January 19, 2005
Boxer gets caught in her own lie
Senator Barbara Boxer (Raving Moonbat-CA), in her zeal to try to attack Secretary of State-designee Condoleezza Rice during confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill yesterday, falsely insisted that WMD was the only thing that Congress voted on when authorizing military action in Iraq.
BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.Boxer has been so enamored by the notion of attacking the Administration that she obviously didn't do her homework before spouting her lies.
Boxer failed to note that seven different points were included in the authorization, contrary to her insistance otherwise.
To coin a phrase, let's go to the videotape!
1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terroristsMind you, this does not include the enforcement of the United Nations resolutions (that everyone from the Left to the UN itself seems to so conveniently forget in their ongoing endeavor to attack this President and this Administration).
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf
In other words, Boxer either had a lapse of memory or she just plain lied.
But then again, as I've said before, a lie told enough times becomes the truth in the minds of those who are apt to believe it. And Boxer has shown that the left plans to continue to tell as many lies about this President and this Administration as possible in order to make him look as bad as possible, and enhance their own standing.
If you count up the 'WHEREAS' clauses in the authorization resolution, congress itself gave TWENTY-THREE different reasons for going to war.
The Democrats really blew it this time: saying that there was only one reason for war, and that Condi's refusal to concede the point demonstrates her loose relationship with the truth, is not only provably wrong but also demonstrates that Senator Boxer is the one with the loose relationship with the truth.
I don't say this lightly, but I think that she has to be the DUMBEST senator that I have seen in my entire life!
Posted by: Steven J. Kelso Sr. at January 19, 2005 08:11 PMWhat's up with Democrats "talk" to have THE Black votes," so, why do Ranking Dems severely pick on EVERY minority person President Bush nominate? Recall:black female Judge nominee,the Hispanic and now Rice. ALL my black friends voted BUSH!
Posted by: Jeanne Wimbley at January 20, 2005 11:06 PMActually, 3.Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens is covered by U.N. SC Res 688.
Posted by: Neo at January 21, 2005 03:55 PMWell, it's obvious that the Bush administration emphasized the existence of WMDs. The support to go to war would have been considerable decreased if Bush hadn't lied and said that they had proof of weapons of mass destruction. They also distorted the truth in other ways, including the tubes that were "only suitable for making nuclear weapons" and the "traveling chemical labs"...oh, the tubes were only potential shells for regular missiles, and the "labs" were for creating hydrogen for weather balloons...
of course, they had this information...the CIA gave them documents offering both an assenting and dissenting opinion as to what these things could be, but the administration chose to downplay the dissenters in order to make their plans justified and a "threat" seem imminent...
please do not presume to call progressive senators dumb and liars when our conservative president obviously distorts the truth and even has trouble giving simple speeches without making up words or using improper grammar...
Posted by: nextbigthing at January 21, 2005 11:45 PMThe Bush administration used the available information at that time like you stated
""""of course, they had this information...the CIA gave them documents offering both an assenting and dissenting opinion as to what these things could be, but the administration chose to downplay the dissenters in order to make their plans justified and a "threat" seem imminent...""""
plus the testimonies from various sources and testimonies including people such as Bill Clinton, Kerry Dog face, and whole bunch of liberals from previous administration, after all, Bush was in office for only about a year. You idiots liberals convinienntly forgot about the facts. THe CIA was also led by the people from previous administartion. So I could conclude that the Bush admin was misled by the Clinton's people.
***Now go and check on all the facts and fuck youself or your dog after all your a whining bitch.***
Posted by: fuckUnextbigthingbitch at January 22, 2005 04:19 AMYou are obviously too dense to see my point. The point is that the administration had two different options. They could either acknowledge that there was the possiblity that there weren't any weapons and that they didn't have "irrefutable evidence" that there were WMDs, or they could lie and say that there were weapons and they had absolute proof and it couldn't be anything else. Well, obviously they chose the latter.
And we didn't actually go to war in Iraq until 2003...Bush had been in office for more than a year...wait, let me help you out with this one....Bush was elected in the 2000 election, took office in 2001...we went to war in 2003...
watch this, it's like magic...
2003-2001=2 years
That's right...did you see what I did there? It's called subtraction...
And one more thing...I would go fuck my dog, but your mom's busy tonight...give her my best though...
Posted by: nextbigthing at January 22, 2005 10:29 PM