Does the Truth matter?

[AndeTL]

I can remember not too long ago when it was all the rage in America for liberals to tout one of their favorite bumper sticker slogans, "Bush lied; people died." These statements were passionately fueled by the fires of the anti-Bush movement and starkly pointed towards the soon to be "unpopular" war in Iraq. But was it solely George W. Bush who laid claim to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And did he lie about them? Or were we mislead by the media?

There are several reports by prominent sources and speculation by others indicating that it was not a matter of “if” but “where” these weapons were transferred. However, it is not my intent to vindicate those making the claims but rather to bring to attention our need as “We the people” to honestly evaluate each and every political figure not based on race or political party, but based on moral integrity and factual evidence. Often, we get so wrapped up in what we want to be true that we miss the actual truth.

To answer the first question, “Was it solely George W. Bush who laid claim to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?” here are a few quotes made by members of the opposing party of whom were fervent critics of President Bush.

John Kerry: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? ... According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..." (Oct. 9, 2002) [www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm, www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html]

Wesley Clark: "He [Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely." (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003). On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." (on CNN, April 2, 2003) [www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html, www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html, www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html]

Nanci Pelosi: When asked by Joe Feuerherd of the National Catholic Reporter about her statement, “Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination … America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed,” and whether or not she supported the “Bush Doctrine” of preemption, Pelosi responded, “Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has been a pillar of our national policy for a long time. It is essential that we do that. We have looked the other way too many times when countries have been developing or proliferating technology or weapons of mass destruction…we’ve looked the other way for commercial reasons, for political reasons, for whatever reasons, but we’ve looked the other way. So I fully commend the president for placing a value, a high priority, on stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” (National Catholic Reporter, January 22, 2003) [http://www.natcath.com/mainpage/spec...ts/Pelosi.htm]

Yes, I know, the knee jerk response from many of you will be that they were misled. Okay, suppose they were. However, this supposition would lead to the question, “By whom were they misled?” which would ultimately lead back to the prior administration of President Bill Clinton who had the following to say on “Larry King Live” in July of 2003:

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."

The Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso recalled speaking with Clinton later that year saying that, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

Of course, we may never fully know what else Clinton knew on this issue since many top secret documents were stolen and shredded by Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Burger prior to the 911 Investigation Commission’s investigation.
Fast forward several years and we find ourselves sitting at yet another important threshold in history with the decision of universal health care. In spite of the massive public disapproval of the current proposal, liberals are calling for implementation of the “nuclear option” (also known as the 50 plus 1 vote). Not too long ago, conservatives contemplated using the same option and were met with the following remarks by those now supporting the idea.

Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”
Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority.

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: “If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient -- well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”

Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” :think:

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: “This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X3lQ...=youtube_gdata

So I leave you with these final questions. Does the truth matter? Or is it subject to the desired outcome of the tyrannical few?
Will America stand or fall? I believe this question hinges solely upon our ability to isolate the facts from what we desire the outcome to be. Politicians will continue to speak deceitfully from both sides of the isle, but their destiny lies in the hands of the American people for the time being. We must not remain silent, but remember what really matters when it comes to speaking up.

-AndeTL

[aka JenT]

Originally Posted by AndeTL

I can remember not too long ago when it was all the rage in America for liberals to tout one of their favorite bumper sticker slogans, "Bush lied; people died." These statements were passionately fueled by the fires of the anti-Bush movement and starkly pointed towards the soon to be "unpopular" war in Iraq. But was it solely George W. Bush who laid claim to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And did he lie about them? Or were we mislead by the media?

There are several reports by prominent sources and speculation by others indicating that it was not a matter of “if” but “where” these weapons were transferred. However, it is not my intent to vindicate those making the claims but rather to bring to attention our need as “We the people” to honestly evaluate each and every political figure not based on race or political party, but based on moral integrity and factual evidence. Often, we get so wrapped up in what we want to be true that we miss the actual truth.

To answer the first question, “Was it solely George W. Bush who laid claim to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?” here are a few quotes made by members of the opposing party of whom were fervent critics of President Bush.



Yes, I know, the knee jerk response from many of you will be that they were misled. Okay, suppose they were. However, this supposition would lead to the question, “By whom were they misled?” which would ultimately lead back to the prior administration of President Bill Clinton who had the following to say on “Larry King Live” in July of 2003:

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."

The Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso recalled speaking with Clinton later that year saying that, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

Of course, we may never fully know what else Clinton knew on this issue since many top secret documents were stolen and shredded by Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Burger prior to the 911 Investigation Commission’s investigation.
Fast forward several years and we find ourselves sitting at yet another important threshold in history with the decision of universal health care. In spite of the massive public disapproval of the current proposal, liberals are calling for implementation of the “nuclear option” (also known as the 50 plus 1 vote). Not too long ago, conservatives contemplated using the same option and were met with the following remarks by those now supporting the idea.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X3lQ...=youtube_gdata

So I leave you with these final questions. Does the truth matter? Or is it subject to the desired outcome of the tyrannical few?
Will America stand or fall? I believe this question hinges solely upon our ability to isolate the facts from what we desire the outcome to be. Politicians will continue to speak deceitfully from both sides of the isle, but their destiny lies in the hands of the American people for the time being. We must not remain silent, but remember what really matters when it comes to speaking up.

-AndeTL

Did you research and compose all that yourself?

That really needs to be submitted to various sites. Excellent work! Would like permission to post on the front page here and at bc

Want to post your image with it?

Have you noticed it seems so hard for even the staunchest conservatives to swim against media-fortified errant public opinion? Fear of being laughed at is costing this nation far too much. Our mein-kampf media did such a blitz that I see them as no less than traitors.

I'm looking at getting "Courage and Consequence" by Karl Rove for my dad's birthday. I bet there's a lot of this kind of info in it. President Bush got SUCH a bum wrap but I think it's because he was more concerned about answering to the Lord than the people. I know he did a lot that we're upset about, but I bet we don't know the pressures and choices between two evils that were on his plate.

It can't be simple to be president. And I can't believe Obama's approval ratings are in the 40s.

[AndeTL]

see pm

Originally Posted by AndeTL

see pm

thanks! with your permission I'd like to post it, it's going to take some time though before I can

Whatever the truth of the situation, and I'm not %100 convinced of this story, the
invasion of Iraq by the US has caused far more problems than it may have solved.
It was a disastrous decision,to say the least.
This futile and bloody conflict has caused the US government to pour an unconscionable amount of money down the drain , and this money could have been used to far better effect on domestic problems . The current economic woes of the US and the wars over what to fund might not have been nearly as severe if Bush had not ordered the Iraqi invasion.
Bush has painted the US into a corner. Obama cannot be blamed entirely for our current financial mess. The damage had been done before he was even elected.

[aka JenT]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Whatever the truth of the situation, and I'm not %100 convinced of this story, the
invasion of Iraq by the US has caused far more problems than it may have solved.
It was a disastrous decision,to say the least.
This futile and bloody conflict has caused the US government to pour an unconscionable amount of money down the drain , and this money could have been used to far better effect on domestic problems . The current economic woes of the US and the wars over what to fund might not have been nearly as severe if Bush had not ordered the Iraqi invasion.
Bush has painted the US into a corner. Obama cannot be blamed entirely for our current financial mess. The damage had been done before he was even elected.

I completely disagree.

I think we would have been hit HARD many times over if President Bush just sat back and let Jihadis continue to attack. Do you REALLY think if he had sat on his hands, the Jihadists would have been satisfied with 9/11?

really?

(I think they were a little bit busy back in Iraq and Afghanistan)

IanKennedy wrote:
Not only is this scientifically unforgivable its also politically unforgivable. If it turns out that theyve not been telling the truth even to a small degree it could destroy the political will to do anything about it. After all how can we now trust anything theyve ever said.