Posted on 11/28/2005 6:51:26 PM PST by ArmyBratproud
On this past Sunday morning's interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press, Democrat Senator Joe Biden stumbled and bumbled an admission towards the end of the interview.
When Russert forced the question about Senators seeing the section of the National Intel Estimate that listed a caviat from the State Department questioning some of the intel, Biden got trapped. As hard as he tried to avoid it, he ended up giving an answer that shows that he and other Dems saw the same pre war intel as Bush.
And he admitted that it was before the vote on the war. Thus showing he and the other Dems are not sincere in their calls and are playing politics with the war.
Actually, I heard on a few talk shows today, that the dems, probably for the reason that this thread points to....have given up their "Bush lied" and "pre-war intelligence was cherry-picked"....
NOW...their line will be that we a losing the war...so we should leave...
If you listen to all of the pundits, MSM, dems on TV and radio in the next few days, weeks...everyone will find some way to make sure his/her message is that we are losing the war in Iraq....
I have a feeling that between Biden's admission, and the smackdown Chris Wallace placed on Carl Levin yesterday...there are forced to chose a different path to lose the war...
This ought ot be front page news, but alas, the MSM never will.
Ok, can we some up with a new slogan for all those jerks who yapped their liberal mantra..."Bush Lied!"
How about...."Bush smiled"..?
or ....?
Doll hair???????
In all fairness, the National Intel Estimate is not the same as pre-war intelligence. To say they saw the former before the vote is not to say they saw an identical version of the latter, which Congress never does.
Did you mean a Massengil????
Vinegar or Natural?
ROFL!!!!!
even better by Biden admission :
"The reason we gave the president the authority was to unite the world in keeping Saddam in a box, not freeing him up from the sanctions, which was the alternative, as you remember at the time. We have selective memories. That was the alternative. It wasn't the status quo, anti, or war, it was whether or not we were going to keep him in a box."
You tounched on an important issue. When the left decided to back Clinton rather than demand he resign, it set the tone for what would follow.
You can't back the likes of Clinton, without selling out your soul. You have to lie not just once, by constantly covering bigger and bigger untruths with still more lies.
It's like your children. They can't tell just one lie. When you know they're lying, they'll just come up with even bigger ones. You can't just stick to the little ones or you'll be found out.
Poor Dems. When they hitched their future to Bill Clinton, they gave up their future.
At least one can hope...
Can you provide links to all? I'm lost...still playing ketchup from the weekend. Thanks.
I missed that one.
That, Sir, is the question of the year!!!!
Hope to hear you on Levin again, real soon. Go on there and wish me a Merry Christmas!
The Harris poll shows the "low job approval rating" of the President is even more dramatic for the Congress, and the Dems are in especially hot water. Only 25% approval rating for congressional Dems, their worst in history (bear in mind that Bush's 34% in the Harris poll is by no means the worst for a recent President).
I'm becoming more and more confident the GOP will make small gains in 2006. The Dems are too hateful to win. Americans don't like unhappy chronic complainers, and it will show at the ballot box.
That will just show them to be losers....who lack the balls to lead us in dangerous times.
This next election will be the liberal MSM vs the intelligence and education of the American Sheeple.
Call me cynical but I believe that the MSM has a very good chance of winning.
Baaaah! We are losing the Iraq War and we must cut and run. Baaaah! The Katrina fiasco was Bush's fault. Baaaah!
2003. On a now defunct MSNBC show...as well as doing the same in a Russert interview....
Stated that it was well known among the press and dc types that Plame worked as an analyst for the CIA.
MEANING RUSSERT LIED TO FITZ WHEN HE SAID HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT HER.
Fat boy is Andrea slutwench's boss! Editor! Station Chief!
How would he not know?????
Ping.
great pick-up! the GOP should be sent this ASAP
----------------------------
Levin on FNS......
WALLACE: Senator Levin, I want to change subjects with you. You have joined a chorus of Democrats who have accused this president and this administration of basically misleading, some say even lying, the country into this war.
And I want to ask you about one specific case, if I can. You've charged repeatedly that the president said before the war that you couldn't distinguish between and . Aren't you distorting what the president actually said?
LEVIN: No, that's exactly what his words were.
WALLACE: That you couldn't distinguish.
LEVIN: That's exactly right.
WALLACE: Well, let's take a look at what the president actually said in September of 2002. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Both of them need to be dealt with. The War on Terror is — you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the War on Terror. I can't distinguish between the two because they're both equally as bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The point, Senator, is he wasn't saying that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were linked. He was specifically asked which one is more dangerous, and he was saying he couldn't distinguish and say one was more dangerous than the other.
LEVIN: Yes, but what he also said in the same sentence was that Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill, and that is not what the intelligence was, which said that Saddam Hussein was, quote, "intensely secular, wary of Islamic revolutionary movements."
That's what the intelligence was, and yet the president tried to link those two, and he did so much so much so that the majority of the American people — the majority of the American people believed, when we went to war, that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11. And on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln immediately following the war, when he said mission accomplished, the president of the United States said we have removed an ally of Al Qaeda. Those were exactly his words. They were not allies.
WALLACE: Senator, he was specifically...
LEVIN: The intelligence community...
WALLACE: Senator, if I can ask a question here, he specifically was asked at one point if there was any evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and he said no, there wasn't. And again, because — you know, we can go into all of these things, but that specific quote there where you say he couldn't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein — he wasn't saying that they were linked at all.
He was saying one was as bad as the other, and when he said in that same answer something about that Saddam Hussein would like to use a terrorist network, he wasn't saying that they would like to use Al Qaeda. So you're making a link there that the president never made.
LEVIN: He made the link so strong that the majority of the American people believed, when we went into Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had actually attacked us on 9/11.
Where do you think the American people got that impression from except from their leaders? And he specifically, again, on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, when that big banner was up there, mission accomplished, he said we have removed an ally of Al Qaeda. How much more link can there be?
WALLACE: So even after we played that sound bite that indicates that he didn't say that you couldn't distinguish, meaning that they were linked, you're still saying that that's what he said, even after you've heard what he actually said.
LEVIN: No, he said exactly what you said. He'd like nothing more — what you said, when you talk about the War on Terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
He then went on to say what you said. But then he went on further to say that Saddam Hussein would like to use a terrorist group against the United States, but that's not what the intelligence was saying.
The specific intelligence was that assisting — assisting — Islamic terrorists against the United States would be an extreme measure for Saddam Hussein, and so the CIA was saying that there was no operational effective link at all, and yet the president, the vice president...
WALLACE: Actually, the CIA...
LEVIN: ... and other people were...
WALLACE: Senator, Senator, again, I think you're distorting the information. The director of the CIA, , testified before Congress that, in fact, there were links and that there had been training.
I don't know, Senator Lugar, you've got a...
LEVIN: No, no, not training.
------------------------
I don't know about the Mitchell incident.
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.