3 posts tagged “leftists lie”
["In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years" Dole assures McClellan that he won't read the book — "because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high-profile job." "That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"
He signs the email simply: "BOB DOLE"] – From ST BLOGUSTINE via Politico.
Scott McClellan has created quite the stir by writing a book insinuating purposely manipulated information to get the public and Democrats on board to invade Iraq.
Now the House Judiciary Committee is giving McClellan free publicity for his book “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” The Committee listened to McClellan testimony concerning the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA spy.
Like McClellan can shed any light after Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was only able to convict one person (Scooter Libby). Libby’s conviction was not even for outing Plame. Libby was hunted down by Fitzgerald because Libby’s memory was conflicted enough that he was convicted of perjury.
The guy that did out Plame was an anti-Bush RINO Richard Armitage in which Fitzgerald KNEW was the culprit. The image is that prosecution did not follow through for Armitage because of his anti-Bush stance. Fitzgerald had to convict somebody to justify the waste of taxpayer money so he entrapped Libby with testimony based on memory. Shucks partner, I sometimes forget why I walked into the kitchen in five minute period of time and Libby was convicted because his memory events did not line up from years in the past. All well, that is another story.
Now a Democratic Party controlled Judiciary Committee is wasting taxpayer money by show casing McClellan about Plame. The reality is the Democrats are show casing McClellan to drive more nails of hate into Bush and the Republican Party.
Now here’s the thing: the MSM is hopping on McClellan’s book and anti-Bush message like flies on bull dung. No one is listening to the facts that demonstrate the lack of credibility of McClellan’s book. For God’s sake he was a Press Secretary that was told what to say to the Press, not a policy maker or political strategists that viewed and disseminated National Intelligence.
Check this out:
The former White House press secretary suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his credibility on the Plame matter and his reasons for going to war in Iraq if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle."
"This is a very secretive White House ... There's some things that they would prefer not to be talked about," McClellan said.
…
McClellan accused Bush of a lack of candor in other areas, including what he called the "packaging" of intelligence to justify the Iraq war and the president's handling of allegations that many years ago he had used cocaine. (Yahoo News)
Now here are some thoughts on McClellan from a more Conservative perspective (which as you can guess, I view as closer to the truth):
If Scott McClellan’s allegations about President Bush sound as if he copied them from the editorial page of any liberal newspaper, there is a reason for it: As White House press secretary, McClellan was not privy to sensitive policy decisions and therefore has no specifics to back up his charges.
…
McClellan cites no details, and for good reason. McClellan was not invited to attend classified meetings where the decisions about going to war were discussed.
“The role of the press secretary does not have him in the most sensitive military and intelligence briefings that the president conducts with his national security advisor and secretary of defense,” Fran Townsend, the former White House counterterrorism chief who was at many of those crucial meetings, tells me. “So the facts and policy discussions he sees are limited.”
Instead of supplying specifics, McClellan makes sweeping allegations that contradict the underlying facts and therefore lack credibility.
…
McClellan claims Bush's real reason for invading Iraq was "an ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom." In making that claim, McClellan seems to suggest that Bush himself did not consider Iraq a threat. McClellan thus ignores the fact that the CIA and every other intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq had WMD and that former President Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton all said they considered Iraq a threat. But then on NBC's "Today Show," McClellan said he thinks Bush did believe Iraq was a "grave danger." So what is all the fuss about? That WMD were never found? That is not exactly news.
Townsend calls the allegations “self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional.” She says, “If Scott had concerns, he had an obligation to voice them at the time or even resign. He did neither. Even when he left no one had the slightest idea of any of these allegations. I knew him as a good White House colleague, and I find this shocking and disappointing.”
The bottom line is that, as Saddam told Piro, he was planning to resume his WMD program — including developing a nuclear weapon — within a year. That was when Saddam thought United Nations sanctions would be lifted, in part because he was paying off UN officials.
“His goal was to have the sanctions lifted,” Piro says in an account the media have largely ignored. “And they likely would have been lifted if it were not for 9/11. Even the United Nations changed after 9/11. So Saddam was on the right track. His plan to have sanctions lifted was working. But he told me he recognized that he miscalculated the long-term effects of 9/11. And he miscalculated President Bush.” (Ronald Kessler)
God only knows why McClellan chose to smash the President behind his back in a book. If McClellan felt the information given was smoke and mirrors he should have the guts to tell the President his thoughts, argued his case and if Bush was truly heinous then quit his job. According to several witnesses in the Administration and McClellan’s immediate superiors, McClellan did not once even act squeamish about his role as the Press intermediary between the White House and the Press. That makes McClellan a two faced coward.
There is an even handed editorial out from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal written today about McClellan. That editorial takes a middle ground saying it is good to see free speech work in America and also questions McClellan’s credibility.
I operate many blogs, some of a social nature and a few are just blogs for anyone to show up. My pet blog is SlantRight.com. My son has purchased the rights to the name and operates it on his servers for me for free. It is the Dad discount.
I rarely spread comments from one blog to the others; however I received a comment from “More Democrat ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy” on my Mindsay blog which is more of a social blog. The comment was made by a person that goes by the moniker of Moralnihilist. Moralnihilist said little but it irked me a lot. So I am sharing my distinct charm around in my reply.
Moralnihilist said:
The purpose of the Iraq war was to line the pockets of George W Bush's oil buddies, nothing more. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was no threat. ...
We've already spent 10 times what we spent in Vietnam, and the cost in lives has been tragic.
I guess Ann Coulter is correct: Liberals Lie!
The Dems and Bush reacted to the same Intelligence of the time. Even President Clinton understood that Saddam Hussein was dangerous but did not have the cajones to do what GW did. Clinton's awareness of Iraq and transnational terrorists may never be completely known because the treasonous Dem used his security clearance to destroy classified material related to Clinton.
Whether or not the validity of WMD in Iraq is actual or mystified is irrelevant. The fact remains Hussein has shown in the past no hesitation to attack his neighbors for hegemonic gain and profit (with Iran the US aided him and with Kuwait we were against him). This is not to mention the brutality that Hussein and his psycho-sons inflicted on Iraqi citizens. Even now in 2008 mass graves of slaughtered men, women and children are haphazardly stumbled upon.
The only reason the U.S. does not send a military force to remove the butchering Arab Muslims from Sudan is the Islamic world would wrongly perceive it as an attack on Islam. Western nations even with the potential of their combined power to remove the current Sudanese government fear the Islamic reaction (The West is dominated by Left Wing cowering dhimmis). The genocide against Black Muslims in Darfur and Black Christians in Southern Sudan is enough reason to take out the regime. It is a demonstration of dhimmification of the U.N. and the protection of Communist Chinese that such action is not even close to being a consideration.
As far as oil goes: duh!! Are you an American or a dimwitted American? Islamists (though a growing minority in the Middle East) run the perceptions of America. If Islamists control oil in Iraq as well as oil in Iran and the Saudi Monarchy is a sneeze away from joining the Shah of Iran's fate. How do you think the National Interests of America would be affected if Islamists controlled the life blood of the World's economy? Can you say convert or no oil? That would mess up the Dems utopian delusional vision on how we should respect what happens in another nation's internal affairs.
As for the Iraq and Vietnam comparisons, the only thing valid that you have asserted is the unpopularity (forged into the minds by a Leftist MSM ignoring other facts and the Dems exploiting the non-reported facts) of the Iraq War in America.
So in essence Moralnilhilist, you are full of manure. I leave it to you decide what kind.
This repudiation of a New York Times story was emailed to my Slantright.com email address. I maintain many Blogs to be involved in a forum dialogue; however SlantRight.com is the flagship.
MoveAmericaForward takes the NYT to tasks demonstrating how the Leftist rag sends employees out to create a story with skewed pre-formulated data as their substantiation. MoveAmericaForward shows how this was NYT bull.
JRH 1/14/08
*****************
New York Times 'Killer Vet' Story Exposed as Erroneous by Pro-Troop Group
Mary Pearson
January 14, 2008 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MoveAmericaForward.org E-mail List
SACRAMENTO- Move America Forward (website: http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org/), the nation's largest grassroots pro-troop organization, today announced that after vetting the numbers cited by The New York Times in their Sunday, January 13, 2008 story, "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles," it became clear that the Times had engaged in demonstrably erroneous and false reporting.
It took seven New York Times researchers to find 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in the United States, or were charged with one, upon returning home to this country.
The Times made the false conclusion that: "Taken together, they paint the patchwork of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak."
The Times documentation of 121 potential killings out of more than 1.5 million veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), divided by 6 years of conflict results in a murder rate of just 1.34 incidents per 100,000 veterans per year.
That murder rate is far lower than the murder rate for the general population, demonstrating that the experiences of military service - including having served in Iraq and Afghanistan - actually made it less likely for returning veterans to commit murder once they returned home, than the general population.
Given a census-estimated population of the United States of 300,000,000 persons in this country as of October 2006, and FBI-compiled statistics of 17,399 homicide offenders for 2006, the murder rate of the general population was 5.80 offenders per 100,000 on average - and a rate of approximately 7.67 per 100,000 for men.
Since all but one of the veterans cited by the Times who committed a killing in the U.S. was male, the comparable rate is approximately 7.67 incidents of murder per 100,000 people among the general male population, compared to just 1.34 incidents per 100,000 returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans (of both genders).
"It's obvious that the New York Times has an agenda of undermining the missions of our troops in the War on Terror, so much so that they are willing to resort to demonstrably false statistics to support their anti-troop bias," said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.
"The slander of our troops and veterans by the New York Times is unfortunately all too familiar. We heard this kind of nonsense about our returning veterans from Vietnam. It's the same insult, different war.
"Perhaps the shameful staff of The New York Times has run out of war-time secrets to publish for America's enemies to read, because now they've resorted to an all-out smear campaign of America's finest men and women, who have served this country bravely and with distinction," Morgan said.
In place of hard data to support their premise, The New York Times was instead forced to devote almost the entire portion of 6,321 word hit-piece to anecdotes of wrongdoing by individual veterans.
The New York Times even went so far as to trace back the phenomenon of murderous veterans to Greek mythology to back up their assertions of their report.
"The real mythology is the reporting by The New York Times," Move America Forward's Melanie Morgan concluded.
****
Web-Link Note:
*** Note that the central statistical measure is how many instances of alleged killings take place per 100,000 Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans who returned home. The New York Times might argue that our statistics are incorrect since the 1.5+ million Iraq/Afghanistan veterans have not been home during the entire 6 years of the war (especially since in the early onset of Operation Enduring Freedom troops were just arriving into the war zone).
However, Salon.com reports that as of January 31, 2005 there were 1,048,884 Americans who had fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. One can then calculate statistics from that point onward. Let’s give the New York Times the leeway of saying their alleged 121 incidents of killings by veterans occured during just the three years that elapsed since that time to the present. The murder rate per 100,000 people would still be approximately 3.5 incidents of murder per 100,000 returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans.
____________________________
CONTACT: Mary Pearson: (916) 441-6197 or Email: mary@MoveAmericaForward.org
