Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (253226)	6/5/2008 5:08:13 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793884

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth." Did Obama actually say that? ROFL!!! There is indeed a danger to reading one's own press clippings. He would have been better served to read the papers when they reporting on Rezko's misdeeds or listening in church when Wright was doing his act.

To: LindyBill who wrote (253226)	6/5/2008 5:26:35 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793884

Hot off the Press: Jay Rockefeller's Amnesia ~~And the White House's weakness. by Stephen F. Hayes 06/05/2008 2:45:00 PM weeklystandard.com JAY ROCKEFELLER, CHAIRMAN of the Senate Intelligence Committee, released (yet another) report written by Democratic staffers claiming the Bush administration politicized intelligence. The "report" is a political document that is already accomplishing its goal: making headlines. I'll leave it to someone more industrious to correct the numerous errors in the report and in the news stories about it. (Maybe the White House? Nah.) "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even non-existent," Rockefeller said at a news conference. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed." Like when Jay Rockefeller called it an "imminent threat" on October 10, 2002? The Bush administration made the case that the Iraqi threat must be addressed before it was imminent. Rockefeller disagreed. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It's also worth pointing out that the Jay Rockefeller who today accuses the Bush administration of inventing the threat posed by Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration once saw "a substantial connection" between the two and warned about the consequences of leaving Iraq to pass its WMD to Osama bin Laden. On February 5, 2003, Rockefeller said: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda." And here's what he said one week earlier, in an interview with the Charleston Gazette: "If you go pre-emptive, do you cause Hussein to strike where he might not have? He is not a martyr, not a Wahabbi, not a Muslim radical. He does not seek martyrdom. But he is getting older," Rockefeller told the paper. "Maybe he is seeking a legacy by attacking Israel or using al-Qaeda cells around the world." Rockefeller and his colleagues also accuse the Bush administration of exaggerating WMD claims. It's worth recalling that Rockefeller called Iraq an "imminent threat" in his floor speech supporting the resolution which would authorize the war. And it's worth noting that he told his colleagues that "there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years." And: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now." And: "We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability." Unmistakable evidence. Existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities. We do know Saddam has the capability. What are the chances any of these claims from Rockefeller will make the news stories about his committee's new "report?" The White House won't try to correct the reports, of course, even by pointing to documents from the Iraqi regime that show they actually undersold Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, including al Qaeda and like-minded jihadists. And so phony accusations that the Bush administration took the country to war on deliberate lies will gain even more credibility. It's a mistake. Karl Rove, asked recently about what he did wrong when he was at the White House, pointed to the administration's failure to respond to such bogus accusations. "One of our biggest mistakes was, the first time Harry Reid got up and said, 'You lied and you deliberately misled the country,' we should have gone back immediately and hit back hard, and we didn't. We let that story line develop. In reality, you go back and look at what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore--I'd be happy to supply you the quotes--what they said about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction." The White House might at least supply the quotes. Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD. © Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.