speaking of lies....

---

Facts of War
Yes, there were connections between Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 bad guys.

NRO, Mark Levin

I see both Alia and I have been swamped with life's daily survival and refrained from posting for so long. Truth be told, it's not that I've only been busy, but my disgust level has reached a new high with the Congressional and MSM antics as they seek to regain power by slandering the sitting Prez and rewrite recent history. Speaking of lies, it is the accusers screaming "Bush lied" themselves that are perpetrating the most horrendous of mistruths, to the detriment of our own safety and the safety and morale of our military.

Thank heavens there are some sane voices in the MSM. Let's face it... 2001 was not so very long ago. And while I do have more than enough "senior moments" in my life, I have vivid memories of al Qaeda/Iraq links. Not the least of which includes Iraq was Zarqawi's home base since 1998, Baghdad the home for his medical stay after being wounded in Afghanistan (pre-Iraqi liberation dates...). Iraq was also the host country for such terrorist leadership on many an occasion in the late 90s. And least we forget, the first WTC bomber entered the US with an Iraqi passport.

Never once has Bush said that Saddam jad whit to do with 911... another lie continually blasting from the news airwaves. However, he had plenty to do with the likes of al Qaeda members, and as Levin rightly reminds everyone, this was substantiated in that highly revered "911 Commission Report". The very same report that we now find studiously avoids all investigation and mention of "Able Danger".

If there was ever a case to be made of independent commission reports by former congressional members being a waste of money and trust, the 911 Commission Report is a good example of their ineptitude. In short, it is nothing more than grandstanding by self-righteous ex-Congressional members.

For those wackos, whining that Saddam didn't attack us on 911, I would like to remind them that the Taliban didn't attack us either. And it was the Taliban we eliminated from power in Afghanistan... not al Qaeda. Why? Because they were harboring the enemy, and allowing them to flourish under their not-so-watchful eye. And this was something the Cowboy Prez made abundantly clear... the terrorists, and those who provide them aid and comfort, are our enemies.

Thus Saddam falls into the same category as the Taliban. It was his convenient blind eye that made Iraq a potentially attractive new home base for terrorists after Afghanistan was wretched from the hands of the sadistic Muslim extremist rule. It had money, a hatred of the west, natural resources, and a friendly dictator willing to allow terrorists to proliferate under his not-so-watchful eye.

Logic in the US MSM and Congress is evidently a lost art today. Or else their thirst for regaining liberal power in any or all the branches of government has taken some very dangerous turns. For an elected official to attempt to secure his own future by acquiescing to the enemy fills me with a morbidity I can't shake. I agree with the dissenters of this war to one extent. This country is going to hell and a hand basket when it allows such despictable behaviour by our elected officials, resulting in nothing more than providing hope and favorable press to our enemies.

Feh...

For those short of memory, Levin lays it out with Congress's own resolution

Here's what Congress itself said in October 2002 in passing a joint resolution justifying and authorizing war against Iraq:


Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; ...