Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Dick Cheney’

With Barack Obama’s grossly negligent handling of the wind down of the successful Iraq War, many Liberal commentators and interviewers have taken to blasting Dick Cheney and George W Bush for “getting it wrong” on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.

So I thought it would be helpful to parse Bush’s and Cheney’s words on Saddam’s WMD to find out just how wrong they were.

Here are several statements by the two men, used as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq. Did they get it wrong?

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

George Bush / Dick Cheney

WAIT, I’VE MADE A MISTAKE….

These quotes are NOT from Bush and Cheney…..

These are the Democrats who said them:

President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Clinton Administration, Feb 18, 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

And there is more from Democrats. Much more.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.

And you know there are many more comments like these from Liberal Democrats, but I don’t have time to list them all.

How convenient that the Liberal media would have us believe that in 1998, Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t make the exact same case against Saddam Hussein to justify military action against Iraq. And they were backed up by dozens of fellow Democrats, who were quite certain that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he was “making a mockery of the UN weapons inspectors”.

George Bush did not lie about WMD any more than Clinton and a legion of Democrats lied about WMD.

As for Barack Hussein Obama?

He is the real liar, about Benghazi, about health care, about the IRS, about Fast & Furious gun-running to Mexican drug cartels, and about nearly every major aspect of his administration’s destructive impact on American life.

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

American freedom will not be secured by empty threats, meaningless red lines, leading from behind, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies, or apologizing for our great nation—all hallmarks to date of the Obama doctrine. President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.

Dick Cheney, June 17, 2014

Read Full Post »

While Bill Clinton fiddled and faddled and spent the Reagan peace dividend on self-aggrandizement, Osama Bin Laden famously attacked American interests around the world with impunity and from the lawless safe-haven of Afghanistan. George Bush, a mostly feckless President before 9/11, became a ruthless warrior and brought Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden to justice and kept the United States safe from further terrorist attacks.

And after all this, we are now stuck in an age of security measures that cause delays, frustration, and more recently the massive violation of our personal privacy through use of the total-body scanner device. The government claims that the scanners do not capture detailed images of our naked bodies, but this reassurance is just another brick in the wall of the government’s monumental charade. What makes this charade completely Orwellian is that all of this extra security has been proven to be ineffective.

Exhibit A

Exhibit A in the ineffectiveness of the naked devices is the recent breach in Afghanistan:

In an episode with worrisome significance for the security industry, two Taliban insurgents with pistols hidden in their shoes evaded an American-operated full-body scanner and nearly succeeded in assassinating the governor of Kandahar on Saturday.

The full-body scanners, some versions of which show an image of a person’s naked body, have been installed in dozens of airports worldwide and in the United States, fueling a debate pitting privacy concerns against security efforts. <source>

Pistols hidden in their shoes succeeded in fooling the naked scanner, which begs the question: why must we all be subjected to such a gross violation of our physical selves if actual firearms can make it through?

Exhibit B

Exhibit B comes from our own “Department of Homeland Security” (an agency that needs quotation marks because in the age of Obama it exists for the purpose of turning a blind eye to 11 – 20 million illegal immigrants as part of Obama’s back-door amnesty):

Federal investigators “identified vulnerabilities in the screening process” at domestic airports using so-called “full body scanners,” according to a classified internal Department of Homeland Security report.

…an unclassified version of the Inspector General report, unearthed Friday by the Electronic Information Privacy Center may give credence to a recent YouTube video allegedly showing a 27-year-old Florida man sneaking a metallic object through two different Transportation Security Administration body scanners at American airports.

In a three part series last year, Wired reported that, indeed, there were suspected security flaws with them. Even the Government Accountability Office — Congress’ investigative arm — said the devices might be ineffective. And the Journal of Transportation Security suggested terrorists might fool the Rapiscan machines by taping explosive devices to their stomachs. <source>

It is outrageous that we citizens are all herded like cattle through these machines while terrorists who seek to defeat them can easily do so. The level of privacy violation is extreme, and yet we all line up and go through the machines, no doubt because we have never been shown an image of how much of ourselves is revealed. Where is Wikileaks on this issue? When will scans be leaked to the public so that we can rise up and demand an end to this orgy of images that do nothing to protect us?

Ivy League Naked Shots of Freshmen for “Posture Evaluation”

It reminds me of the Ivy league photo scandals of the 1950s and 1960s in which incoming Freshmen were required to stand naked in front of a camera so that each person’s body posture could be recorded for “science”.

One fall afternoon in the mid-60’s, shortly after I arrived in New Haven to begin my freshman year at Yale, I was summoned to that sooty Gothic shrine to muscular virtue known as Payne Whitney Gym. I reported to a windowless room on an upper floor, where men dressed in crisp white garments instructed me to remove all of my clothes. And then — and this is the part I still have trouble believing — they attached metal pins to my spine. There was no actual piercing of skin, only of dignity, as four-inch metal pins were affixed with adhesive to my vertebrae at regular intervals from my neck down. I was positioned against a wall; a floodlight illuminated my pin-spiked profile and a camera captured it.

It didn’t occur to me to object: I’d been told that this “posture photo” was a routine feature of freshman orientation week. Those whose pins described a too violent or erratic postural curve were required to attend remedial posture classes.

The procedure did seem strange. But I soon learned that it was a long-established custom at most Ivy League and Seven Sisters schools. George Bush, George Pataki, Brandon Tartikoff and Bob Woodward were required to do it at Yale. At Vassar, Meryl Streep; at Mount Holyoke, Wendy Wasserstein; at Wellesley, Hillary Rodham and Diane Sawyer. All of them — whole generations of the cultural elite — were asked to pose. But however much the colleges tried to make this bizarre procedure seem routine, its undeniable strangeness engendered a scurrilous strain of folklore. <source>

The parallel is striking: otherwise well-adjusted members of society allow their naked bodies to be photographed for others to scrutinize. Again, it feels ominously as though we are functioning as all-too-willing sheep in an Orwellian masquerade.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the country where Bin Laden had set up shop in the 1990s, the Taliban continues its resurgence and the poppy fields continue to prosper and fuel the global menace known as heroine addiction, distribution, profit, and violence.

So next time you submit to the naked scanner on your way to your flight, just remember that it does nothing to protect you and that Barack Obama’s anti-American agenda will inevitably result in a resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the simultaneous ongoing and accelerating infiltration of drugs and terrorists into the United States through our southern border.

Mr. Obama’s family and friends, including Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, and of course Michelle, must be so proud.

Read Full Post »

Maureen Dowd just wrote that Obama’s problems on racial issues stems from an over-cautious, white cadre of advisors who

In their rush to counteract attempts to paint Obama as a radical/Muslim/socialist, Obama staffers can behave in insensitive ways themselves.

The phrase “attempts to paint Obama as a radical/Muslim/socialist” once again showcases the Liberal blind spot to the possibility that a Manchurian like Obama could actually be a radical, or a socialist, or, if not Muslim, then sympathetic to and in alignment with Islam. People like Dowd don’t hesitate to brand Dick Cheney in extreme terms, but when presented with the Obamagogue’s relentless assault on capitalism, on England, on Israel, and on our heritage, they just can’t accept the reality of it.

Read Full Post »