Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Cornhusker4Palin's column >>

CORNHUSKER4PALIN

Articles Posted: 17  Links Seeded: 6435
Member Since: 7/2009  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

I Was Am-Bushed On MSNBC Over Iraq

Seeded on Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:24 PM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: FOXNews.com
politics, iraq, bush, msnbc, war-on-terror, media-bias, media-lies, shuster, told-the-truth, unfair-and-not-balanced-msm
Seeded by Cornhusker4Palin
Advertise | AdChoices

I was invited on MSNBC the other day to discuss Karl Rove's book with anchor Davis Shuster and journalist David Corn of Mother Jones magazine and the author of "The Lies of George W. Bush" only to be am-BUSHED with the worn allegation by the left that President Bush lied his way into war with Iraq.

The left is consumed with charges that somehow Bush and his "gang" were able to bamboozle Congress, the U.N., and everyone else on the planet with regard to why it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice.
All this in light of the fact that just last month, Vice President Joe Biden went on Larry King and bragged that "Iraq could be one of the greatest achievements of this administration." This from a man who as a US Senator was against the war and the surge and sided with many Democrats who declared in 2003 that the "war was lost."

The left distorts the facts with regard to the lead up to the Iraq war to fit their conspiratorial theories. However here are the facts:
....... President Bush Addresses the UN General Assembly and sets forth a long list of complaints against the Iraqi government with regard to their continued threat to the region, our allies and the world including but not limited to:

1. Support of terrorist organizations that directs violence against its neighbors and the West;
2. UN Commission on Human Rights finding in 2001 that Iraq was engaged in "extremely grave" human rights violations;
3. The failure to let UN weapons inspectors conduct their work to insure and prevent Iraq is not pursuing WMD in violation of UN Resolutions;
4. They used proceeds from the UN "oil for food" program to purchase weapons rather than to feed its people.
*October 2002: After extensive debate, the US Congress overwhelmingly passes a Resolution giving President Bush the power and authority to use military force to enforce UN Security Council Resolution.

Here are some comments made by prominent Democrats at that time:
.......... The fact that the U.S. never found WMD does not mean Saddam did not have it or that he did not desire the ability to amass it whenever he saw the need. Let us not forget that Hussein used WMD against his own people, killing thousands of Kurds.

Saddam Hussein was interrogated while detained in Iraq by FBI agent George Piro and this is what agent Piro had to said in an interview with Scott Pelley for "60 Minutes":

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight-year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

He told me he initially miscalculated President Bush and President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.

Bush did NOT lie. President Bush acted in the best interests of the United States. Was our intelligence faulty? Yes. Did that change the fact that Saddam should be removed? No.

The truth will never be accepted by those who refuse to accept it. However, I will continue to fight for the truth even if it means being "am-BUSHED" on MSNBC.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • Cornhusker4Palin's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Democrat Watch, FOX NEWS, Media Outrage, rightwingers
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (14)
Handyman-1506910

Following is a link to the official Select Committee on Intelligence Report, June 5, 2008 on - Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information.

These are the facts, read them and decide for yourself.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/110345.pdf

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:52 PM EST
Cornhusker4Palin

DICK GEPHARDT: HOUSE DEM LEADER
"The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that."

TOM DASCHLE: SENATE MAJ. LEADER
"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Daschle, D-S.D. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON
In the closing hours of debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said the decision to back the resolution was "the hardest decision I've ever had to make, but I cast it with conviction. I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country, at the United Nations or at war."

*November 2002: The UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441. The Resolution stated that Iraq was in material breach of the terms of UN Resolution 687, which prevented Iraq from developing WMD as well as other prohibited arms, and the failure to compensate Kuwait for the looting that took place during the illegal 1991 invasion and occupation. The Resolution called for a new round on inspections and demanded that Iraq prove to the UN's satisfaction that it has surrendered its WMD efforts will disarm as well as account for all weapons existing, destroyed and missing within 30 days of the Resolution being passed. Iraq refuses to comply with Resolution 1441.
*March 6, 2003: In his March 6, 2003, report to the U.N. Security Council, Hans Blix reported that the declared stocks of anthrax and VX remained unaccounted for. In the last chance given to Iraq by Resolution 1441, Iraq had failed to provide answers. As Blix reported again in May 2003, "little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues.... the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation."
*March 20, 2003: The Iraq War begins.

Here is what former president Bill Clinton said on July 22, 2003 about the danger Iraq faced to the world:
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

So, were they lying then or now?

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:18 PM EST
Reply
Cornhusker4Palin

*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.

Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the following about the attack:

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."

*1998-2002: Saddam Hussein allowed no UN weapons inspections.
*September 2002: President Bush Addresses the UN General Assembly and sets forth a long list of complaints against the Iraqi government with regard to their continued threat to the region, our allies and the world including but not limited to:

1. Support of terrorist organizations that directs violence against its neighbors and the West;
2. UN Commission on Human Rights finding in 2001 that Iraq was engaged in "extremely grave" human rights violations;
3. The failure to let UN weapons inspectors conduct their work to insure and prevent Iraq is not pursuing WMD in violation of UN Resolutions;
4. They used proceeds from the UN "oil for food" program to purchase weapons rather than to feed its people.

*October 2002: After extensive debate, the US Congress overwhelmingly passes a Resolution giving President Bush the power and authority to use military force to enforce UN Security Council Resolution.

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:15 PM EST
Better Careful

Bush lied. The author lies. They simply had to have their war against the people of Iraq. It was an obsession in the White House, in Cabinet meetings, before 9/11. This was reported by Paul O'Neill, Bush's Sec. of Treasury.

http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/

That is a matter of public record. Bush, et al, lied our way into an illegal war against an innocent people. A handful (a few more, but less than 10) individuals caused my nation to invade another sovereign nation without cause, killing their men, women, and children, and destroying their country. To further those lies, when their own CIA wouldn't lie for them, they created from scratch a new group based in the Pentagon, answerable to Don Rumsfeld. That group provided the lies Bush, et al, required.

The author of this propaganda piece (self-serving propaganda, at that) lies, too. He's a good little fascist, and willing to subvert his own soul to provide cover for his superiors - fascists revel in, and roll in, authority and it's droppings. Why, to this day, I'm waiting for a verifiable reason why Bush, and his small gang of warmongers, started and waged this illegal and immoral war. You got something real to show me/us? Put it on the table.

I'm waiting...

(It's funny how the author plays the "put-upon" card, as if he and his gang are pure as driven snow. That's posturing, and we all know it. That's playing pretend, and it's transparent. Poor little fascist, beset by a journalist from Mother Jones! How would he EVER have suspected to be asked honest questions in that setting?!???)

  • 4 votes
Reply#3 - Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:51 PM EST
Max Black

The whining in this article is amazing, and the quotes posted by the OP are a laundry list that has been circulated among right-wing blogs for years. Most of them are either false, misconstrued, or twisted way out of context. They've been refuted hundreds of times, but the right just keeps trotting them out. Hell, they're still trotting out the "Hillary killed Vince Foster" crap.

  • 3 votes
#3.1 - Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:21 AM EST
Reply
bob-1478320

oh mighty obama why cant you make everyone like us,your followers?People that will follow your every word without ever questioning them. Don't they want to feel the bliss and peace of never having to use their minds? IT is so much easier just following you

  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:42 PM EST
madvargr

More GOP projection.

I'm sorry you supported Bush, who turned out so bad...

This is a crap seed - half of these talking points are easily proved false - But I keep forgetting that facts have a liberal bias.

  • 3 votes
#4.1 - Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:48 AM EST
Max BlackDeleted
Cornhusker4Palin

Let's leave the personal attacks and admissions to following some one around the seeds of the vine to see what they said elsewhere to another place. Talk about what was seeded pro or con at least somwhat related to the issues of Bush, Democrats, the media, and the war on terror in Iraq.

  • 1 vote
#4.3 - Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:21 AM EDT
Max Black

It was spam, fella. Obviously in your seeds, spam is only something you don't agree with.

  • 2 votes
#4.4 - Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:28 PM EDT
Reply
Cornhusker4Palin

I'm sorry you supported Bush, who turned out so bad...

The second term wasn't as good as the first, but even knowing what I do now, there is still no doubt that electing and re electing him was a far better choice than electing Al Gore or John Kerry. They would have made 2001- present far worse by not having the great years from 2003-2007.

This is a crap seed - half of these talking points are easily proved false - But I keep forgetting that facts have a liberal bias.

It is an opinion post. I agree with the opinions presented within and disagree with you and some others here. Again, were the Democrats who said the same things and had access to Clinton administration info on the topic lying then as you say Bush was when he said the same thing, or are they lying now about what they said then?

  • 1 vote
Reply#5 - Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:29 AM EDT
FredC

So cornhusker4Palin is really Bradley Blakeman in disguise!! Since you are a "commentator" not just an ordinary Viner, I feel I can criticize you fully. You are one of the most obnoxious commentators I have seen on TV. You never have a good or positive comment about the administration, talk over everyone, are generally rude and have the same negative and superior attitude that your party has. I cringe when I see you as a guest on MSNBC!

Now that I see who you really are, I will be sure to disregard all of your posts and I hope that other Viners will do the same. Typical Conservative ploy, pretending you are an ordinary citizen but really a representative of the Republican party with your own agenda! What wrong with using your own name since you are sort of a celebrity (I use the term loosely)? No guts?

  • 1 vote
Reply#6 - Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:38 PM EDT
Cornhusker4Palin

Contrary to your outrageous accusation, I am an ordinary citizen of middle class means living out in California. I have never heard of who you refer who appears on MSNBC which I rarely watch. I didn't say I was a commentator though everyone who posts there opinion here is one to some extent. I said that the seed I posted here was an opinion piece as opposed to a news story. Regardless of who you think I am, agree with the OP that I seeded and disagree with those who opposed what Bush did or why he did it.

  • 1 vote
#6.1 - Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:31 PM EDT
FredC

"Cornhusker", isnt that a Nebraskan moniker? You should have prefaced the piece with a disclaimer that you werent source of the opinion. Leading off the piece with "I" sure is misleading. If you arent the Brad Blakeman, my apologies. I still still feel the same about that guy!

  • 1 vote
#6.2 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:34 AM EDT
Cornhusker4Palin

Why would I do anything? It's posted as a linked article, not in the section for seeds of original written articles. That should have been enough. Then if you had clicked on read article, you would have seen the actual author of the article I seeded refer to himself as the the "I" in question. As to the first part, yes, Cornhusker is a Nebraska thing. As in the "Cornhusker State". It is of course widely known thru the University of Nebraska (NU) and the college sports teams from the Lincoln campus. Football of course is king but the title IX sports there are quite strong. I lived in Nebraska for four years and have a lifelong encounter with Big Red fever!

  • 2 votes
#6.3 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:55 PM EDT
Reply
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse |
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com