Friday, June 18, 2004

Who's lying?

The left leaning press seems to be willing to lie through ommission to support those claiming Bush is the liar. From USA Today...

Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003--the day the war in Iraq began--Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who ''planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''

However that's not the full quote there is it? Wonder what he really said? Here you go... (click HERE for the full letter)

Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The law authorizes force against all terrorist including those involved with 9/11 not only those involved. Only by lying can the left and Democratic leadership being to create a fictional world where Bush claimed Saddam was in on 9/11.
The full letter doesn't support your case very well. For starters, the way the key sentence is phrased makes it pretty apparent that Bush is in fact implicating Iraq in 9/11. It also makes reference to the "ongoing threat" posed by Iraq, which, WMD's or no, never in fact existed. Writing $10k checks to Hamas=threat to the United States? That's pretty weak. So he spices things up a bit by talking about U.N. resolutions (as if or his cabinet could care less about what the U.N. thinks) and 9/11. And by the way, adding emphasis (uncredited) wherever you like is at least as contextually dishonest as what you're criticizing. Should we stick around Iraq until democratic infrasructure is in place? Certainly. Were there good neocon arguments for taking decisive action in the region? Perhaps. Were any of these arguments the ones Bush used to sell the public? Not on your life. The press will rip on anyone for being proven incorrect in hindsight, like, say, baseball owners. This fact does not by nature make them leftist any more than pointing out that Marge Schott is a nazi makes one a communist or that observing that George Steinbrenner is a tyrranical bastard makes one an anti-semite. I think you're gunning at shadows on this one.
It’s not that salty. In no particular order…

I will henceforth be certain to qualify when and where I had emphisis.

WMD’s? Now you know this is a non issue. Everyone, the Russians, French, Germans, Hans Blix, Clinton, Clarke, the UN, British, everyone thought he had them they where just arguing how long to keep looking for a smoking gun. Hans Blix even admits that in his book. So far events have proved everyone wrong on WMD’s but being wrong is not the same as being a liar. Also they have found lots of little bit and pieces that seem to point to his program being quickly dismantled and spread out all over everywhere, ie the rocket engines that where well beyond UN specs found in a pile of stuff sent to a scrap yard in Jordan. So there’s no smoking gun but was it reasonable to expect them to be all lined up in a suburb of Bahgdad behind a fence labeled, "UN Violations: Lot A".

Writing checks to Hamas is only one… one, aspect in which Saddam supported terrorism. This is not a war on Al Qaeda, it is a war on Terrorism. And you know it’s a war against Jihadist, radical, crush the world for Allah Islam. Hamas is just as much a part of that as Al Qaeda and if all you did was write checks to them then that’s enough for me. Do you think someone needs to be a charter member of Al Qaeda before they are involved with terrorism?

I am surprised you think that sentence implies a connection. Try this… Acting pursuant to 2874 East Ave law HF-023 is consistent with Chad Dinger and other Saab friends continuing to take the necessary actions to repair worn and or damaged parts on Heidi, including those parts worn or damaged in the collision that occurred on March 15, 2003. Now, how in the hell do you get from that the implication that all parts worn or damaged on Heidi are a result of the collision? I see that under rule X I am allowed to take action Y and that action Y also covers things related to event Z. I do not see that under rule X I am allowed to take action Y and that action Y is only related to event Z. I am normally willing to defer to you on matters of the English language but this time I have to balk. The worst I think you can say is mentioning event Z is redundant, but that’s about it.
Oh… and this. Are you saying that because W was willing to go after Saddam without UN approval he therefore should not have gone to the UN in the first place? Are you saying that if W had never gone to the UN at all you would today be sitting there telling people upset with him not even trying to get the UN on board that they should shut-up because since he was willing to do it without them he was right to not even try? Are you saying that you yourself wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder that W went after Saddam without so much as a phone call to Kofi?
You're right that many (probably myself included) would be up in arms if there had been no token effort to woo the U.N. But it's certainly disengenuous to cite moldy resolutions as justification for an action that the present General Assembly and Security Council do not wholly support. If you say "Two Hearted?" and I reply "nah, I'm sick of Two Hearted," that does not in fact give you the right to foist Two Hearted upon me because I once thought it a good idea. When Iraq was picking fights with the whole region, the pragmatic and self-serving elements of the U.N. thought that forceable disarmament and possibly regime change were a good idea. They stopped when Saddam quieted down and sulked over the sanctions and no-fly zones. Now, I don't buy into the "unilateral" nonsense that the left and leftish press like to spew, as we both know that there are many nations involved in the Iraq action, both militarily and in a support capacity. But a more sophisticated negotiator (Gore? McCain? Bradley?) could probably have bought off France and certainly could have placated Germany. While functionally this means nothing, it certainly would have given the leftist rabble less fodder, and aided in a re-election effort.

On a different note, my sentence about the WMD's was poorly arranged. I meant that the threat from Iraq never existed, not the weapons. I'm really not too pissed about them not turning up neatly labeled in a shopping mall. I'm credulous about them all being shipped Mayflower into Syria overnight (we do have satelites, don't we?) but I don't discount the possibility that something of that nature occured.

Now, about that sentence: if there were no implied connection, then why mention 9/11 at all? It would be akin to saying: pursuant to laws Duke and Blue, we will begin neutering any and all male cats, including the one 7,000 miles away that pissed on my carpet. You've already stated the point with the main clause; picking a specific example of a cat to be neutered is either: a) pointless, or b) implying specificity. The former interpretation points to poor grammatical structure. While the President is certainly no Cicero, he does have aides that read over everything he writes, so I'm leery of that explanation. The latter option implies a deliberate connection, and it appears to me that that is what was intended.
Gutten TAG!
Thank you for a wonderful website.
I am a regular of your site. Here a lot of helpful information.
Sponsored links:
http://onlinecasinos-online.blogspot.com/ online casinos
http://onlinecasinos-here.blogspot.com/ onlinecasinos
http://craps-onl.blogspot.com/ craps
http://gambling-online-s.blogspot.com/ gambling online
http://ws-poker.blogspot.com/ world series of poker
good day!
Many interesting information.
I am a regular of your site. Tomorrow I shall return again.

Another links here:

[url=http://xenical.butkel1.org/]xenical[/url] http://xenical.butkel1.org/ xenical
[url=http://hydrocodone.butkel1.org/]hydrocodone[/url] http://hydrocodone.butkel1.org/ hydrocodone
[url=http://celexa.butkel1.org/]celexa[/url] http://celexa.butkel1.org/ celexa
[url=http://ephedra.butkel1.org/]ephedra[/url] http://ephedra.butkel1.org/ ephedra
[url=http://lorcet.butkel1.org/]lorcet[/url] http://lorcet.butkel1.org/ lorcet
[url=http://meridia.butkel1.org/]meridia[/url] http://meridia.butkel1.org/ meridia
[url=http://tramadol.butkel1.org/]tramadol[/url] http://tramadol.butkel1.org/ tramadol
[url=http://carisoprodol.butkel1.org/]carisoprodol[/url] http://carisoprodol.butkel1.org/ carisoprodol
[url=http://cialis.butkel1.org/]cialis[/url] http://cialis.butkel1.org/ cialis
[url=http://paxil.butkel1.org/]paxil[/url] http://paxil.butkel1.org/ paxil
[url=http://clonazepam.butkel1.org]clonazepam [/url] http://clonazepam.butkel1.org clonazepam
[url=http://lortab.butkel1.org]lortab[/url] http://lortab.butkel1.org lortab
[url=http://lexapro.butkel1.org]lexapro[/url] http://lexapro.butkel1.org lexapro
[url=http://codeine.butkel1.org]codeine[/url] http://codeine.butkel1.org codeine
[url=http://viagra.butkel1.org]viagra[/url] http://viagra.butkel1.org viagra
[url=http://vicodin.butkel1.org]vicodin[/url] http://vicodin.butkel1.org vicodin
[url=http://percocet.butkel1.org]percocet[/url] http://percocet.butkel1.org percocet
[url=http://ativan.butkel1.org]ativan[/url] http://ativan.butkel1.org ativan
[url=http://oxycontin.butkel1.org]oxycontin[/url] http://oxycontin.butkel1.org oxycontin
[url=http://rivotril.butkel1.org]rivotril[/url] http://rivotril.butkel1.org rivotril


Classifieds for our community. Buy, sell, trade, date, events... post anything. Adquity Classifieds.

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?