Liberals Backtrack On WMD and War Powers
Jun 19, 2014 Political, Terrorism
It is amazing how politicians see things when their party is in power as opposed to how they see them when they are not in power. When George Bush was the president Congress gave him authority to use military force and about three of the nearly twenty items dealt with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). When it was reported that no WMD were found and when the war in Iraq was in chaos liberals started talking about Bush’s illegal war and that he overstepped his authority.
Fast forward to now. Barack Obama has made a mess of Iraq and his “greatest achievement” is falling apart as terrorists slice through that country like Hitler through Europe. He is considering military action in Iraq and Nancy Pelosi has indicated that he does not need to come to Congress for approval because the authorities are already there as a result of the 2001 and 2003 legislation that Bush used to engage in Iraq.
Pelosi told reporters that she agreed that the president has all of the authorities that he needs in the authorizations to use military force passed by Congress previously.
“All of the authorities are there. That doesn’t mean I want all of them to be used, especially boots on the ground,” she said. “But I definitely think the president has all of the authority he needs by dint of legislation that was passed in 2001 and 2003.”
She appeared to be referring to the authorizations to use military force passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq. Neither of those authorizations have [sic] expired, although the official White House position is that the Iraq authorization should be repealed.
Obama is using, and Pelosi is supporting, the authorizations that the White House thinks should be repealed.
In other words, Pelosi and her liberal pals all said Bush did not have the authority to do what he did but that Obama has the authority, under the same legislation, to do what Bush did even though Obama thinks the authorization should be repealed.
This is how liberals think. They gave Bush authority and then said he abused it but now that Obama is doing the very same thing (or considering doing it) they say he has the authority.
Remember the claim that Bush lied about WMD? I told you then that a lot of the WMD made their way into Syria (where do you think Syria got the ones they used?) and that there was no doubt Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) stockpiled them. Some of them were declared to the UN inspectors and locked in bunkers. Remember the warnings about what would happen if they got into the wrong hands? But, but, he didn’t have any. Bush lied, people died.
Turns out that there are plenty of WMD in Iraq and while many of them have been degraded they are still lethal. The terrorists in ISIS have seized those chemical weapons.
Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA’s file on the complex.
Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
There were WMD in Iraq when the US issued its ultimatum and Hussein moved many to Syria. The rest are in bunkers and pose a threat if they fall into the wrong hands.
Well, they have fallen into the wrong hands and now they will be used by the blood thirsty ISIS animals to harm many more people.
If they end up in the US you can blame Pelosi and all the other liberals who screamed about ending the war and that no WMDs exist and all the BS about Bush lying.
You can blame Barack Obama for the inept way he has handled everything in Iraq. His ego led him to believe that the bad guys will love us if we appease them.
How is that working out?
While Obama dances around like his ass is on fire and his head is catching Iraq is literally disintegrating before our eyes.
Now the bad guys have chemical weapons, the ones the liberals said did not exist, and they WILL use them.
Government officials are putting a great spin on this about the items being old and unstable and how they doubt they can be used to make chemical weapons.
Are these the same experts who told us that the terrorists were defeated, in shambles? Are these the same folks who said that Iraq was stable and we could leave? Are these the same people who have been wrong so many other times?
The belief is that the chemicals could not be safely moved. Really? Does anyone think that will stop the people who have just scored the Holy Grail of terror weapons?
The ISIS leader said he is coming for America (IN America). I bet now he will be even more motivated to do so.
If some of these chemicals make their way here you can thank the liberals and their policies for the deaths that occur.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Was Bush Right After All?
Aug 26, 2013 Political
And if he was will he get an apology from the left?
When the authority to use force in Iraq was granted there were about 19 items in the resolution and only three or so dealt with WMD. There was plenty of credible evidence that Iraq had WMD and used them. In fact we know he used nerve agent on his own people. Despite this evidence and despite a number of Democrats alleging that Saddam Hussein had WMD (when Clinton was president) many Democrats claimed they were lied to.
Yes, when we went into Iraq we failed to find chemical agents. This, the left told us, was proof that Bush lied just to get into a war. They conveniently ignored the Iraq General, Georges Sada, who said the WMD was moved to Syrian planes that had their seats removed. Hussein was able to use the aircraft under the guise of humanitarian aid to Syria.
There were people from the region who claimed the chemical agents were stored in several locations throughout Syria but this fell on deaf ears as liberals who voted for the use of force claimed that Bush lied about WMD. Even though WMD was only 3/19 of the items in the resolution the die was cast and Bush was a liar.
I wrote a number of times about the chemical agents being moved to Syria. I knew Hussein had them and there was no intelligence showing that he had destroyed them but plenty of evidence that he had moved them. His general confirmed they went to Syria.
Liberals took me to task as they bought into the claims that Bush lied.
Well my friends, chemical agents have been used in Syria. There are accusations flowing from the government and from the rebels with each side blaming the other. That will all be sorted out but one thing is clear, nerve agents were used to kill innocent civilians. To be specific Sarin was used.
Hmm, Sarin. Isn’t that what Saddam Hussein had?
If chemical agents are being used in Syria then where did they come from? I would like the inspectors who are there investigating to have access to all the places where the Syrian government might be storing chemical agents (particularly the places claimed in the information provided years ago) so we can see what kind of markings are on them. My bet is that they will show that those agents came from Iraq.
I also bet they will show that they originated in Russia. I have written in the past that the Russians provided the agents to Iraq and that Russian trucks were the ones seen at the storage sites. The Russians were interested in helping get them out of country before we invaded so they would not be caught. Now the Russians are blocking efforts in the recent investigation into the Sarin use in Syria. The UN is helping block efforts as well.
It would be very interesting to see how this plays out if chemical agents are found and they came from Iraq (if the UN would even report the truth). It would be very interesting to see how many on the left who called George W. Bush a liar would apologize.
Hell, who am I kidding? Barack Obama and his liberal gang of thieves would use the revelations to blame Bush for what happened.
They will do anything to deflect attention from the mess they started in Syria.
That entire mess belongs to Barack Obama. He is responsible for it and he is culpable in the deaths of those who were gassed with Sarin.
Not that you will ever hear it from the Obama media.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Bush, chemical agents, Iraq, lies, Obama, sarin, Syria, WMD
Obama; The Highest Ethical Standards – EVER!
Feb 10, 2009 Political
Barack Obama went out on his scare people into supporting the “stimulus” package tour and the questions asked of him were about his nominees who were tax challenged. Obama responded to questions about his nominees who failed to pay their taxes by saying they had made “honest mistakes.”
Obama then went on to say they did not want to give the impression that there were “‘two sets of rules’—one for his administration, and one for everyone else.” Brietbart
All but one of his challenged choices have withdrawn. Timothy Geithner was confirmed to run the Treasury even though he failed to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Sure he paid them but only after he was nominated. Yes, there are two standards. Geithner KNEW he had to pay the taxes because he signed a document stating he understood that when he received money to pay them. He deliberately did not pay his taxes and he was confirmed. Joe the Plumber was delinquent by a fraction of the amount of Geithner and he was attacked by the left and its media wing. Joe was held to a different standard than Geithner.
Obama’s claim to have the highest standards is a farce. This claim is made all the time after some official writes strong rules. The reality is, there are already standards that government employees are held to and they are pretty tough ones. The regular employees must follow them or they get fired. The elected people are held to that “other” standard.
Let me be clear, writing rules on a piece of paper only means that there are tough standards written down. Failure to follow them means that the administration does not adhere to the tough standards. Obama has already granted waivers for some of his appointees because they could not meet the written standards. Obama has broken his own rules on at least 14 occasions by letting lobbyists serve in his administration.
He can talk the talk but he cannot walk the walk.
Obama said that these were honest mistakes though Geithner’s was anything but and it is unlikely that Daschle’s was either. When Democrats are caught doing something wrong they made an honest mistake. If a Republican does something wrong then it was deliberate and part of a culture of corruption.
Case in point, the War on Terror in Iraq. Nearly every credible intelligence agency in the world agreed with the assessment about WMD in Iraq. Our intelligence agencies gave the same report. George Bush presented it and used it as part of the justification to invade Iraq (only 3 or 4 reasons dealt with WMD).
The left, to this day, says that George Bush lied about Iraq. Never once did any of them entertain the idea that maybe mistakes were made. No, Bush lied and people died. That was the mantra then and it is the mantra now. He is a Republican so he MUST have lied. He and all the intelligence agencies could not possibly have made a mistake so they must have been lying.
Geithner and Daschle, paragons of virtue, well they just made honest mistakes.
Funny thing is Obama remained loyal to Daschle even though he was aware of the tax problems a fortnight before it was made public. Obama was with Daschle up to the bitter end and still pledged support for him even after he withdrew.
When George Bush was loyal he was playing ole boy politics.
Good job Brownie.
Good job Daschie.
No difference at all.
Change indeed.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Let’s Leave Iran Alone
Dec 17, 2007 Political
The report is out and the intelligence community has weighed in on Iran and it has determined that Iran has no nukes and that while they might acquire the capability to build them, they are not yet at that state. Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat. Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes and never mind the fact that Israel has a vastly different opinion. We should also ignore the fact that Iran stopped working on its nuclear program and then started back up without anyone knowing and that they deliberately took actions to keep from being detected. We should also forget that the people telling us Iran is not a threat is the same community that missed 9/11 completely.
I think we should just leave them alone and let them do whatever they want because if we try to stop them now then everyone and their brother will scream that they had no nukes or no WMD. We will be looked at as aggressors rather than the liberators that we have been throughout history. People have used the “we found no WMD” mantra to question the validity of the war in Iraq despite the fact that WMD constituted a very small portion of the resolution for going in there and people seem to forget that Hussein actually used WMD on his enemies as well as his own people. Iran has shown that it cannot be trusted but that should really be none of our business. No matter what they build it is unlikely it can reach the US or that they can get it here so we should be safe.
Let the Russians and the Europeans worry about the fallout from a nuclear blast, should Iran develop a nuke. If they never develop one then it was prudent not to go after them and if they do build one then those who said they would were right and those affected can pay the consequences for not listening. However, any person (or nation) who opposes interfering with Iran and its nuclear ambitions now will have no right to blame their development of nuclear weapons on George Bush. Any member of the US Congress that does should be immediately taken to Gitmo and left there until they die. Any nation that has the audacity to blame it on him should be cut off from the world. This scenario is not beyond belief. Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the North Koreans and then Bush was blamed for “taking his eye off them” when they ended up testing a nuclear device.
I say the hell with Iran and let’s just ignore them. We will have proof of their nuclear ambitions when they announce they have the weapon (they wouldn’t lie, now would they) or when they launch one. In any event, we will then have the provocation we need to send about a hundred thousand Tomahawks toward their country and wipe that miserable place off the map. I bet then the naysayers will want action.
Of course, this all assumes that Israel is going to play the wussy games that the US is playing and sit idly by while Iran develops a weapon that will be used to destroy that country. If Israel gets fed up Iran might not exist too much longer.
Tough sanctions are needed right now and without them the world will be getting what it asked for. We need members of the UN Security Council to sanction Iran and we need the damned Russians and Chinese to get on board with the program instead of selling the Iranians what they need to make war.
I believe we should try diplomacy first but sine the diplomats are cowards and will not go practice diplomacy we are left with few choices should things get dicey.
The old Goodwrench commercial used to say; “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” If we don’t do something now (like sanction Iran) then someone will pay for it later. It will be harder, of course, because Iran looks at the latest intelligence report as a declaration of surrender.
The only way to deal with Muslims is to be tough and to never back down. Thanks to the spineless people in our intelligence community and the greedy rulers of Russia and China, we will have a tougher road to travel from this point forward.