« NY TimesWatch®: Who's To Plame For This??? | Main | Who's Listening? Good Question »

July 01, 2005

Liberals Rewriting History, Part II

And the relentless flogging of the Big Lie continues:

Richard Cohen:

The 9/11 commission said in plain English that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.


Senator Jay Rockafeller, (D, West Va.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee:

Iraq... "had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al-Qaida, it had nothing to do with September 11, which he managed to mention three or four times and infer three or four more times." [Ed. note: Err... I believe the word you want is, 'imply', Senator. Don't mention it.]

"It's sort of amazing that a president could stand up before hundreds of millions of Americans and say that and come back to 9/11--somehow figuring that it clicks a button, that everybody grows more patriotic and more patient. Well, maybe that's good p.r. work, which it isn't, but it's not the way that a commander in chief executes a war. And that's his responsibility in this case."

Well Senator, folks do like to poke fun at West by-God Virginia, don't they? And after listening to you and old Sheets Byrd for a while, its not too hard to understand why. But the half-vast editorial staff is of the opinion that your constituents are a whole lot smarter than some of their elected representatives. Smart enough, for instance, to visit your website for a little stroll down memory lane:

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

Great Caesar's Ghost! I've always wondered how memes get started. For two years we've been hearing a lot of soundbytes from all those smart people in Congress about how the White House promised Iraq would be a cakewalk.

Funny...that quote turned out to be NOT from anyone in the Bush cabinet, but from a former REAGAN-era official who was just sounding off in a WaPo editorial! Now un-so-phis-ticated folks who don't know any better might call a charge like that just plain dishonest.

And several folks in Congress are still blaming poor George Bush for saying Iraq was an imminent threat. Except he said exactly the opposite in his State of the Union address. And here we find the original quote came from a Democrat: YOU!

You guys are really just way too good - I gotta hand it to you. Rove's got nothin'. By the way, nice use of 'September 11th'. The Shrub only managed to work it in 3-4 times in a 30-minute speech. You managed the same feat in two paragraphs.

Now the funny thing is, to this day Senator Rockafeller admits that Saddam Hussein sponsored known terrorists like Abu Nidal. But a week before he gave that floor speech in 2002, he wasn't ruling out the possibility that Hussein would collaborate with al Qaeda either. In an interview with the Charleston Gazette, he speculated:

"If you go pre-emptive, do you cause Hussein to strike where he might not have? He is not a martyr, not a Wahabbi, not a Muslim radical. He does not seek martyrdom. But he is getting older," Rockefeller told the paper. "Maybe he is seeking a legacy by attacking Israel or using al-Qaeda cells around the world."

Senator Rockafeller, like another Democratic Senator we know and love, has been known to flip-flop on the issue of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. But let us be generous and admit what the Democrats will not: the intelligence was uncertain, and given that neither the President, nor members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee were likely to go haring off on their lunch hours to personally verify the intelligence they were given by the CIA, they were forced to work with the information as presented.

Perhaps that explains this baffling statement:

...asked about an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on February 5, 2003, Rockefeller agreed with Republican Senator Pat Roberts that Abu Musab al Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war and his links to a poison camp in northern Iraq were troubling. Rockefeller continued: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."

Stephen Hayes comments:

Is this really the same person who now says Iraq "had nothing to do with al Qaeda" and who finds it somehow improper to mention the Iraq war and 9/11 in the same speech?

It's worth noting, however, that the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told his colleagues that "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." And: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now." And: "We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability."

Unmistakable evidence. Existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities. We do know Saddam has the capability. Remember these things the next time you hear Rockefeller and his colleagues accuse the Bush Administration of exaggerating or fabricating the threat from Iraq.

Remember also, that the Congressional resolution to authorize force in Iraq mentions Iraq, September 11th, and al Qaeda numerous times and in conjunction with one another.

Facts are stubborn things. Small wonder then that the Democrats so studiously avoid them when they are demagoguing about the war.

Posted by Cassandra at July 1, 2005 05:56 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberals Rewriting History, Part II:

» A Villainous Snarking Of J. Rockafeller from Pirate's Cove
One of my favorite writers, Cassandra from Villainous Company, has a wonderful post about Liberals rewriting history. I love this part regarding Jay Rockafeller, which is from his own website:There has been some debate over how [Read More]

Tracked on July 1, 2005 09:09 AM

» Which is more important? from Media Lies
America? Or your party? Apparently, for many Democrats, it's the party.

Senator Jay Rockafeller, (D, West Va.), Vice Chairman of th...
[Read More]

Tracked on July 2, 2005 11:46 PM


Excellent research. Powerfully damning stuff! Thanks.

Posted by: Tom_with_a_dream [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 1, 2005 08:25 AM

Once again, you excell at the important stuff with a bluguning of facts.

If flattery would get me anywhere, I would go on.

Posted by: KJ at July 1, 2005 12:06 PM

[fluttering eyelashes]

Why counselor! Flattery will get you everywhere!

Seriously, thanks :)

Posted by: Cassandra at July 1, 2005 12:16 PM

What the hell is a bluguning of facts?

Posted by: Pile On at July 1, 2005 12:21 PM

That would be bludgeoning, for you spelling enthusiasts! Is this anything like the dems who said the same things about the intelligence, who now claim, "Bush lied," about it, and that they were somehow, "misled?" I thought so!

Posted by: JannyMae at July 1, 2005 03:57 PM

Just 'cause Jay Rockefeller was deluded and bamboozled by Bush and the War Party, doesn't mean that liberals like yours truly were. (Rockefeller is not a liberal).

Disclosure: For about six months after 9-11, I really wanted us to just bomb the cr*p out of all and sundry. Whatever. Thank goodness I'm not President. That was the emotional reaction. Then I had to start thinking about what might really help fight against terrorism, and I was never convinced that Saddam was the logical next target. Especially with Afghanistan unsecured.

Posted by: Old Testament Liberal at July 1, 2005 11:01 PM

Well, I guess it's good you're not President, then.

Posted by: Patrick Chester [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 2, 2005 12:21 AM

Once again, Cassandra, great work.

Posted by: Pat'sRick© at July 2, 2005 08:57 PM

Nice post.

You may want to look at my site, based on four years of research on this very subject, www.regimeofterror.com. There is a LOT of things that have happened on this topic that have flown under everyone's radar.

Posted by: Mark at March 29, 2007 02:24 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)