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

Skip to comments.

Did Liberals lie about weapons of mass destruction?
Canada Free Press ^ | November 5, 2006 | John Lillpop

Posted on 11/05/2006 7:57:07 AM PST by elhombrelibre

As the war in Iraq becomes increasingly unpopular with Americans, Democrats in collusion with the liberal mainstream media, continue to politicize the war by blatantly distorting the facts.

For example, a popular refrain is that President Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in order to implement a grand strategy fashioned by neo-conservatives well before Bush actually took office. Said strategy was supposedly aimed at using military force to install democratic regimes friendly to the U.S. throughout the Middle East.

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


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushlied
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: elhombrelibre
A very long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the media did a pretty good job at reporting on politicians and government. They reported abuses on both sides, they reported on illegal activities on both sides, they reported stories that politicians of both sides wanted kept hidden.

Although not perfect, it was much better than today. We the peeples need a media that keeps the government and politicians feet to the fire, no matter the political party.

That is no longer the case.

Now we have a media that is overtly and openly supporting one party over another. They report indiscretions of one party (Republicans) and ignore these same indiscretions from the other party (Democrats). If something is illegal, immoral or un-ethical because a Republican did it, the same should be said of a Democrat. To the media, this is no longer true.

The media is no longer the safety valve that we the peeples need to keep politicians and government in check, at least as much as possible. Now, if you are a liberal politician, you can do pretty much any illegal or un-ethical activity as they know the media will close their eyes. Just look at William Jefferson of Lousiana. Found with $90,000 in his freezer, the media just ignores it.

Imagine if this was a Republican.

How about Harry Reid and the numerous land deals he has done over 20 years, using his powerful influence to get zoning changes, to earn millions on devious deals. The media just ignores it.

Imagine if this was a Republican.

If something is illegal, un-ethical, immoral because a Republican did it, then this same illegal, un-ehtical, immoral thing is wrong if a Democrat did it. This is no longer true to the main stream media.

What the media is also saying, although not directly, is that the Democrat party is not ethical, they do engage in illegal activities, they are immoral. They just do not report on these things when it comes to Democrats because it is expected of them. But, heaven forbid a Republican does something like this!! Then they will destroy them in the name of keeping government and politicians honest.

Those in the media have become exactly what they were fighting against in the 60's and 70's: They have become the pawns of one party. They have become part of big government, not a safety valve against big government. They collaborate and work with the Democratic party against the Republican party, rather than keeping all politicians 'honest'. They have become exactly the thing they were fighting against: Part of the big business/big government complex.

They have become an intregal part of the thing they hated most: A tool of big government.

21 posted on 11/05/2006 8:47:30 AM PST by technomage (NEVER underestimate the depths to which liberals will stoop for power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre; Txsleuth; hegemony; Peach; Cindy

hope we see more of this


22 posted on 11/05/2006 8:52:42 AM PST by RDTF (Quote of the year: "Halp us Jon Carry - We R stuck hear n Irak.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: technomage

Your analysis is excellent and right on target.


23 posted on 11/05/2006 9:00:30 AM PST by Unmarked Package
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

this is funny at the end:

John Lillpop is a recovering liberal, "clean and sober" since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are considered reasonable!.


24 posted on 11/05/2006 9:00:32 AM PST by RDTF (Quote of the year: "Halp us Jon Carry - We R stuck hear n Irak.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF; All
"John Lillpop is a recovering liberal, "clean and sober" since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat."

If you haven't read it already, don't miss this great piece from John Lillpop:

Are you mindless enough to be a liberal?

25 posted on 11/05/2006 9:08:54 AM PST by Unmarked Package
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DaiHuy

Perhaps an ongoing research program in Iraq directed toward developing a nuclear bomb is not considered WMD in the Democratic Party and MSM circles?


26 posted on 11/05/2006 9:10:04 AM PST by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

Marking


27 posted on 11/05/2006 9:12:16 AM PST by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

Liberals lie about everything.


28 posted on 11/05/2006 9:19:19 AM PST by Sue Perkick (The true gospel is a call to self-denial. It is not a call to self-fulfillment..John MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

Mia T. had a good article in her threads about how Saddam was just a year away from getting the bomb (re: confiscated Iraqi documents posted on recently removed website containing VERY sensitive nuclear bomb production secrets). He needed just one thing - yellowcake.


29 posted on 11/05/2006 9:28:49 AM PST by Twinkie ("I Love Reading Mia T's Threads!" exclaimed Lulu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kalee

self ping for later reading


30 posted on 11/05/2006 9:35:03 AM PST by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

Liberals lie about everything.

MSM is their mouthpiece...


31 posted on 11/05/2006 9:45:30 AM PST by TASMANIANRED (The Internet is the samizdat of liberty..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaineVoter2002

DUmocrats like Kerry would "never lie to get us into war"....nope, they are too spineless for war. They'd follow the Carter example giving lip service to threats or Clinton's example of paying the terrorists to "leave us alone". In effect, with the DUmocrats in control we bought and paid for 9-11.

They lie to get us to a false peace and paint targets on all our backs. Even after 3,000 people were killed, they still won't defend us. DUmocrats are nothing more than the terrorists, with lawyers instead of IEDs.


32 posted on 11/05/2006 9:47:39 AM PST by RasterMaster (Winning Islamic hearts and minds.........one bullet at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

Thanks for the ping RD. :-)

Not only were these statements made, but as I recall, the anti-war protests running up to the war included repetitive warnings that we would see tens of thousands of body bags because our soldiers would be facing Saddam's bio-chem arsenal. ( I recall the typical figure was 50K dead American soldiers used) To top that off, the Libs and the media were also voicing warnings that our troops did not have enough bio-chem suits, up to date filters on their masks, etc. Remember that?

Why were all these gloom and doom warnings made IF the Libs did not believe there were WMD??? Perhaps the Libs and the MSM have convenient amnesia, but the rest of us don't.


33 posted on 11/05/2006 9:54:10 AM PST by hegemony (Bring back Brilliant Pebbles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Twinkie
I've thought for a long time that much of this discussion was wrong because Saddam's wealth would have allowed him to buy a nuke. So with Libya and North Korea pushing towards the goal of nukes, Saddam didn't have to produce a nuke to get one. Libya as we all know gave up its pursuit, but North Korea would no doubt sold him one for the right price. As long as he wanted one, had the money to buy one, and had a producer willing to sell him one, he was likely to end up with one.
34 posted on 11/05/2006 9:59:47 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Vote GOP on Tuesday or suffer the consequences of knowing you helped the Dems win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

You make a good point. So, he was covered on all bases, with the knowledge to make nuclear weapons and the money to get them.


35 posted on 11/05/2006 11:29:45 AM PST by Twinkie ("I Love Reading Mia T's Threads!" exclaimed Lulu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did Liberals lie about weapons of mass destruction?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, of *course* they lied.


36 posted on 11/05/2006 12:52:24 PM PST by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

bump


37 posted on 11/05/2006 1:02:14 PM PST by jonno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 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