The final version of the House/Senate Porkulus Bill that will be sent for Barack Obama's signature was stripped, by Democrats in their Republican-less overnight meeting to craft a "compromise" package, of any language that would prevent the few jobs this bill will create from going to illegal aliens.
I guess we should have asked whose economy we were stimulating, huh?
So to all those out-of-work AMERICANS, and the hundreds of thousands who will follow in the coming months, here's a big, $800 billion "F YOU" from Obama, Pelosi, Reid and all the other Democrats this country's sheep continue to vote for.
(Imported from Feb. 12, 2009)
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
PORK: Not just for Americans anymore
The Senate just conducted a cloture vote, the result of which was 61-36. And all the wrangling done by "bipartisan" Republicans "acting in the country's best interests" last week? For naught, of course. The final Senate bill, after being pared down to under $800 billion, now will go to a floor vote at $19 billion MORE than the House version, which I believe was in the $850 billion range. That means the Libs tossed close to $70 billion more pork into the package ... for God knows what.
What's even more infuriating ... and what needs to be told to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN is that in the House version, at least, an amendment was added to ensure e-verify would be required for any entity receiving this stimulus ... er, pork, I mean ... so that AMERICANS and ONLY AMERICANS would benefit. It passed the House, 407-2.
But in the Senate? Senate Majority Leader DEMOCRAT Harry Reid blocked the amendment, even though it had wide support from both sides of the aisle. So the Senate version of this pork-laden piece of cow manure won't even ensure that only American citizens benefit, even though only American citizens are paying for it.
At a time when the country is hemorrhaging jobs and unemployment is jumping at least a full point every month, when members of Congress and Barry The Great himself is bemoaning how bailout money is being spent in the private sector, this DEMOCRAT refuses to even allow a vote to ensure that OUR MONEY won't turn into state benefits and jobs for illegal aliens.
And I'll take any and all bets that the legislation signed into law by our joke of a president won't have that provision, either.
(Imported from Feb. 9, 2009)
What's even more infuriating ... and what needs to be told to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN is that in the House version, at least, an amendment was added to ensure e-verify would be required for any entity receiving this stimulus ... er, pork, I mean ... so that AMERICANS and ONLY AMERICANS would benefit. It passed the House, 407-2.
But in the Senate? Senate Majority Leader DEMOCRAT Harry Reid blocked the amendment, even though it had wide support from both sides of the aisle. So the Senate version of this pork-laden piece of cow manure won't even ensure that only American citizens benefit, even though only American citizens are paying for it.
At a time when the country is hemorrhaging jobs and unemployment is jumping at least a full point every month, when members of Congress and Barry The Great himself is bemoaning how bailout money is being spent in the private sector, this DEMOCRAT refuses to even allow a vote to ensure that OUR MONEY won't turn into state benefits and jobs for illegal aliens.
And I'll take any and all bets that the legislation signed into law by our joke of a president won't have that provision, either.
(Imported from Feb. 9, 2009)
Want answers?
The House Republicans do. I sure do. I can't imagine any of you don't.
You probably haven't and/or won't hear about this, but House Republicans, in a rare show of intenstinal fortitude, crafted a letter to House Squeaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid inquiring about the Libs' "secret plan" to ease gasoline prices.
You might remember The Plan. It was a major platform issue before the 2006 mid-term elections, which netted the Libs a sufficient number of seats to take control of both houses of Congress. Oil was approaching $90 a barrel. Gasoline prices were in the $2.60 range. Forecasts warned that $100 barrel and $3 gallon prices were on the way.
But the Libs had a plan.
Well, we all know the price of gas, right? What we don't know is how The Plan is going to tap the brakes on things before we're seeing $150 barrel and $5 gallon prices. Cause it's coming. Think the oil producers of the Middle East are going to do anything to stop it?
I don't think I'm naive in the belief that if the Libs actually had a plan that it would be in full swing. After all, they control Congress, right? At the very least, the media in this country would be trumpeting anything the Libs were attempting to ease the burden, because the media certainly is all over The Burden.
One of two things is at play here. A) The Libs simply lied through their teeth about The Plan in order to win an election. I know, shocking development there, huh? Or B) ... ummm, well, I guess there is no "B".
It's kind of like another big campaign issue the Libs used: The deficit and the out-of-control spending by Republicans. Remember that one? Well, I said then that Libs in Congress were every bit as guilty as Republicans, and I think that stance has been proven without a doubt. Twice since the first of the year, Republicans in both houses have attempted to pass legislation to place a six-month (SIX MONTHS!) moratorium on earmark spending. That's those thousands upon thousands of little spending attachments everyone heaps upon every bill passed by Congress. Pickle farmers in Kentucky need $20 million for this, bee keepers in South Dakota need $15 million for that ... the list goes on and on and on to the tune of hundreds of millions, if not billions, that never gets a moment of debate, never really gets voted upon.
Well, guess what? Neither did either Republican attempt to stop this drunken sailor spending. Neither even got to the floor of either house. Why? The Libs refused to even consider them.
I guaran-damn-tee you, though, that come late summer and early fall, when the presidential and Congressional elections begin heating up, that we'll hear again about how the deficit has grown under this Republican president and, by God, we need a Democrat in there to right the ship.
Hell, I'll bet you any amount of money you wish to lose that The Shrill or Osama will even have A Plan.
(Imported from April 24, 2008)
You probably haven't and/or won't hear about this, but House Republicans, in a rare show of intenstinal fortitude, crafted a letter to House Squeaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid inquiring about the Libs' "secret plan" to ease gasoline prices.
You might remember The Plan. It was a major platform issue before the 2006 mid-term elections, which netted the Libs a sufficient number of seats to take control of both houses of Congress. Oil was approaching $90 a barrel. Gasoline prices were in the $2.60 range. Forecasts warned that $100 barrel and $3 gallon prices were on the way.
But the Libs had a plan.
Well, we all know the price of gas, right? What we don't know is how The Plan is going to tap the brakes on things before we're seeing $150 barrel and $5 gallon prices. Cause it's coming. Think the oil producers of the Middle East are going to do anything to stop it?
I don't think I'm naive in the belief that if the Libs actually had a plan that it would be in full swing. After all, they control Congress, right? At the very least, the media in this country would be trumpeting anything the Libs were attempting to ease the burden, because the media certainly is all over The Burden.
One of two things is at play here. A) The Libs simply lied through their teeth about The Plan in order to win an election. I know, shocking development there, huh? Or B) ... ummm, well, I guess there is no "B".
It's kind of like another big campaign issue the Libs used: The deficit and the out-of-control spending by Republicans. Remember that one? Well, I said then that Libs in Congress were every bit as guilty as Republicans, and I think that stance has been proven without a doubt. Twice since the first of the year, Republicans in both houses have attempted to pass legislation to place a six-month (SIX MONTHS!) moratorium on earmark spending. That's those thousands upon thousands of little spending attachments everyone heaps upon every bill passed by Congress. Pickle farmers in Kentucky need $20 million for this, bee keepers in South Dakota need $15 million for that ... the list goes on and on and on to the tune of hundreds of millions, if not billions, that never gets a moment of debate, never really gets voted upon.
Well, guess what? Neither did either Republican attempt to stop this drunken sailor spending. Neither even got to the floor of either house. Why? The Libs refused to even consider them.
I guaran-damn-tee you, though, that come late summer and early fall, when the presidential and Congressional elections begin heating up, that we'll hear again about how the deficit has grown under this Republican president and, by God, we need a Democrat in there to right the ship.
Hell, I'll bet you any amount of money you wish to lose that The Shrill or Osama will even have A Plan.
(Imported from April 24, 2008)
War votes: What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing.
I'm sure y'all have heard that the House once again spent a week's worth of taxpayer money huffing and puffing to come up with a narrow decision to end the Iraq War and begin bringing troops home. The result of this posturing will be the same as if 20 of us got together and voted to end famine in Africa. Tomorrow.
Ain't gonna happen, folks. They may as well have voted in favor of Neptune moving a tad bit closer to earth.
The President of the United States is also known as the commander in chief. In other words, he's the head coach when it comes to war and our military. He calls the plays. The players don't. And that's all Congress is. Yes, they have the right to cut off funds and not play. The Libs just don't have the collective nads to do so.
So they posture. They run to TV cameras and microphones at every opportunity, which is all they've done for seven years. No wonder their approval numbers range anywhere from 16 to 24 percent. They piss and moan about the war. Six weeks ago, Congress voted in favor of a troop surge with the qualification that certain benchmarks had to be met by OCTOBER.
Guess with amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants (notice how they're called "migrants" now by the media? Wonder when they'll start calling prostitutes entrepreneurs?) off the table, they couldn't wait even half that long. They have no other agenda, after all.
But let's talk about the war for a second. As I've blogged about before, we get about a story a day out of Iraq. Most of the time, the day's story details a roadside or suicide bomb or firefight where a number of Iraqi and/or American soldiers are killed. Now, if the media were covering, say, Waco, Texas, I'd say we have a serious problem in Waco. But we're talking about a freakin' COUNTRY. One would have to assume, based on our wonderful media's coverage of Iraq, that NOTHING ELSE happened today, in an entire COUNTRY.
Imagine if, in World War II, the only "news" coming from Europe was that day's number of American casualties. Wonder how Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi would have dealt with 29 THOUSAND American soldiers dead in less than three months during the Normandy Invasion? Of course, we would have never been part of that, because three years earlier, we lost the Philippines and 2,500 American lives (not to mention more than 100,000 more who became POWs, many of whom died during the Bataan Death March) in five months.
But I regress. What of the Iraq War? Well, as I've also blogged before, the war went swimmingly in my mind. With relative ease, we deposed the late Sadaam Hussein, overran his military (which shattered the French Army's record for fastest modern-day retreat) and installed an interim government. "Mission Accomplished," which the Libs enjoy bringing up with the frequency of the sun rising in the East, was, in fact, mission accomplished.
Here's where we shifted into what I'll refer to as our Oprah Strategy, though.
We ... as in America ... forgot back in 1945 or so what war is. It's nasty. Shit gets broken. People die. But when you take a seat at the table, you play to win, because if you don't, the other guy will. We didn't defeat Hitler's Germany by being nice or civil or anything else. We pounded the living shit out of the Nazis. And when they retreated within their own borders, we continued pounding the living shit out of them. Did the same with Japan.
Guess we and the rest of the world had learned after World War I what treaties were worth ...
Well, we forgot it soon after. We allowed Europe to divide, and what was the result? Anyone remember the Cold War? Or have they stopped teaching that in school, too? Then there was that little "police action" in Korea, where we begrudgingly allowed Douglas MacArthur to go into North Korea but stopped him cold (fired him, in fact) before he could chase the Korean communists into China.
Quick review of that negotiated "peace" ... we still maintain a fairly hefty military presence in South Korea AND we're now dealing with a nuclear-capable communist North. FIFTY-SOME YEARS LATER!
And forget Vietnam. We didn't fight a war there. We placed more restraints on our military in that cesspool than a womanizing alcoholic gambler would find during a week's stay at the Vatican. If anything, Vietnam's lesson should have been that you fight a war to obliterate the enemy however and wherever. THAT is how you win the peace.
But we didn't learn. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we assembled the biggest, baddest coalition of force imaginable. The Iraqis couldn't run fast enough. But then we stopped. We pretty much walked away. And a decade later? Well, the WORLD knew what Sadaam was up to at the turn of the century, even if the Libs don't want to admit it now. But I've also posted Hillary's and her husband's quotes from the late 1990s, along with what other world leaders (including U.N. officials) said about what he was doing. And, after 9/11 showed us that oceans no longer protect us, we had someone in office who, unlike his predecessor, took an offensive stance.
And yes, I've heard the intellectually vacant argument that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That wasn't the reason we went in. Next to the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Sadaam's Iraq was making a strong bid to become Afghanistan's successor as the world's major staging ground for terrorism.
And it still would become so again ... QUICKLY ... were we to capitulate in our effort to build stability there.
Are things all rosy in Iraq? Of course not. The biggest problem is that we STILL don't know or have forgotten how to fight to win. We're playing by a vast set of rules while our enemy abides by none ... there and elsewhere in the world. We haven't captured/killed the bearded wonder who leads Al Qaida, or any number of the extremist organization's hierarchy, because we don't want to anger poooooooor Pakistan.
Well, know what? Phuck Pakistan. I'm relatively certain that if we had turned that mountainous region where bin Laden was hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan to dust in late 2001, the media would have focused on innocent civilian deaths, Libs would have called for investigaaaaaaaaations and so forth. But I'm also certain that Al Qaida's strength would not be what it is today and that Pakistan would have happily continued cashing billions of dollars in U.S. aid checks and cleaning up terrorist cells here and there, same as they're doing today.
And why would they? Simple. Because, as the saying with which I was raised went, you phuck with the bull, you get the horn. Same principle exists in Iraq. These militants run into poor Shiite neighborhoods? Or they hide in mosques? Know what? We blow these places to hell and back to get the bad guys ... which is the whole idea here, folks ... fewer Shiite neighborhoods or mosques are gonna house the bad guys!
But we're not fighting a real war here. Ask veterans who were around in the 1940s. We're wearing white gloves and playing nice, so people won't think badly of us. We want to confer rights we give to American citizens on prisoners of this war, whose fate doesn't even fall under the Geneva Conventions because they're not legitimate enemy combatants. (And if you don't believe that, READ the Geneva Conventions). Hell, we treat these captured terrorists ONE HUNDRED times better than any POW in the history of this world has been treated.
But then, we won't even look twice at a 25-year-old Muslim at an airport anymore for fear of racial profiling charges -- brought by him AND a great number of "American" attorneys, politicians and members of the media. But we'll practically strip search the 80-year-old Caucasian grandmother two places ahead of him in line and the 12-year-old Girl Scout three places behind ... because we're serious, by God, about security!
I'm sorry, but know what? Maybe we ought to just throw in the towel. God love the guys and gals in the military who are doing the heavy lifting.
But for what purpose? At least half this country has and never had the will to fight. And we certainly haven't shown, collectively, in a VERY long time the will to do what it takes to win.
(Imported from July 14, 2007)
I'm sure y'all have heard that the House once again spent a week's worth of taxpayer money huffing and puffing to come up with a narrow decision to end the Iraq War and begin bringing troops home. The result of this posturing will be the same as if 20 of us got together and voted to end famine in Africa. Tomorrow.
Ain't gonna happen, folks. They may as well have voted in favor of Neptune moving a tad bit closer to earth.
The President of the United States is also known as the commander in chief. In other words, he's the head coach when it comes to war and our military. He calls the plays. The players don't. And that's all Congress is. Yes, they have the right to cut off funds and not play. The Libs just don't have the collective nads to do so.
So they posture. They run to TV cameras and microphones at every opportunity, which is all they've done for seven years. No wonder their approval numbers range anywhere from 16 to 24 percent. They piss and moan about the war. Six weeks ago, Congress voted in favor of a troop surge with the qualification that certain benchmarks had to be met by OCTOBER.
Guess with amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants (notice how they're called "migrants" now by the media? Wonder when they'll start calling prostitutes entrepreneurs?) off the table, they couldn't wait even half that long. They have no other agenda, after all.
But let's talk about the war for a second. As I've blogged about before, we get about a story a day out of Iraq. Most of the time, the day's story details a roadside or suicide bomb or firefight where a number of Iraqi and/or American soldiers are killed. Now, if the media were covering, say, Waco, Texas, I'd say we have a serious problem in Waco. But we're talking about a freakin' COUNTRY. One would have to assume, based on our wonderful media's coverage of Iraq, that NOTHING ELSE happened today, in an entire COUNTRY.
Imagine if, in World War II, the only "news" coming from Europe was that day's number of American casualties. Wonder how Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi would have dealt with 29 THOUSAND American soldiers dead in less than three months during the Normandy Invasion? Of course, we would have never been part of that, because three years earlier, we lost the Philippines and 2,500 American lives (not to mention more than 100,000 more who became POWs, many of whom died during the Bataan Death March) in five months.
But I regress. What of the Iraq War? Well, as I've also blogged before, the war went swimmingly in my mind. With relative ease, we deposed the late Sadaam Hussein, overran his military (which shattered the French Army's record for fastest modern-day retreat) and installed an interim government. "Mission Accomplished," which the Libs enjoy bringing up with the frequency of the sun rising in the East, was, in fact, mission accomplished.
Here's where we shifted into what I'll refer to as our Oprah Strategy, though.
We ... as in America ... forgot back in 1945 or so what war is. It's nasty. Shit gets broken. People die. But when you take a seat at the table, you play to win, because if you don't, the other guy will. We didn't defeat Hitler's Germany by being nice or civil or anything else. We pounded the living shit out of the Nazis. And when they retreated within their own borders, we continued pounding the living shit out of them. Did the same with Japan.
Guess we and the rest of the world had learned after World War I what treaties were worth ...
Well, we forgot it soon after. We allowed Europe to divide, and what was the result? Anyone remember the Cold War? Or have they stopped teaching that in school, too? Then there was that little "police action" in Korea, where we begrudgingly allowed Douglas MacArthur to go into North Korea but stopped him cold (fired him, in fact) before he could chase the Korean communists into China.
Quick review of that negotiated "peace" ... we still maintain a fairly hefty military presence in South Korea AND we're now dealing with a nuclear-capable communist North. FIFTY-SOME YEARS LATER!
And forget Vietnam. We didn't fight a war there. We placed more restraints on our military in that cesspool than a womanizing alcoholic gambler would find during a week's stay at the Vatican. If anything, Vietnam's lesson should have been that you fight a war to obliterate the enemy however and wherever. THAT is how you win the peace.
But we didn't learn. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we assembled the biggest, baddest coalition of force imaginable. The Iraqis couldn't run fast enough. But then we stopped. We pretty much walked away. And a decade later? Well, the WORLD knew what Sadaam was up to at the turn of the century, even if the Libs don't want to admit it now. But I've also posted Hillary's and her husband's quotes from the late 1990s, along with what other world leaders (including U.N. officials) said about what he was doing. And, after 9/11 showed us that oceans no longer protect us, we had someone in office who, unlike his predecessor, took an offensive stance.
And yes, I've heard the intellectually vacant argument that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That wasn't the reason we went in. Next to the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Sadaam's Iraq was making a strong bid to become Afghanistan's successor as the world's major staging ground for terrorism.
And it still would become so again ... QUICKLY ... were we to capitulate in our effort to build stability there.
Are things all rosy in Iraq? Of course not. The biggest problem is that we STILL don't know or have forgotten how to fight to win. We're playing by a vast set of rules while our enemy abides by none ... there and elsewhere in the world. We haven't captured/killed the bearded wonder who leads Al Qaida, or any number of the extremist organization's hierarchy, because we don't want to anger poooooooor Pakistan.
Well, know what? Phuck Pakistan. I'm relatively certain that if we had turned that mountainous region where bin Laden was hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan to dust in late 2001, the media would have focused on innocent civilian deaths, Libs would have called for investigaaaaaaaaations and so forth. But I'm also certain that Al Qaida's strength would not be what it is today and that Pakistan would have happily continued cashing billions of dollars in U.S. aid checks and cleaning up terrorist cells here and there, same as they're doing today.
And why would they? Simple. Because, as the saying with which I was raised went, you phuck with the bull, you get the horn. Same principle exists in Iraq. These militants run into poor Shiite neighborhoods? Or they hide in mosques? Know what? We blow these places to hell and back to get the bad guys ... which is the whole idea here, folks ... fewer Shiite neighborhoods or mosques are gonna house the bad guys!
But we're not fighting a real war here. Ask veterans who were around in the 1940s. We're wearing white gloves and playing nice, so people won't think badly of us. We want to confer rights we give to American citizens on prisoners of this war, whose fate doesn't even fall under the Geneva Conventions because they're not legitimate enemy combatants. (And if you don't believe that, READ the Geneva Conventions). Hell, we treat these captured terrorists ONE HUNDRED times better than any POW in the history of this world has been treated.
But then, we won't even look twice at a 25-year-old Muslim at an airport anymore for fear of racial profiling charges -- brought by him AND a great number of "American" attorneys, politicians and members of the media. But we'll practically strip search the 80-year-old Caucasian grandmother two places ahead of him in line and the 12-year-old Girl Scout three places behind ... because we're serious, by God, about security!
I'm sorry, but know what? Maybe we ought to just throw in the towel. God love the guys and gals in the military who are doing the heavy lifting.
But for what purpose? At least half this country has and never had the will to fight. And we certainly haven't shown, collectively, in a VERY long time the will to do what it takes to win.
(Imported from July 14, 2007)
The lunacy behind Libby
For most of the media, Scooter Libby's guilty verdict proved the "vast administration conspiracy" to discredit any Iraq War critic. For the hysterical Nancy Pelosi and equally clueless Harry Reid, the verdict served as "a clear repudiation of President Bush's foreign policy," particularly with regard to Iraq.
Say what? The Libby trial had barely more to do with the Iraq War than if it snows in Oklahoma next week. But there is a conspiracy involved. And the media played no small role in creating it.
It's funny (but sickingly typical) how when the media makes mention of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame "scandal," it conveniently disregards facts. And these FACTS are not spun from the administration. There have been dozens of independent verifications on every single one. To wit:
Joe Wilson took a trip to Niger in 2002 (pre Iraq invasion) to "investigate" claims that Iraq had attempted to buy or bought yellowcake uranium for use in its weapons programs. His wife, Valerie Plame (then a CIA analyst who had previously held "non-official cover" status ... she wasn't then and never was any kind of undercover operative) suggested to her bosses that he be sent. But Wilson, upon returning, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times debunking the Iraq-Niger connection (which later proved to be bunk) and stated falsely that Vice President Dick Cheney's office sent him on the mission.
Reporters, naturally, began asking questions, since the opinion piece was published four months after the Iraq invasion and the "Bush Lied!" campaign was well underway. The questions within the White House, meanwhile, consisted largely of "who is this Wilson guy?" and "who sent him to Africa?"
Well, the answers quickly were found. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote the initial piece detailing Plame's role. The column, naturally, identified Plame as Wilson's wife and showed that through her job as a CIA employee, she was able to help arrange his trip. More reports followed, both about Plame's role and Wilson's credibility, seeing as how he brought back not a shred of evidence (or even notes!) supporting his claims.
Now I suppose those on the Left feel that the White House should have simply said, "Oh yeah, we sent him!" when in fact they didn't and "yes, he's right!" when he wasn't. Of course, for those of us who live in a reality-based world, that's not the way things work.
Wilson, of course, became an instant celebrity with the mainstream media, which has shown an unabashed eagerness to promote any Bush critic on any subject. And Wilson certainly wasn't shy about making the talk show circuit his home and having his and his wife's pictures splashed across magazine covers.
He also, it later was learned through a slew of people both inside and outside political circles, wasn't shy about bragging previous to all of this about who his wife was and who she worked for. Funny how that and a handful of other facts escaped attention when Wilson, attempting to save face, began screaming that his wife had been "outed" by the evil Bush administration.
The Libs followed suit with their favorite word: "INVESTIGAAAAAAATION!" And federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald began the witch hunt. The media breathlessly asked "Are they gonna get Bush?!" and then "Are they gonna get Cheney?!" and then "Are they gonna get Rove?!"
The answer, of course, was no. Why? In part because Wilson, a wanna-be diplomat whose claim to fame was a three-year ambassadorship to the African nations of Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe (no, I am not making those countries up) under President Clinton, all the while was being exposed as nothing but a liar, and his wife, it was learned, couldn't have been "outed" because she wasn't "in."
Enter Scooter Libby, an aide to Cheney, whose recollections of conversations two and three years previous didn't jibe with what others had told a grand jury. An investigation that had taken years and cost tens of millions of dollars ... well, they gotta get somebody, right?
So the Libby Lied Trial got underway, even though Fitzgerald by this point had learned that Plame's "outing" had originally come from Richard Armitage, the former deputy to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was anything BUT a Bush administration cronie.
Fitzgerald ignored this, though. He ignored a lot, as did the Libby trial judge, who didn't allow into evidence anything regarding Plame's CIA status or a Senate Intelligence Committee report exposing Wilson and his Niger trip as an overall fraud, along with a range of other documents that would have undercut the foundation of Fitzgerald's investigation.
So Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction, even though many prosecution witnesses couldn't even remember details of alleged conversations and even though Libby had little, if anything, to do with a "leak" that in the end wasn't one to begin with.
Someone 'splain to me how that qualifies as a "repudiation of Bush's Iraq policy." But the media started this with a theme and, by God, it's gotta end it that way. The facts? Mere stepchildren of inconvenience.
The media, of course, also continues its drumbeat of how this trial's outcome leaves open numerous questions about the Bush administration's role in a leak that wasn't.
But the questions I'd like answered (HA!) are:
Why, in four years, has Joe Wilson never once been called upon to testify under oath about any of this? Because he'd have to A) lie under oath; or B) expose himself as a fraud?
Why, after finding no actionable evidence after a three-year investigation, did Fitzgerald insist on wasting MORE time and money (OUR money) on a worthless trial. To justify his existence? (You know, the parallels between this and the bogus Duke lacrosse rape investigation are amazing!)
And what about the CIA's role in this from the beginning? Think they might have been just a teensy bit peeved about the egg on their collective face over perceived faulty pre-war intelligence or the heat they took over 9/11 OR the fact that under the Bush administration, overhauls to the agency had taken place?
I'd say all the answers are rather obvious.
(Imported from March 7, 2007)
Say what? The Libby trial had barely more to do with the Iraq War than if it snows in Oklahoma next week. But there is a conspiracy involved. And the media played no small role in creating it.
It's funny (but sickingly typical) how when the media makes mention of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame "scandal," it conveniently disregards facts. And these FACTS are not spun from the administration. There have been dozens of independent verifications on every single one. To wit:
Joe Wilson took a trip to Niger in 2002 (pre Iraq invasion) to "investigate" claims that Iraq had attempted to buy or bought yellowcake uranium for use in its weapons programs. His wife, Valerie Plame (then a CIA analyst who had previously held "non-official cover" status ... she wasn't then and never was any kind of undercover operative) suggested to her bosses that he be sent. But Wilson, upon returning, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times debunking the Iraq-Niger connection (which later proved to be bunk) and stated falsely that Vice President Dick Cheney's office sent him on the mission.
Reporters, naturally, began asking questions, since the opinion piece was published four months after the Iraq invasion and the "Bush Lied!" campaign was well underway. The questions within the White House, meanwhile, consisted largely of "who is this Wilson guy?" and "who sent him to Africa?"
Well, the answers quickly were found. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote the initial piece detailing Plame's role. The column, naturally, identified Plame as Wilson's wife and showed that through her job as a CIA employee, she was able to help arrange his trip. More reports followed, both about Plame's role and Wilson's credibility, seeing as how he brought back not a shred of evidence (or even notes!) supporting his claims.
Now I suppose those on the Left feel that the White House should have simply said, "Oh yeah, we sent him!" when in fact they didn't and "yes, he's right!" when he wasn't. Of course, for those of us who live in a reality-based world, that's not the way things work.
Wilson, of course, became an instant celebrity with the mainstream media, which has shown an unabashed eagerness to promote any Bush critic on any subject. And Wilson certainly wasn't shy about making the talk show circuit his home and having his and his wife's pictures splashed across magazine covers.
He also, it later was learned through a slew of people both inside and outside political circles, wasn't shy about bragging previous to all of this about who his wife was and who she worked for. Funny how that and a handful of other facts escaped attention when Wilson, attempting to save face, began screaming that his wife had been "outed" by the evil Bush administration.
The Libs followed suit with their favorite word: "INVESTIGAAAAAAATION!" And federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald began the witch hunt. The media breathlessly asked "Are they gonna get Bush?!" and then "Are they gonna get Cheney?!" and then "Are they gonna get Rove?!"
The answer, of course, was no. Why? In part because Wilson, a wanna-be diplomat whose claim to fame was a three-year ambassadorship to the African nations of Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe (no, I am not making those countries up) under President Clinton, all the while was being exposed as nothing but a liar, and his wife, it was learned, couldn't have been "outed" because she wasn't "in."
Enter Scooter Libby, an aide to Cheney, whose recollections of conversations two and three years previous didn't jibe with what others had told a grand jury. An investigation that had taken years and cost tens of millions of dollars ... well, they gotta get somebody, right?
So the Libby Lied Trial got underway, even though Fitzgerald by this point had learned that Plame's "outing" had originally come from Richard Armitage, the former deputy to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was anything BUT a Bush administration cronie.
Fitzgerald ignored this, though. He ignored a lot, as did the Libby trial judge, who didn't allow into evidence anything regarding Plame's CIA status or a Senate Intelligence Committee report exposing Wilson and his Niger trip as an overall fraud, along with a range of other documents that would have undercut the foundation of Fitzgerald's investigation.
So Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction, even though many prosecution witnesses couldn't even remember details of alleged conversations and even though Libby had little, if anything, to do with a "leak" that in the end wasn't one to begin with.
Someone 'splain to me how that qualifies as a "repudiation of Bush's Iraq policy." But the media started this with a theme and, by God, it's gotta end it that way. The facts? Mere stepchildren of inconvenience.
The media, of course, also continues its drumbeat of how this trial's outcome leaves open numerous questions about the Bush administration's role in a leak that wasn't.
But the questions I'd like answered (HA!) are:
Why, in four years, has Joe Wilson never once been called upon to testify under oath about any of this? Because he'd have to A) lie under oath; or B) expose himself as a fraud?
Why, after finding no actionable evidence after a three-year investigation, did Fitzgerald insist on wasting MORE time and money (OUR money) on a worthless trial. To justify his existence? (You know, the parallels between this and the bogus Duke lacrosse rape investigation are amazing!)
And what about the CIA's role in this from the beginning? Think they might have been just a teensy bit peeved about the egg on their collective face over perceived faulty pre-war intelligence or the heat they took over 9/11 OR the fact that under the Bush administration, overhauls to the agency had taken place?
I'd say all the answers are rather obvious.
(Imported from March 7, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)