David Sirota is hard at work spreading lies...
This guy and others like him are the reason why democrats lost the election and will continue to lose elections...They just CANNOT be honest. Truth seems to be a foreign word to these people...
Atrios posts a 1998 story about the Washington, D.C. Establishment's outrage at Bill Clinton for his lying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. What is truly nauseating is not the corrupt and cliquey insiderism - it is the outrage over lying about sex, and the subsequent silence we've all experienced from the media/political Establishment when it has come to the current administration's lying about war.
Of course, everyone who knows anything knows that the only people calling Bush and the current administration liars are fringe idiots so far left only a few whackos even show them any respect (whackos like Sirota, clearly.)
The bipartisan commission found that no one in the administration lied about WMD, and no one even urged others to beef up intelligence on the issue of WMD. This was the same opinion of both republicans and democrats on the commission. The only way to claim there were lies from the Bush White House is to attack the 9/11 Commission as totally bogus and nothing but a panel of liars.
Only the left in America could claim Bush lied when US intelligence (CIA, not controlled by Bush, and the commission found no evidence that any Bush official told CIA officials to lie or add any false information, anything) merely agreed with intel from around the world- including British intel from both MI5 and MI6, UN weapons' inspection teams reports, Russian intel, and intelligence from a few other nations that all said the same thing- Hussein has a massive WMD program and he's working on expanding it. He IS NOT complying with UN orders to disarm, and the sanctions only emboldened him to do more.
How could anyone possibly claim Bush lied? It's so far out there, it's scary. It's a case of Americans (like Sirota here) who simply hate the president so much, they're willing to lie by claiming Bush the liar, even tho the testimony is right there in front of their face, and in the end, only the fringe idiots are on Sirota's side.
Like-minded individuals also accuse the Bush administration of lying about ties between Al Qaida and Hussein's Iraq, claiming that the 9/11 Commission proved there were no links at all. But, that's not what the commission said at all.
9/11 Commission Vice Chairman of the Lee Hamilton attacked the media for doing the same thing to many democrats did (and are still doing), claiming that there were no ties. As reported by NEWSMAX:
"The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq.[source]
Hamilton makes it clear that there were indeed ties between Hussein and Bin Laden's terrorist organization, and that the ties were numerous. Newsmax continues:
"There are all kinds of ties," he told PBS's "The News Hour" late Wednesday, in comments that establishment journalists have refused to report."There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."
Hamilton said that while his probe had failed to uncover any direct operational link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's terror network in attacks on the U.S., there's no question that "they had contacts."
Even terrorism czar Richard Clarke exposes ties between Hussein and Al Qaida:
But reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.In his book, Clarke describes how the Clinton CIA determined in 1996 that Sudan's Shifa chemical plant, which was allegedly bankrolled by bin Laden, was producing the chemical EMPTA.
"EMPTA is a compound that had been used as a prime ingredient in Iraqi nerve gas," writes Clarke. "It has no other known use, nor had any other nation employed EMPTA to our knowledge for any purpose."
"What was an Iraqi chemical weapons agent doing in Sudan?" the terrorism authority asked.
He then explains:
"UNSCOM and other U.S. government sources had claimed that the Iraqis were working on something at a facility near Shifa. Could Sudan, using bin Laden's money, have hired some Iraqis to make chemical weapons? It seemed chillingly possible."
Invoking the 2001 testimony to U.S. interrogators of captured al-Qaida operative Jamal al-Fadl, Clarke says that he "matter-of-factly described his role in traveling to Sudan for his terrorist organization. [Al Fadl] said his assignment was to follow the work al Qaeda had underway in Khartoum to develop chemical weapons."
In fact, much remains in dispute over just what was going on at the Shifa plant, which was bombed to smithereens in a 1998 cruise missile attack ordered by President Clinton.
But since the press has crowned Richard Clarke as America's ultimate authority on the al-Qaida threat, they ought to at least be honest enough to acknowledge that his account provides ample justification for Bush's decision to oust the regime that Clarke says teamed up with bin Laden to make WMDs in Sudan.
So, Bush-basher (and exposed liar on matters related to Bush and Iraq) himself, said that there were terror ties between the two...and still, some on the left claim the Commission said there were no ties.
Who is lying here? It certainly isn't the Bush administration.
Back to Sirota's points- he complains that the media made a big deal out of a private sexual matter with Clinton and neglects to make a big deal out of "lies" from the President. I've already shown that there were no Bush lies in Iraq, and David Sirota would have to paint the entire 9/11 Commission as a pack of liars to make his case stick.
He also clearly misleads when he claims Clinton's impeachment (and other problems) were merely private sexual matters that should have not been a big deal. I'm sure he realizes that the trouble started with a sexual harassment lawsuit, from a woman who didn't want an apology, but merely wanted Clinton to stand up for her good name by saying they had spent time alone in hotel rooms together, and that she (Paula Jones) never did anything immoral or inappropriate. Clinton refused to do this, and he ended up paying Jones over $800, 000 to settle her sexual harassment claim (the only reason a sitting president would settle a claim like this is if he were, indeed, guilty, and in the light of the numerous other sexual affairs and harassment charges against Clinton...along with credible charges of rape...we can reasonably deduce that Clinton was, in fact, guilty of the Jones crime.) It should also be noted that Jones only asked for money after Clinton spent much time smearing her name in public and using thuggish private detectives to dig up dirt on ALL of the women accusing him of abuse (these thugs threatened women with muitilation and death...one woman was told that if she talked to anyone about Clinton, that they couldn't guarantee her safety and would do something bad to her legs- break them? cut them off?)
We have Jones and that suit that started it all...and we have Lewinsky and tapes regaring sexual escapades in the White House. Private sexual matters tho, right? Wrong. Clinton was accused of committing perjury, and we know he lied in his testimony about Lewinsky. And we know that he urged Lewinsky and others to commit perjury as well. I thought it was just about private sexual matters, but it turns out it was about a serious allegation of sexual harassment. In Sirota's eyes, sexual harassment isn't actually a serious matter, it's merely a "personal sex scandal" that should never have made the front page news. I bet the feminists love ol' Davey boy and his implication that sexual harassment is no big deal. More importantly, does Sirota also think that perjury by a sitting US President is also no big deal, and that it's simply a lie about a "personal sex scandal?" How does he make such a claim with a straight face?
Are we to believe the 9/11 Commission when it said that neither Bush, nor anyone in his administration, lied about WMD and Iraq...or are we to believe a liar like David Sirota? Are we to believe Sirota on Clinton's impeachment being simply a "personal sex scandal," or should we believe the testimony of friends and foes of Clinton who exposed his troubles as much much more? Are we to ignore perjury and sexual harassment by a sitting US President from this point on, and say it's just a "personal sex scandal" that isn't the business of the public? Or maybe Sirota and his liberal buddies are full of it, and just don't know how to stop lying?
These obvious lies, so easily exposed as such, are why the democrats lost the election, and it's why the democratic party has become the party on the fringe of US politics. With supporters like David Sirota, Republicans have little to worry about. Americans can easily uncover the truth, and it's easy to see there's no truth in the many claims of the left.