ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 12/16/2017 01:40 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.784 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/16/2010 03:20 AM ID: 86349 Permalink   

Republican Leader´s Hypocrisy Revealed by George W. Bush

 

In his new memoirs, President George W. Bush reveals that Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was chastising Democrats for pressuring for a withdrawal from Iraq even as he himself asked Bush to do the same thing in order to help the GOP.

McConnell urged the president to bring home some troops from Iraq in order to avoid a "shellacking" in the 2006 midterm elections, even as he scolded Democratic leaders, referring to their call for withdrawal as a plan to "retreat."

Recently, McConnell told the Heritage Foundation he wants to "cooperate" with Democrats "on shared goals," because "it´s about doing what´s best for our country." Prior to that, he said the top goal of his party is for Obama to serve just one term.

 
  Source: www.cbsnews.com  
    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  26 Comments
  
  The war was a great success  
 
No more terrorist at all.
 
  by: MannyisHere     11/16/2010 03:35 AM     
  If...  
 
success was destroying millions of lives they sure were very successful indeed!
 
  by: captainJane     11/16/2010 03:50 AM     
  it was a success  
 
he got the man.....


that threatened his daddy, the guy that attacked us on 9-11 still at large
 
  by: omegaprimus   11/16/2010 04:37 AM     
  Bush  
 
Really should have kept quiet.
 
  by: Jim8   11/16/2010 05:21 AM     
  This is hardly revelatory;  
 
nor is it as useful as highlighting the current ludicrous effrontery in the name of party politics. The fact is this is business as usual on both sides of the aisle, and giving the pendulum another push only compounds this sorry state of affairs.
 
  by: jenkie     11/16/2010 07:13 AM     
  @Jim  
 
Oh I disagree. Let him blab until he´s tired of it. Call me curious.
 
  by: caution2     11/16/2010 07:46 AM     
  @Ben  
 
Your title and your summary don´t seem to mesh. I fail to find the "hypocrisy" that you´re attempting to sensationalize.

McConnell obviously had his political best-interests in mind… just as every Democrat that stood before Congress to plead and debate in support of the Iraqi invasion. When their political skin was put in the hot-seat, they did their usual “flip-flop maneuver” and tried to distance themselves from the fact they voted in favor of the war.

Here’s the hypocrisy:
http://www.youtube.com/...


- Madeline Albright (Secretary of State for Clinton’s administration)

- Bill Clinton (former US President)

- Howard Dean (former Democrat National Committee Chairman)

- Sandy Berger (former Security Adviser to Clinton)

- Nancy Pelosi (in this clip she *declares* that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons)

- Jay Rockefeller (Democrat Senator from WV. He declares Saddam would have nuclear weapons in 5 yrs)

- Joe Biden (Our current Vice President. See/listen what Mr. Foot-in-mouth says.)

- Harry Reid (Claims that Bush is correct in his war with Iraq)

- Hillary Clinton (Claims she supports Bush and “action against Saddam”)

- John Edward (Supports invasion)

- Evan Bayh (Supports efforts to disarm Saddam)


This is just the short-list of the Democrat supporters. This is just *one* video clip of their many assertions to invade Iraq. As members of Congress and the White House staff, they were privy to each and every document that was available to the President in order to formulate their opinions and judgments.

Was *this* the hypocrisy you were referring to?

It’s this kind of dishonesty and spinelessness that got Democrats voted out November 2nd. And its why Americans are tired of listening to them.
 
  by: carnold     11/16/2010 08:44 AM     
  @caution2  
 
I meant he should have kept quiet for both his own good and the good of the Republican Party.

Maybe some party faithful might understand and actually realize how destructive all this is.

 
  by: Jim8   11/16/2010 05:38 PM     
  @Carnold  
 
Hypocrisy: Professing beliefs that run contrary to your actual character.

McConnell derided Democrats for calling for "retreat," even though privately he wanted the same thing. That´s obvious hypocrisy.

The icing on the cake is that his party´s political success was his top priority and not, as he professes, what he thinks is best for the United States. It basically makes him a double hypocrite.

As far as your points about Democrats supporting the resolution to disarm Iraq go, they´re an obvious attempt to steer attention away from the story.

However, anyone who believes, as you profess, that everyone was given the same information as was used by the Bush White House to decide whether or not to disarm Saddam, should read these items:

http://www.zcommunications.org/...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     11/16/2010 07:11 PM     
  @Ben  
 
[Looks into Ben’s eyes and slowly spreads a nefarious grin…]

Fair warning: I’m about to come down on you. Extra hard. If you have better arguments and/or articles than these, you have about an hour to present them.

I wouldn´t have picked this fight unless I had the armament to win it.
 
  by: CArnold     11/16/2010 09:31 PM     
  @Cartman  
 
Like I give a shit. I don´t argue to convince you of anything, I´ve made my point, and I won´t be checking back to read anything else you say here. So knock yourself out! : )
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     11/16/2010 09:55 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
I believe you are wasting your time and energy trying to explain hypocrisy to those who think they can explain away the obvious.
 
  by: Jim8   11/16/2010 09:58 PM     
  @Ben  
 
You´re blatantly injecting your opinion into a summary to dishonestly sensationalize the story. The explanation you gave for your title appears nowhere in the source. You’re using Short News as your forum to flagrantly retch your deceptive propaganda. You know I’m not going to let you get away with it, so why do you even try?

Just admit that you were wrong and I’ll refrain from crushing your arguments with my arsenal of facts, quotes, and links. The alternative is to face your well-deserved consequences, and the humiliation that accompanies it.

Tick-tock, Ben.
Your window to ask for my forgiveness is rapidly closing.
 
  by: CArnold     11/16/2010 10:37 PM     
  Spin Baby Spin  
 
Time to derail this discussion and get it on another track?
 
  by: ichi     11/16/2010 11:45 PM     
  @Ichi  
 
You above all people should know, we have no chance of stopping Ben and Carnold on one of their debates. :) Be prepared for the long haul.;)
 
  by: captainJane     11/16/2010 11:51 PM     
  @Ben (1)  
 
Your argument of “hypocrisy” has more holes than a screen door.

“"McConnell derided Democrats for calling for "retreat," even though privately he wanted the same thing. That´s obvious hypocrisy.”
A “draw-down” in troops is not the same as “retreat”. Where does it say that McConnell wanted to “retreat”?

McConnell wasn’t a member of the Senate Arms Services Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, or any other committee with direct information about the status or condition of the war. Nor did he (like most Congressmen) have time to read every report or analysis on the war to keep as fully abreast of the situation in Iraq, as some of his many peers and White House staff had.

He approached Bush requesting a reduced military presence in Iraq just as Bush was considering a totally different tactic --- the effective Military Surge campaign. McConnell asked because he thought it was possible to pull it off without jeopardizing the mission and progress made by coalition forces. Once Bush explained the situation and why it wasn’t a good idea, he (like President Bush) felt that such a draw-down would have disastrous effects on the progress made and future of Iraq… so he backed off from his request. Giving up the offense that the coalition forces held for the sake of an election was too high of a cost for the victory in Iraq and its people.

Explain, again, how this translates into hypocrisy? [Insert sound of chirping crickets, here.]

“As far as your points about Democrats supporting the resolution to disarm Iraq go, they´re an obvious attempt to steer attention away from the story.”
No, it was to showcase your hypocrisy of your Dems’/Libs’ own hypocrisy. Watch the YouTube clip in the first post I made. *That* is undiluted hypocrisy and flip-flop politics at its worst.

“…anyone who believes…that everyone was given the same information…used by the Bush White House to decide whether or not to disarm Saddam, should read these items.”

Your 1st link…
It makes a big (albeit false) stink that information was not provided that said there was no evidence of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
First, Bush didn’t use 9/11 or Al Qaeda as a premise for invading Iraq. The closest he came to suggesting a link was that Saddam could possibly sell them to terrorists --- something Democrats soundly agreed upon when Clinton was President and long before Bush though about running for President.
(Quotes to be provided, further below.)

Secondly, *two* separate bipartisan Congressional investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked this myth.


Your 2nd link…
Hint #1: Watch more Fox News so that you get both sides of a story. The Lame-Stream Media will only report the leftist point of view, leaving your uninformed side vulnerable to attacks from facts.
(Heh. “Look out, Ben! It the attack of the Facts!”)

Hint #2: Relying on a Democrat Senator’s op-ed piece as a source for objectivity lays bare your naked disregard for “the truth” in your arguments.

Both he and Howard Dean made accusations that Bush withheld information. Again, the bipartisan Congressional investigations showed both to be liars.
(FYI - bipartisan means that both Republicans and Democrats were equally engaged in this investigation.)
I’ll get to my evidence in a moment.


In response to your 3rd Link…
“Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush´s contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."
The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Again, another blind and false claim. Anyone can make a blind accusation. The Dems were trying to say that Bush withheld information… they don’t know what *that* information was, but they swear up and down he did.
 
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 01:05 AM     
  @Ben (2)  
 
The Evidence

All the claims of “withheld” information were political posturing by Democrats desperately trying to salvage their political careers. Nonetheless, it sparked a witch-hunt in which the Democrats’ primary motivation was to shift their blame and accountability onto Bush. This witch-hunt took the form of two separate *bipartisan* Congressional investigations that exonerated Bush from their frivolous and dishonest claims.

From FactCheck.org:

“The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted."
Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

The President´s main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean´s claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.

Previously, two bipartisan commissions investigated and found no evidence of political manipulation of intelligence.

In 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee said, in a report adopted unanimously by both Republican and Democratic members:

Senate Intelligence Committee: The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.” (p273)

A later bipartisan commission, co-chaired by Republican appeals-court judge Laurence Silberman and a Democratic former governor and senator from Virginia, Charles Robb, issued a report in March, 2005 saying:

Silberman-Robb Report: These (intelligence) errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community´s pre-war assessments of Iraq´s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."
http://www.factcheck.org/...
 
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 01:06 AM     
  @Ben (3)  
 
Ben, despite your spinning and misinformation, the doctrines of history makes it completely clear the events leading up to the war in Iraq. For instance:

“*November 1997: Hussein ordered all American weapons inspectors in Iraq to leave in violation of UN Security Council Resolution.
*December 1998: President Bill Clinton orders “Operation Desert Fox” a robust four day aerial bombing mission by US and UK Air Forces. This operation was in retaliation for Iraq’s failure to obey UN Security Council Resolutions and their obstruction of UN Weapons Inspections.”

Let’s not also forget that, in 1998, the Democrats sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (aka HR 4865). This Act was to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. Per that Act:

“Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq´s transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq´s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.”
http://www.iraqwatch.org/...


How about that… Bush was doing what Bill Clinton had originally set out to do!
This bill was passed *two* years before the 2000 election, in which Bush was elected President.

How about that hypocrisy, now, Ben? Are ya feeling it?

Furthermore, let’s take a look at these quotes in which Democrats were calling for the ousting of Saddam Hussein *BEFORE* Bush was ever President:

"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."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq´s weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"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."
-- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
-- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq´s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Hey, Ben… What was that definition of “hypocrisy”, again?
 
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 01:07 AM     
  Reasons For The War ?  
 
BUSH: Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn´t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction...

You know, I´ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet´s nest" theory. It just doesn´t hold water as far as I´m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing, except for it´s part of -- and nobody´s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.
Nobody´s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.."
 
  by: ichi     11/17/2010 01:15 AM     
  @Ben (4)  
 
We just read what the Dems and Libs were saying before Bush was even in office... Now let´s read what some of their arguments were to go to war with Iraq:

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
-- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq´s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"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 . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



If I *ever* call you out for BS, you can bet the Obama poster hanging over your bed that I will back up my accusations with the facts and corroborate them with links.

The next time I tell you that I´m going to tear into your argument and feed it to the pigs (or Lurker), you´d better get on your knees and plead for my forgiveness... because your defiance will only leave you wanting and begging for my mercy.

Now, go pick up the broken pieces of your credibility and think about what you´ve done to yourself.
 
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 01:18 AM     
  @ichi  
 
Your post further supports mine. Thanks.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and it wasn´t the premise for the war.

(BTW... Ben´s going to be pretty pissed at you for backing me, instead of him.)
 
  by: CArnold     11/17/2010 01:22 AM     
  Ignore  
 
the semantic non sequiturs of this fool.
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   11/17/2010 03:10 AM     
  Missing the point  
 
Read it with Cartman´s voice in your head. You´re welcome.
 
  by: caution2     11/17/2010 03:13 AM     
  @H. W. Hutchins  
 
I wouldn´t go so far as to call Ben a fool. He´s just not one to allow facts or the truth to get in the way of "great" Liberal talking points and propoganda.

Willfully blind are those most content in their darkness. The Liberal´s passionate hate for Bush is so durable and so inveterate that they are unwilling to accept anything that may threaten to diminish its feeling.
 
  by: carnold     11/17/2010 04:18 AM     
  Windbags..  
 
...spinning pin-wheels with their hot air. Productive insults.....

[ edited by tuogh ]
 
  by: tuogh     11/17/2010 05:09 PM     
  Wow Jane!  
 
You called that one.
 
  by: VermiciousG     11/17/2010 09:51 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com