Saturday, November 12, 2005

Still Another 'Guess Who Said This'

This time it's news organizations. Isn't this fun?

Quote #1 (oft repeated during Clinton Administration):

"without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again."

Quote #3 (continuously repeated during Clinton Administration):

"hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation."

Quote #3 (upon George Bush's inauguration):

"[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."

Once you guess who these are, you'll be able to see most clearly that the attacks against Bush are purely political and power grabbing, and most definitely, undermining the war effort, which is most definitely treasonous. Yes, I said treasonous. Bush is right to say that the efforts to smear him as a liar and fabricator of intelligence is precisely what it is, a revision of history. All liberals who have been involved should ashamed of themselves and should retreat into the private sector with their tails between their legs and should think twice about remaining liberal.


At 4:09 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

What? No takers here either?

Okay. Here they are:

Quote #1: NYTimes

Quote #2: NYTimes

Quote #3: Washington Post

Gee, I thought the Great White Bear would weigh in on this one. These are his favorite liberal sources to feed his liberal appetite.

At 6:32 PM, Blogger Isabella di Pesto said...

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post supported George Bush's Iraqi war.

At 7:27 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

At one time they did, as well as most of Congress. It was a bi-partison effort initially which was echoed in the press. But as in every election cycle, there is power to grab, and Bush's popularity was threatening to the Dems. This is why I think it's gotten so convoluted. The Dems have to maintain this shrill attack otherwise they will discredit themselves for their stance in 2004, and jeopardize the elections in 2006. I think they painted themselves into a corner and now they have to keep it up or be seen as flip-floppers.

At 6:48 PM, Blogger Isabella di Pesto said...

On another subject:

I was going to send you to a website that is run by a woman who is a conservative and an academician. It's called Elephants in Academia. I thought you'd enjoy reading her posts.

But she has just now shut down any comments. You can go there and read her posts, but you can't comment.

Which brings me to this observation:

You and I get into "dust ups" over our divergent political beliefs, but you never shut out my opposing point of view.

I'm just saying I respect that. And good for you.

I can get testy and annoying, but you've been a real sport.



At 10:02 PM, Blogger Underground Logician said...

Your welcome, Isabella!

I think blogging has helped me personally, and because you have been a major player I thank you. I think it helps me "try" my arguments out, but more importantly try to avoid "winning the battles but losingthe war." I too have been testy, but it's times like right now that make me glad to have you on this site.

I'm going to be neck deep in books the next several days, so I don't know how much I can post on my blog. But I may swing by yours or the Bear's to stir things up!

You're a good sport too, Isabella! See ya round!


Post a Comment

<< Home