Dean & the Dems
I stated below that those who call the president a "liar" have an agenda and truth is not part of that agenda. Take a look at this exchange from Howard Dean as he's campaigning for Kerry in an interview on CNN:
Dean said the president Bush was not telling the truth when he said:
"There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which was not true."
In fact, it was true. Those connections have now been proven. Of course, keeping even this perception from the public is of utmost importance to Democrats for reasons I mentioned here and here.
"That Saddam Hussein had something to do with terrorism, which was not true."
Dean must think strapping bombs onto children and having them blow themselves up in school buses isn't terrorism (indeed, he may not). Saddam was very public with his $10,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers which were subsequently raised to $25,000. There is no longer any doubt (was there ever?) that Saddam was training and financing terrorists. He was harboring terrorists including Abu Nidal in Baghdad.
"When he said in the State of the Union that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Africa, which was not true."
George Bush never made that statement. Dean is flat out lying, and he knows he's lying. For starters, the statement was attributed to British intelligence, which to this day stands by it. Second, its utterly believable and the subject is not settled. Third, after Pakistan's revelations of their top scientist selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans and Libyans the issue is mute to anyone who is remotely serious about national security.
"When the Vice President said that in Iraq they are accumulating nuclear weapons, which was not true."
Cheney never said that Iraq was accumulating nuclear weapons, only that Saddam was attempting to do so. Dean knows this. Dean also knows that Saddam's nuclear program was destroyed twice - once when the Israelis (thank God) blew up his French made nuclear reactor in 1982 and the second time after Gulf War I (which Kerry opposed) when we learned his program was far more advanced tha we previously thought. Anyone who wishes to believe that Saddam simply gave up on his nuclear ambitions has serious issues with judgment.
As I continually point out, this behavior is not coming from some obscure left-wing fringe spokesperson or web site. It's coming from the leaders of the party. The kooks are taking over.
Dean said the president Bush was not telling the truth when he said:
"There was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, which was not true."
In fact, it was true. Those connections have now been proven. Of course, keeping even this perception from the public is of utmost importance to Democrats for reasons I mentioned here and here.
"That Saddam Hussein had something to do with terrorism, which was not true."
Dean must think strapping bombs onto children and having them blow themselves up in school buses isn't terrorism (indeed, he may not). Saddam was very public with his $10,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers which were subsequently raised to $25,000. There is no longer any doubt (was there ever?) that Saddam was training and financing terrorists. He was harboring terrorists including Abu Nidal in Baghdad.
"When he said in the State of the Union that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Africa, which was not true."
George Bush never made that statement. Dean is flat out lying, and he knows he's lying. For starters, the statement was attributed to British intelligence, which to this day stands by it. Second, its utterly believable and the subject is not settled. Third, after Pakistan's revelations of their top scientist selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans and Libyans the issue is mute to anyone who is remotely serious about national security.
"When the Vice President said that in Iraq they are accumulating nuclear weapons, which was not true."
Cheney never said that Iraq was accumulating nuclear weapons, only that Saddam was attempting to do so. Dean knows this. Dean also knows that Saddam's nuclear program was destroyed twice - once when the Israelis (thank God) blew up his French made nuclear reactor in 1982 and the second time after Gulf War I (which Kerry opposed) when we learned his program was far more advanced tha we previously thought. Anyone who wishes to believe that Saddam simply gave up on his nuclear ambitions has serious issues with judgment.
As I continually point out, this behavior is not coming from some obscure left-wing fringe spokesperson or web site. It's coming from the leaders of the party. The kooks are taking over.
posted by Richard at
12:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home