration does not seem to be aggressively moving forward, i.e., confronting Iran and Syria with a plan for results.

If the only lesson Bush learned from Iraq is that democrats will complain, we are lost.

6 posted on 11/09/2005 8:21:57 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

ping


7 posted on 11/09/2005 8:21:57 AM PST by ocr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

BTTT


8 posted on 11/09/2005 8:22:45 AM PST by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I agree and we are going to lose a lot of ground come '06 if this continues.
We kiss ass with Bill Clinton and let the Dems lie every day without even a response. I sure don't understand.


9 posted on 11/09/2005 8:22:55 AM PST by Moolah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

Tremendous article. I wish the Bush adminstration were more forthright in putting out information like this. If Karl Rove weren't so busy with legal problems he could put together a media campaign that would consolidate this evidence and shut the Democrats up.


10 posted on 11/09/2005 8:24:15 AM PST by Capriole (I don't have any problems that can't be solved by more chocolate or more ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1
Holy cow! Did you catch footnote #1:

Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: “I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.”

11 posted on 11/09/2005 8:30:12 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Neither Bush or Arnold seem to be fighting back.

What do you expect... they're Republicans!

12 posted on 11/09/2005 8:33:25 AM PST by CommandoFrank (Peer into the depths of hell and there you will find the face of Islam...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

Everybody knows it's a lie, but it's also a big cash cow for the democrats; so they keep repeating it.


13 posted on 11/09/2005 8:34:58 AM PST by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

Please name one (fib)


14 posted on 11/09/2005 8:35:10 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

A great resource, will save for later but why is this dated December 2005? Am I having a senior moment? What year is it?


15 posted on 11/09/2005 8:35:28 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repub4bush; gardencatz; feefee; Misty Memory; commonguymd; franksolich; MisterRepublican

Ping for a great article to read and bookmark for future use ;)


16 posted on 11/09/2005 8:37:44 AM PST by KJC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

It is a good read.

WMD were just ONE of the MANY good reasons for invading Iraq.

Saddam was also funding terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Saddam may very well have been involved with the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Saddam tried to murder an American President (Bush I).

Saddam violated the terms of the Persian Gulf War I treaty.

Saddam ordered his people to fire on U.S. and British planes enforcing the no-fly rule.

Iraw was strategically positioned in the nexus of terror between the Sudan, Lybia and Syria on the west and Iran on the east.

Bush's problem has been his indefensible inability to articulate for the unwashed American masses all these facts along with the ones outlined in the article.

Whenever Dems attack, Republican S.O.P. is to sit there like a punching bag and take it.

The problem with Iraq and the war there is it has become an end in itself instead of what it really is - just ONE battle in a major worldwide war with Islamofascism.

Shortly AFTER our invasion, Lybia came clean (or pretended to), the Syrians were quiet and the Iranian nutjobs stopped all the heated rhetoric about the great white Satan.

They were scared. They were afraid THEY were next. They should have been.

When cleaning out a nest of vipers, make sure you don't miss any.


17 posted on 11/09/2005 8:39:10 AM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Yeah...Wilson also appeared on PBS just shortly after Bush's SOTU Address...and not only did he not mention one thing about the "16 Words," he went on to agree that Saddam was indeed a threat that needed to be dealt with. At this time, he was in almost complete agreement with the President's speech.


18 posted on 11/09/2005 8:40:12 AM PST by cwb (Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

That threw me too. November 7, 2005 is written at the end of the article. I believe the Norman Podhoretz Reader is a monthly publicaton.


19 posted on 11/09/2005 8:40:18 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Neither Bush or Arnold seem to be fighting back.

Silence lends credence to even the most blatant of lies.

20 posted on 11/09/2005 8:41:34 AM PST by TChris ("The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail" - Goh Chok Tong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Reason for December 2005 date is "Commentary Magazine (Advance release), by Norman Podhoretz".


21 posted on 11/09/2005 8:45:39 AM PST by WmShirerAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WmShirerAdmirer

I don't fault the administration, I applaud them for moving on. Some people are just stuck on stupid. We could spend all day every day rebutting allegations about Florida 2000, for instance. It doesn't do any good. They are propagandists. that's all.


22 posted on 11/09/2005 8:52:27 AM PST by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TChris

I agree. Unfortunately, other than some (past) utterances (always condemned) from Cheney, the G. W. Bush Administration's policy seems to be not to challenge the lies the Dems spout constantly. It use to frustrate me not being able to figure out why (could the intelligence given the President be "so incredibly bad" that even he is afraid to firmly use it to back up the truth of reality?)


23 posted on 11/09/2005 8:55:51 AM PST by WmShirerAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TChris
In darker moments, when I consider the endless attacks of the dems and the supine "response" of the GOP, these lines from Yeats come to mind:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

24 posted on 11/09/2005 8:59:11 AM PST by borkrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

This is a great read and should be filed away and used repeatedly to beat lying DemoRATS and MSM liberals over the head. Learn the details. The facts are on our side. GLTA


25 posted on 11/09/2005 9:01:54 AM PST by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Well, curl my hair.


26 posted on 11/09/2005 9:02:16 AM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

But the distortions and half truths had a lot of help from the Democrats, newspapers and TV "experts". And if you notice Dirty Harry is at it again.


27 posted on 11/09/2005 9:03:27 AM PST by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marblehead17

ping for later


28 posted on 11/09/2005 9:03:28 AM PST by marblehead17 (I love it when a plan comes together.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams; All

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1518385/posts
Iraqi's Thank America (Wow, this is moving!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1518791/posts
KURDS SAY THANK YOU--AWESOME AD ON FOXNEWS!!!!


29 posted on 11/09/2005 9:03:42 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fedora; Quilla

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1518780/posts?page=11#11

Bump Quilla!


30 posted on 11/09/2005 9:04:55 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

Reference bump


31 posted on 11/09/2005 9:08:23 AM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris

"Silence lends credence to even the most blatant of lies."

It does, until such time as it is reposessed and facts are presented in such a way that the claims end.

I am thinking that the right sees the left still holding on to things they KNOW aren't true. I see them letting a little more rope drag out and then SNAP the run will end and the DEMS on the left will be hanging on their actions and claims of the last several years.

This will happen in the next six months when the run up to the 06 elections come into full swing.


32 posted on 11/09/2005 9:08:48 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack
I think the administration did tell some fibs in the run up to war.

Please, don't keep us in the dark. What lie did the Bush administration tell to get us into Iraq.

33 posted on 11/09/2005 9:10:35 AM PST by SunTzuWu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

"Saddam was also funding terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere."




Exactly! Saddam's terrorist-ties, alone, were enough reason to depose this threat. What many liberals ignore is that even "before" 9/11, Al Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi were courting the Arabs and Kurds in N. Iraq in an effort to create AQs new affilate...Ansar Al-Islam. In August 2001, leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq.  Soon thereafter, Ansar al-Islam was created using $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, with even perhaps as much as $35,000 donated directly from the Mukhabarat branch of Iraqi Intelligence Service.

This callaboration was further substantiated during the Afghanistan War, when a document found in an al-Qaeda guest house by the NY Times discussed the creation of an "Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade" which vowed to "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of Jihad, [and] rule every piece of land...with the Islamic Shari'a rule."  

As the Afghanistan War wore on, it wasn't a conicidence that many remnants from the Taliban and AQ were finding themselves within this newly created "affiliate" in N. Iraq. Human Rights Watch even confirmed this when they visited the region and reported that hundreds of foreign fighters from Afghanistan were joining up with Ansar, some from as early as September, 2001 (even before the Afghanistan War). Adding further evidence to this collusion was HRW's own interviews of Ansar al-Islam members in PUK custody, who according to HRW, "described in credible detail training in al-Qa'ida camps in Afghanistan."

Heck, after Zarqawi was injured in the Afghanistan War...and even before the war in Iraq began, he found himself being treated in a Baghdad hospital owned by one of Saddam's son...only to leave with his Egyptian Islamic Jihad followers and later meet up with Ansar. This action completely contradicts the claims of those who said Saddam would never ally himself with these "radical" Islamic groups for fear of being overthrown. If that were true, AZ woud've never left Baghdad alive. In fact, this alliance was quite reasonable...not just because of their shared hatred of America, but because Ansar was doing something for Saddam that Saddam could no longer do for himself; Ansar was attacking the two largest Kurdish factions (PUK and KDP) in N. Iraq...which had long been the biggest threat to Saddam.

Evidence suggests that the very creation of Ansar Al-Islam may have been as a secondary base of operation should America succeed in ousting the Taliban and AQ. And this is important because after the destruction of the terrorists camps in Afghanistan, the sancturaries for these terrorists were running thin. In fact, over the last decade, AQ and their more radical elements had been getting kicked out of their own homelands and host countries.

From Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Lebanon to Jordan...and even terrorists supporters like Syria and Libya, these countries no longer wanted these groups operating from within their borders. With Sudan offering up UBL and even Musharif in Pakistan joining the WOT, there were little places left for AQ to coalesce, especially after 9/11 and the retribution America was now seeking. No one wanted these groups for fear the US would make their state the next target in the WOT. Even Iran supposedly expelled Zarqawi after it was learned he may hiding there....which is when he supposedly made his way to Baghdad.

The simple fact is the war in Afghanistan made Iraq a natural choice for these groups. Saddam already had the propencity for harboring wanted terrorists; he had already offered safe-havens to both Abu Abass and Abu Nidal--two of the world's most wanted terrorists. As Reuter's reported...and was later confirmed, Nidal entered Baghdad just days before Clinton's Dec. 16, 1998 bombing of Iraq. A brief history of Nidal shows that he and his group were responsible for the killings of over 900 people in over 20 countries. Nidal was a leader in the PLO...and after leaving them, formed his own group, the Abu Nidal Organization, which operated at an even more violent level. Nidal was once America's most wanted terrorist and a 1989 State Department report called his organization the most dangerous terrorist group in the world.

Since the 9/11 attack, it was learned that two of the hijackers...Mohamed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, had very close relations with Nidal. Nidal is to be believed to have met with several of these radicals in helping them to draw up plans against American interests...which may explain his untimely death. Further confirmation of these alliances may be found in the fact that after the first 1993 WTC attack, Abdul Rahman Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad. Coincidence? Not if you believe this and what others have said about Ramsey Yousif being a former Iraqi Intelligence officer.

The same was also true for Abu Abass. This convicted Palestinian terrorist...and the mastermind behind the Achille Lauro hijacking, had been calling Baghdad his home since 1994...under Saddam's personal protection. Abbas was the leader of another Palestinian terror organization (PLF) that, after leaving Tunisia, set up shop in Iraq. These alliances with both Abu's were very convenient, as Saddam became one of the largest providers of finanical and material support to Palestinian suicide bombers, offering up to $25,000 to the families of these killers.

In Iraq, Abbas operated with impuinity as he became the intermediary between Saddam and the Palestinians, were both financal and material support flowed directly from Saddam to the blood-filled streets of Israel...with the PLF setting up terrorist training camps right in Iraq. Between the two Abu's...and the material support flowing between them from Saddam...and Hamas and Hezbullah, Iraq was already one of the largest terrorist havens in the world, complete with a terrorist training center at Salman Pak.  

For those who truly seek peace in the ME...especially between Israel and the Palestinians, that peace would've never had a chance with Saddam in power financing these organizations. This reason alone, makes the ouster of Saddam a legitimate cause, especially since Saddam's harboring of any terrorists was prohibited by the Gulf War Cease Fire and following UN resolutions.


34 posted on 11/09/2005 9:11:46 AM PST by cwb (Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KJC1
The following passage from the OSS's psychological profile of Adolf Hitler might have been written for today's Democrat leadership:
His primary [propaganda] rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

35 posted on 11/09/2005 9:24:02 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: “I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.”

It looks like you can download an MP3 recording of Wilson's lecture here.

36 posted on 11/09/2005 9:30:29 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

bump


37 posted on 11/09/2005 9:32:46 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression

Poker faced until the final hand is dealt.

I have faith that "W" (and Rove) have things well in hand. Concidering all the alternatives that could have been handling the situation we are in right now, Im sticking with "W".


38 posted on 11/09/2005 9:35:08 AM PST by Delta 21 (MKC USCG-ret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

This is great... thanks for posting

I'm wondering... is there a rebuttal article out there that is as well documented? (I know that isn't possible... but I'm sure some DUmmie has tried)

It would be interesting to see their version of the "facts".


39 posted on 11/09/2005 9:58:19 AM PST by r-q-tek86 (When I move, I slice like a freaking hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

Thanks for the ping KJ!


40 posted on 11/09/2005 10:00:26 AM PST by commonguymd (My impatience is far more advanced than any known technology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack
"Now under these strong standards, I think the administration did tell some fibs in the run up to war. That's what administrations do."

At the very least, they assemble facts in such a way as to support their position and minimize the objections. And that's what most people do in everyday life. But regarding war and its justifications, I have read in liberal political journals that one reason Clinton intervened in Kosovo was to send a positive message to the Islamic world, but that motive was NEVER mentioned in public. War undertaken as a PR stunt to impress Muslims never would have flown with the public.
41 posted on 11/09/2005 10:03:02 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Moolah

We need Karen Hughes back in the White House.


42 posted on 11/09/2005 10:05:18 AM PST by petercooper (The Republican Party: We Suck Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunTzuWu
"What lie did the Bush administration tell to get us into Iraq."

I don't know if it's a lie, but I think they soft-pedalled the geo-political objectives, i.e., establishing democracy in the Middle East, and overstated the WMD angle. The WMD and UN resolution arguments were the legal rationale for the war, but I think the geopolitical objective was at least as prominent in their thinking, behind the scenes. But see my post #41 for an example of Clinton doing the same kind of thing.
43 posted on 11/09/2005 10:09:50 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CommandoFrank
"not fighting back"

From the MSM glossary of political terms:

Smear Campaign: 1. Any effort by a Republican administration to respond to its critics.
44 posted on 11/09/2005 10:13:22 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

bttt


45 posted on 11/09/2005 10:35:36 AM PST by Rakkasan1 (Peace de Resistance! Viva la Paper towels!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
Have to disagree.

Polls are showing that the propaganda is working. More and more folks (sheeple) are buying the Dems' line of crap. If someone doesn't begin the labor intensive effort of reversing this trend and soon, 2006 will be awful and we might as well write off 2008.

46 posted on 11/09/2005 10:36:53 AM PST by DK Zimmerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

Thanks for posting this MUST READ piece.

The bit pasted below really could be read to suggest (as others have already pointed out here) that Wilson was/in cahoots with French intelligence as part of their effort to discredit efforts by the Bush administration. Someone really needs to get to the bottom of this and soon.

"More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, “among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."


47 posted on 11/09/2005 10:39:53 AM PST by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

"...it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what."

This is the BEST analogy I have read about these allegations! He is right ON!!


48 posted on 11/09/2005 11:19:21 AM PST by t2buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla

Joseph Wilson caught again?
Surprise, surprise.


49 posted on 11/09/2005 11:23:00 AM PST by t2buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Agreed.


50 posted on 11/09/2005 12:02:08 PM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson