angelus
07-20-2003, 11:15 PM
Sixteen Words
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
With those 16 words, George W. Bush gave ammunition to the Left. Not on purpose, mind you. And certainly, party politics on an issue like Iraq was almost certainly the farthest thing from Bush’s mind when he uttered these words in the State of the Union Address on Jan. 29, 2003. However, reports are coming out now that suggest Saddam was not looking for uranium from Africa.
The Left smells blood in the water, and they know all about that smell. They smelled it when Trent Lott paid tribute to Strom Thurmond, taking his quote to mean he was for slavery instead of looking at the other aspects of Thurmond’s campaign when he ran for President, and thinking that those were what Lott referred to. The Left smells blood of every Republican, no matter what is said or done.
Sadly, that is the case here. We have 16 words, spoken by a President with an R after his name instead of a D. Rest assured, if a D came after the name Bush, the Left would be the first to say “it was an honest mistake, we should move on.” Well, they might say other words, slipping in choice derogatory comments about any Republican they could within that sentence, but you get the idea.
So here we have a double-standard. I am aware and glad that questions are being asked. I am aware, yet not glad, that the Left has already come up with its own answers, and the truth be damned. The Left is screaming that Bush lied, and did so on purpose! Not that he was fed a lie and he repeated it, thinking it to be truth. No, that would be too forgivable by the population of this great nation. So, he must have lied on purpose.
But is it any wonder the Left is doing this? I mean, in the 2nd term of Clinton, the Republicans were the ones screaming “he lied!” The difference here, however, is that Republicans screamed that after Clinton admitted to it. Sure, there were suspicions and questions prior to that, but the answers came out on their own. Republicans did not need to make anything up. The Left is only accusing Bush of what their leader did, for to them, don’t all leaders of political parties lie? Sure they do, but only the Left is forgivable in their eyes.
President Bush, at the worst, believed in faulty intelligence. At the best, the intelligence (which came from Britain, by the way) is true, and it’s just darn near impossible to prove. However, it is also impossible, or darn near so, to prove the opposite, that Saddam sought no uranium from Africa (specifically, Niger).
Did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Almost definitely. No, forget that. Definitely. Saddam definitely had weapons of mass destruction. How do I know this? Because it is Saddam Hussein we were dealing with. Because it is the man who we all have heard called, “The Butcher of Baghdad.”
"For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."
Those are the words of President Bill Clinton, in 1999. He was believed by all who adored (and still adore) him. The media ran with the ball he passed to them, as he had mentioned Bin Laden (remember him?) in almost the same breath. You can visit http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtm l?a=2003/7/16/123325 to see the entire story. It’s worth reading.
The media and the Leftists who were both in and fans of the media had no problem believing Clinton when he said Saddam had WMD. Yet, when Bush says it, they scream “it’s a lie!”
The question comes then, why are they screaming this at the top of their lungs? Surely their air could better be used to talk to supporters for their campaign, or . . . Oh, wait a minute, it all comes clear now.
This IS the Democratic strategy for campaigning. Rather than slinging mud at each other for the Primary Elections, they decided to band together and spew “it’s a lie!” towards Bush. The more they can demonize him, the better off they’ll all be. Then, and only then, can they turn their attention to each other. For you see, if President Bush’s name remains one associated with being trustworthy, the only victory any Democrat will have will be in the primaries. After that, they know that, based on everything today, Bush is unbeatable in 2004. And the last thing any of them wants is an unbeatable Bush.
The media is helping them in their campaign, too. Now, I’m not entirely sure it’s on purpose. I’m sure the media just wants a story for ratings. But if they can be used and manipulated for campaigning purposes, well . . . Let’s just say nothing is too low for most Democrats. Especially Democrats who have been elected officials for any length of time. But that’s another column completely.
I am confident that when the mud is no longer flying, and the dust has settled (all types of dirt are used by the Left), the truth will be made known, and we will know just who the liars are. If Bush relied on faulty intelligence, but believed it to be true, then his name is not ruined. Virtually the entire CIA and FBI are ruined, but that is nothing new to cynics of the government, of which I happen to be on occasion. As it is now, the Left will continue their war against Bush, in the hopes that his name will be ruined enough for someone to take him on.
This is low, to be sure. But is it really a surprise to anyone?
Tony Lemaster
TLemaster@yconservat ives.com
Chief Contributor out of Ohio
Young Conservatives
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
With those 16 words, George W. Bush gave ammunition to the Left. Not on purpose, mind you. And certainly, party politics on an issue like Iraq was almost certainly the farthest thing from Bush’s mind when he uttered these words in the State of the Union Address on Jan. 29, 2003. However, reports are coming out now that suggest Saddam was not looking for uranium from Africa.
The Left smells blood in the water, and they know all about that smell. They smelled it when Trent Lott paid tribute to Strom Thurmond, taking his quote to mean he was for slavery instead of looking at the other aspects of Thurmond’s campaign when he ran for President, and thinking that those were what Lott referred to. The Left smells blood of every Republican, no matter what is said or done.
Sadly, that is the case here. We have 16 words, spoken by a President with an R after his name instead of a D. Rest assured, if a D came after the name Bush, the Left would be the first to say “it was an honest mistake, we should move on.” Well, they might say other words, slipping in choice derogatory comments about any Republican they could within that sentence, but you get the idea.
So here we have a double-standard. I am aware and glad that questions are being asked. I am aware, yet not glad, that the Left has already come up with its own answers, and the truth be damned. The Left is screaming that Bush lied, and did so on purpose! Not that he was fed a lie and he repeated it, thinking it to be truth. No, that would be too forgivable by the population of this great nation. So, he must have lied on purpose.
But is it any wonder the Left is doing this? I mean, in the 2nd term of Clinton, the Republicans were the ones screaming “he lied!” The difference here, however, is that Republicans screamed that after Clinton admitted to it. Sure, there were suspicions and questions prior to that, but the answers came out on their own. Republicans did not need to make anything up. The Left is only accusing Bush of what their leader did, for to them, don’t all leaders of political parties lie? Sure they do, but only the Left is forgivable in their eyes.
President Bush, at the worst, believed in faulty intelligence. At the best, the intelligence (which came from Britain, by the way) is true, and it’s just darn near impossible to prove. However, it is also impossible, or darn near so, to prove the opposite, that Saddam sought no uranium from Africa (specifically, Niger).
Did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Almost definitely. No, forget that. Definitely. Saddam definitely had weapons of mass destruction. How do I know this? Because it is Saddam Hussein we were dealing with. Because it is the man who we all have heard called, “The Butcher of Baghdad.”
"For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."
Those are the words of President Bill Clinton, in 1999. He was believed by all who adored (and still adore) him. The media ran with the ball he passed to them, as he had mentioned Bin Laden (remember him?) in almost the same breath. You can visit http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtm l?a=2003/7/16/123325 to see the entire story. It’s worth reading.
The media and the Leftists who were both in and fans of the media had no problem believing Clinton when he said Saddam had WMD. Yet, when Bush says it, they scream “it’s a lie!”
The question comes then, why are they screaming this at the top of their lungs? Surely their air could better be used to talk to supporters for their campaign, or . . . Oh, wait a minute, it all comes clear now.
This IS the Democratic strategy for campaigning. Rather than slinging mud at each other for the Primary Elections, they decided to band together and spew “it’s a lie!” towards Bush. The more they can demonize him, the better off they’ll all be. Then, and only then, can they turn their attention to each other. For you see, if President Bush’s name remains one associated with being trustworthy, the only victory any Democrat will have will be in the primaries. After that, they know that, based on everything today, Bush is unbeatable in 2004. And the last thing any of them wants is an unbeatable Bush.
The media is helping them in their campaign, too. Now, I’m not entirely sure it’s on purpose. I’m sure the media just wants a story for ratings. But if they can be used and manipulated for campaigning purposes, well . . . Let’s just say nothing is too low for most Democrats. Especially Democrats who have been elected officials for any length of time. But that’s another column completely.
I am confident that when the mud is no longer flying, and the dust has settled (all types of dirt are used by the Left), the truth will be made known, and we will know just who the liars are. If Bush relied on faulty intelligence, but believed it to be true, then his name is not ruined. Virtually the entire CIA and FBI are ruined, but that is nothing new to cynics of the government, of which I happen to be on occasion. As it is now, the Left will continue their war against Bush, in the hopes that his name will be ruined enough for someone to take him on.
This is low, to be sure. But is it really a surprise to anyone?
Tony Lemaster
TLemaster@yconservat ives.com
Chief Contributor out of Ohio
Young Conservatives