AG Scandal Not About Gonzales
AG Scandal Not About GonzalesBy Tom DeLay
The thing you always need to remember when Democrat politicians talk is that they're lying. (How's that for open-minded dialogue?) I suppose that is a bit too strong; let me rephrase. It's not that they're lying, exactly; they're just not really talking about what they're talking about.
A good example is the Iraq war debate. What, exactly, is their position? After all, they all believed, when Bill Clinton was president, that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program and threatened to remove him from power. Then, under George W. Bush, when the country supported going to war to do just that, they voted in favor of the war, for dozens of reasons, many having nothing to do with WMD. Now that the war is unpopular, they're against it, … except not really, because they overwhelmingly supported a new commander for the war's continued prosecution and funds to keep it up.
So … when Democrats talk about the war, they're probably being dishonest, unless they come out with their real position: "I have no idea what we should do about Iraq, except that you should blame the guy in the White House for everything bad going on there."
It's the same with this nonsensical pseudo-scandal surrounding U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Democrats couldn't care less what he did or didn't do, whether he's doing a good or bad job, who he's hiring and firing, what policies he does or doesn't institute at the Justice Department or anything else about the man. Except that he's vulnerable and close to President Bush. Everything else is just, well, lying.
more...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TomDeLay/2007/06/12/ag_scandal_not_about_
gonzales
more...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TomDeLay/2007/06/12/ag_scandal_not_about_
gonzales
posted by VerityINK at 12:55 AM
Information:
6 Comments:
Outstanding article from Tom Delay! We all know these lefties lie like hell, Tom just said it so well!
Morgan
A good example is the Iraq war debate. What, exactly, is their position? After all, they all believed, when Bill Clinton was president, that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program and threatened to remove him from power.
Well, if we MUST tell the truth, it wasnt until under Bush that inspectors were given free reign. And if we all can recall, when the reports started coming out that they were finding nothing, W gave his ultimatum and had them withdrawn. So, under Clinton, we didnt really know for sure, but under W, we did but it didnt go along with the storyline they were building.
And if you believe ANYTHING the political hack Delay says...I wouldnt believe him if he told me the sky is blue.
ANON.--What you say is not the truth. Please back up what you say with corroborating sources.
Phandancer
ANON
Our inspectors were NEVER allowed anywhere without escort and not allowed to the sites they wanted to go to. Free reign was never given. It only came after we took Baghdad.
Clinton did not CARE! He only wanted to skate through without upsetting anyone.
Feel free to act pious about your side's role in all this. The rest of us will simply laugh at you.
Four days later, Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return “without conditions.” Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month. The United States contends that there is nothing to talk about and warns that the Iraqis are simply stalling. The Bush administration continues to press the Security Council to approve a new UN resolution calling for Iraq to give weapons inspectors unfettered access and authorizing the use of force if Iraq does not comply.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02.asp
ANON.--Bad link...
Post a Comment
<< Home