Posted on 07/16/2003 5:43:32 AM PDT by SJackson
The Democratic candidates for President -- and many in the media -- are trying to make President Bush seem like a liar. In so doing, they are making an unforgivable mistake. In his State of the Union Address to Congress on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, defending himself before the House of Commons for making a similar representation, said last week that the representation was true and comes from a different source than the one that was recently discredited by the CIA.
For me, it comes down to this: If Bush actually did lie to the American public -- intentionally stating as the truth that which he knew to be false -- then he should be impeached and removed as President. However, if Bush did not lie, and I do not believe that he did, then Americans of all political persuasions should defend our country's reputation for fair play by displaying their indignation at those who bear false witness.
They can do this by rejecting those candidates and political leaders who have perpetuated that charge and by turning to other TV and radio channels when the unfair and venomous attacks against the President are being aired.
I am a proud Democrat who generally supports Democratic candidates for office. I have never voted for anyone other than a Democrat for President.
Although I am a Democrat, I am no ideologue. In some local and state elections, I have proudly crossed party lines for candidates I thought were appreciably better. I believe that the most important issue facing the world is international terrorism, and it is my current intention to vote for George W. Bush for reelection. I do not agree with him on many domestic issues, ranging from privatizing Social Security to tax reductions favoring the wealthy. However, because of his leadership and successes in the war against international terrorism, he is my current choice in 2004.
Whether intelligence reports about Iraq were accurate or not, the President had a right to rely on information from Blair, America's most steadfast ally, and his government. If either Bush or Blair knew the reports were false and either is now engaging in a cover-up, that individual should be removed from office.
I believe Democrats and their media allies will fail to bring Bush down because taking on Saddam Hussein was the right course of action for America. National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, on Face the Nation over the weekend cleaned the clocks of her two media interrogators and critics, CBS' Bob Schieffer and Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau Chief, Doyle McManus with her brilliant responses to their questions. I quote her in part:
Bob Schieffer: The question I have for you this morning, who put it into the speech?
Dr. Rice: Well, let's start at the very beginning, as they say. And the president of the United States -- the notion that the president of the United States took the country to war because he was concerned with one sentence about whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa is purely ludicrous. And this has gotten to that proportion, that people are saying this statement is why the president took the nation to war.
The president took the nation to war to depose a bloody tyrant who had defied the world for 12 years, who was building a weapons of mass destruction program and had weapons of mass destruction, which he had used in the past, who was a threat to American interest in the Middle East and who, now that he is removed, is giving us an opportunity for Middle East that might finally be at peace and that will not create an atmosphere in which you have ideologies of hatred spawning people who slam airplanes into the World Trade Center. So we do have to put this in perspective.
The president's State of the Union said something that was accurate: This is what the British government said in its reporting. The British, I might note, still stand by that statement. It was not based, they say, on a single source, but on other sources."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
He was a very stand-up guy on 9/11. I distinctly remember that ABC radio reporter make a lot of insinuations during the time when the President was moving from place to place that he didn't know where he was going or what he was doing. After she had to get off the air because the planes were taking off, Ed Koch was on the air saying that the reporterette was way off base, that it wasn't her place to know what the President's plans were, etc. I was really impressed that he said on-air that the reporter was way out of line.
The "other sources" is the French Secret Service. The French run the uranium mines in Niger - a former French colony.
The rules of cooperation between the MI6 and the French S.S. are that one must give permission to the other if the other agency passes intell. to a third party, in this case, the CIA.
IMO, the French won't do it 'cuz they are enjoying the spectacle of G.W. having to fight off the media ankle biters.
The "other sources" is the French Secret Service. The French run the uranium mines in Niger - a former French colony.
The rules of cooperation between the MI6 and the French S.S. are that one must give permission to the other if the other agency passes intell. to a third party, in this case, the CIA.
IMO, the French won't do it 'cuz they are enjoying the spectacle of G.W. having to fight off the media ankle biters.
I'm hoping someone other than the admirable Jewish paper ran Koch's piece.
Common sense my a$$ The following paragraph says it all:
Although I am a Democrat, I am no ideologue. In some local and state elections, I have proudly crossed party lines for candidates I thought were appreciably better. I believe that the most important issue facing the world is international terrorism, and it is my current intention to vote for George W. Bush for reelection. I do not agree with him on many domestic issues, ranging from privatizing Social Security to tax reductions favoring the wealthy. However, because of his leadership and successes in the war against international terrorism, he is my current choice in 2004.
IOW: Bush will keep me safe and at the same time implement all the leftist and globalist policies that us democrats couldn't do ourselves.
GO! W! GO!
Have you not heard?
The Supreme Court has made homosexuality equal to the nuclear family (man > woman > children).
Dubya hasn't said a word. He is a coward on this on.
Quote me.
That is a flat out lie.
He said bluntly that marriage is a man and a woman.
Period.
Thanks, but no.
The Supreme Court made that decision... not the President of the United States.
Dubya has been on the record that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
In fact, during the debates, when asked that question... he emphatically said it.
Dubya is no coward on this issue.
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.