politicalpartypoop.com

FROM RUSH…..YESTERDAYS (WED) SHOW.

Mrs. Clinton is back, ladies and gentlemen. She’s pulled a stunt here with an energy proposal that she has, and I was wondering today how to set this up. I think the best way to say it is that Hillary is launching her virtual Iowa primary campaign, because if you go back in the past, Hillary Clinton has opposed ethanol. She thought it was bad, bad, bad. But now all of a sudden ethanol is good, good, good, and we gotta connect the dots here.


I’ll connect them for you. Corn grows in Iowa. Corn is used to make ethanol, and Iowa has the earliest primary vote. The New York Daily News has a story about this today with a response from a spokesman for the RNC, Aaron McLear, who accuses Hillary of blocking efforts to boost US oil and ethanol production in the past. We have audio sound bites from a speech, National Press Club, where she announced her big energy plans. After giving the speech, the president of the club, Jonathan Salant, says, “We have a few energy questions for you, beginning with five specific actions that every American and every business should take now. What are five specific actions that Americans should take now or in the next few years to reduce energy use? What do you personally plan to do?”

HILLARY: Well, there are a lot of actions we can take. I mean, one is switch to fluorescent lighting it. It saves an enormous amount of electricity.

READ MORE

 
Today, we have a textbook example of what happens when conservatives seek to block probes of the Bush Administration due to a “lack of evidence.”Many parties in the domestic and international security agencies had screamed “lack of evidence” when Bush declared Sadaam actually possessed WMDs in the months leading up to the U.S. attack on Iraq.

This was no secret, as Bushie historical revisionists often insist.Any one at the time could have done what I had done and read the rampart stories about global security specialists and actual Iraq insiders countering the Bushie claims of Sadaam’s WMD capabilities.Such news however was buried in the back pages of the newspapers or on progressive websites. Editor and Publisher recently noted that a whopping 40% of mainstream newspaper editorials advised Bush against attacking Iraq, insisting we must wade out the UN inspections to ensure we had sufficient evidence Saddaam actually had possessed WMDs.At the time, Bushie and his conservative flocks, if they would even acknowledged the info, said of such dissent:
“There is lack of evidence that Sadaam DOES NOT possess WMDs.”Idiots.Now, almost 2,500 dead U.S. soldiers later (dum de dum, why don’t we just go for 3,000 in short order), tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis killed later, bankrupt U.S. coffers having spent $300 billion on this quagmire with no end in sight later, we now recognize the truth it was the Bush Administration that actually lacked evidence.
It was the Bush administration guilty of “hysteria” “fear-mongering” and “paranoia.”If only someone had then heeded those credible sources, instead of blindly insisting they lack evidence.

Clinton, a Democrat who left office at the start of 2001, said he had personally never seen any intelligence linking Iraq to al-Qaida, and “no one I knew believed that was the case.” But that doesn’t mean President Bush, a Republican, lied or deliberately misled the country about the reasons for going to war, Clinton said. Bush probably believed the information he was relying on was right, Clinton said.SOURCE
— In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, “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.”

— French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq,” noting “the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed.”

— Former Clinton CIA director R. James Woolsey, in a Wall Street Journal article, made several points — that Saddam possibly intentionally misled the world into thinking he still possessed WMD to keep his status as a power player in the region; that stockpiles of WMD possibly remained only to be destroyed at the last minute; that WMD-related material “probably” entered Syria months before the war; that Iraq admitted making 8,500 liters (8.5 tons) of anthrax, which if reduced to powder, could fill a dozen easily portable suitcases; and that “Iraq’s ties with terrorist groups in the ’90s are clear,” with a decade worth of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, “including training in poisons, gases, and explosives.”


— Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that based on the pre-war intelligence, Saddam Hussein posed “a gathering, serious threat to the world.” Hussein’s scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought.

— Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . “

— Former President Clinton, in an appearance on “Larry King Live” on July 22, 2003, said, ” . . . (I)t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ‘98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back there.”
———————————————————

MORE RANDOM STUFF……..FYI

Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq–then and now…..ER UH… THEN FROM 2002.

“The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.” — Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98″

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.”–John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

“The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and–as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning”–Katie Couric, NBC’s Today, 12/16/98″

As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.”–Maurice DuBois, NBC’s Saturday Today, 8/3/02

“The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate–a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.” –AP, 12/16/98

“Information on Iraq’s programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.”–AP, 9/7/02

“Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad’s noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.” –Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

“It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.”–Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02

“The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today’s evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.”–Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

“If he has secret weapons, he’s had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.”–Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02

“This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.”–Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

“What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.”–John King, CNN, 8/18/02

“Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.”–USA Today, 12/17/98

“Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.”–USA Today, 9/4/02

“But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler’s quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.” –New York Times, 12/18/98

“America’s goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons…. To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago.”–New York Times editorial, 8/3/02

“Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night–at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.” –Washington Post, 12/18/98

“Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons.”–Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02

“Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad’s continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq’s prohibited weapons of mass destruction.” — Newsday, 12/17/98

“The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors’ work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That’s disingenuous.”–Newsday editorial, 8/14/02

 A.C.L.U. Reveals True Colors
The ultimate liberal hypocrisy was revealed today by the announcement that the A.C.L.U., purported defender of free speech rights, construes them as applicable only to those in agreement with its own dogmatic liberal views—much reminiscent of the speech-stifling students who demonstrated this principle so publicly in the recent commencements at Columbia University, The New School, and Boston College, where attempts were made to prevent Sen. John McCain and Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice from presenting their views. As reported in this morning’s New York Times:
The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration.
Anthony D. Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union: “Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement,” the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals. [….]
Given the organization’s longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals. Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. [….]
“For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists,” Mr. Hentoff added.
The only surprise here is that the Times reported the news in an objective manner to which its readers are unaccustomed for topics of this nature, particularly after this week’s hysterical speechifying at New Paltz by publisher Pinch Sulzberger in which he revealed the 60s illogical which drives his thinking and undoubtedly effects the work of staffers who, humanly enough, understand the advantages of pleasing the boss.

Richard N. Weltz

Posted in Liberal Fun, Blog Watch, Liberal Nuts | Permalink | No Comments »