New WMD info: Domestic Insurgents won’t believe it until one lands at their feet
…or a Democrat is in the White House and tells them that WMD represent an “grave” threat they are to our national security. You know, like back in 1998. Here is Sweetness & Light with a reminder of who said what,
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” â?? President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 CNN
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqâ??s weapons of mass destruction program.” â?? President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 CNN
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” â?? Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 USIA
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” â?? Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998 USIA
and let’s not forget John FN Kerry,
“[I[t is something we knowâ??for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them.” September 23, 2001
Anyway, here it is.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Words/Reminder/Reminder
[back to top] Prev Words Next #ads(,) Reminder Reminder Topic with BLOG Google search result Inspect with the Amazon Try seeing with the picture/image Inspect with the other site Reminder Topic with BLOG [back to top] 2006-06-22 New W…
June 21st, 2006 at 10:44 pm
[...] Pundit Review [...]
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Again, Kevin. There are major authenticity issues here. The fact that the administration’s primary propaganda organ, FOX News, has been all over this story should be a clue. Simply put, FOX News is the most blatant purveyor of White House propaganda and lies around. They put the NY Times to shame in this regard. While the NY Times will shelve stories until after elections and employ journalists that will go to jail before implicating administration officials, FOX News will, on a daily basis, go to battle for the White House to a degree unlike any other compromised and complicit media outlet in this country.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:49 am
John,
The information was released under the signature of the Director of National Intelligence. This story has nothing to do with Fox, other than the fact that it exposes the bias in those other news organizations that didn’t cover it. You know John, the ones you said are in bed with the Bush administration, working in lock step with them.
Kevin
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:32 am
When FOX decides to promote a positive news story for the administration with the same vigor that it does a missing white girl story, you know something is at work. FOX literally gets its script from the White House. There is no liberal bias in the media. There are varying degrees of willingness to cover for the administration. If the NY Times wanted to bring down this administration, they could do it in a heartbeat by honestly and thoroughly investigating and reporting on this administration’s numerous crimes. That has not happened - on the contrary, they shelved a negative wiretapping story at the government’s behest until after the election.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
John, You say: “When FOX decides to promote a positive news story for the administration with the same vigor that it does a missing white girl story, you know something is at work. FOX literally gets its script from the White House.”
That is a pretty bold accusation. What substantiated specific proof can you demonstrate? Unless you can provide exact proof that Fox gets its script from the white house, I will assume you are just talking out your rear end once again. Actually, John, it has been documented that the New York Times has received its “talking points” from the DNC. this occured frequently during the 04′ election.
You state: “There is no liberal bias in the media.”
John, are you impervious to empirical evidence? How many times does one have to show you the overwhemong evidence to the contrary for you to accept what is now not even disputed among liberals such as liberal Evan Thomas who stated: “There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some of the statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic; they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.” So, Evan Thomas is wrong John?
The Late ABCâ??s Peter Jennings admited a liberal media bias. â?? Historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too ling in my view to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are.â?ť
In his book “Weapons of Mass Distortion,” Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, chronicles media bias with regard to taxation, environmental issues, gun control, religion, and abortion. For example he references the three broadcast networksâ?? coverage of the Bush tax-cut proposal of January 2003. Between January 2-15 of that year he and his colleagues found on ABC, CBS, and NBC 28 stories about the proposal. In these he says, â??the liberal mantra was repeated over and over. Bushâ??s tax cuts comforts only the rich.â?ť
No “liberal bias/” yOu may want to read Bernard Goldberg’s books “Bias” and “Arrogance.” BTW, Bernie is a life long liberal Democrat.
Finally you say: “There are varying degrees of willingness to cover for the administration. If the NY Times wanted to bring down this administration, they could do it in a heartbeat by honestly and thoroughly investigating and reporting on this administrationâ??s numerous crimes. That has not happened - on the contrary, they shelved a negative wiretapping story at the governmentâ??s behest until after the election.”
John, ARe you all there? What the hell are you talking about? Sometimes when I am read your comments, i think to myself, “is this guy just messing with me?” I really do. The claims you make are always conspiritorial and can never be substnatiated. It’s almost meaningless conversing with you because you can never point to factual evidence to support your assertions.
To say that, in essence, the NY Times, who in many poeple’s opinion just committed treason by divulging yet another top secret highly classified terror surveillence program to the world, is covering for the administration is one of the most absurd statements you have ever made and that is saying a lot. Yea John, everybody knows that the Pinchy Sultzberger is always “covering” for Bush.
Now i will ask you again, what specific “crimes” has the “administration committed?” You accuse them of committing numerous crimes. Which ones have they committed John? Let me guess…You will tell us that “we will see soon enough.” We all know the many criminal acts committed by the Clinton Administration, but I am wondering if you can name one committed by Bush and don’t give me this “illegal war” BS either.
It is truly absurd that during a time of war that you engage in these hair brained conpiracy theories instead of constructive debate and analysis.Our brave men are dying and risking their lives so you can make unsubstantiate accusations about our Commander and Chief and his administration. If you can substantiate your claims with facts then do it. If not quit wasting valuble time with unsubstantiated conpiracy theories while our boys are risking their lives against the throat cutters while you ramble on about “being against war” and how “Bush knew about 9-11″ and how there isn’t a “war on terror” etc…
Gregg J