Watch CPAC 2012 Live
-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
In recent days, the gossip magazine Us Weekly has drawn
criticism throughout the conservative blogosphere and from Fox News for its
biased story on the scandals surrounding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The
publication might be losing thousands of subscribers as a result.
“Us Weekly, which unlike People and OK!, chose a rather
caustic cover line (‘Babies, Lies and Scandal’) is said to have lost thousands
of subscribers in just the first 24 hours following the printing of the issue,”
wrote MSNBC “Scoop” columnist Courtney Hazlett on September 5.
She estimated losses for Us Weekly in the range of 5,000 to 10,000
subscriptions, significant because the latest issue had not necessarily even
reached the mailboxes of some subscribers.
Hazletts’s evidence, however, relies on unnamed sources such
as a “well-placed source in the industry,” “one magazine editor,” or “one
[unnamed] Us advertiser.”
The Huffington Post has made similarly un-provable
assertions about the magazine’s subscription base, claiming that Us Weekly
attracted new customers with the story. “A well-placed source at Us Weekly
tells Huffington Post that since Wednesday, there have actually been a little more
than 1,000 cancellations,” reads the website. “However, there have also been a little
more than 1,000 bonus subscriptions from supporters of the magazine, without
any efforts on the part of the magazine to gain subscribers from the
controversy.”
A senior Us Weekly magazine editor, Bradley Jacobs, sparred with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly about the story on September 3.
“Bradley, do you think the cover in any way suggests to the viewer who is
looking at your magazine while standing there in the grocery store that those
‘lies’ are lies about Sarah Palin by her attackers?,” Kelly asked.
“I don’t think we can
talk about all that here. We’ve gotten a lot of press today but a lot of people
haven’t read this story. You may disagree—It’s a very, it’s a very balanced
story. We interviewed strategists on both sides…,” he answered.
“Actually the lies that we point out are some liberal
bloggers who were speculating that the daughter was actually, had given birth,
that there was a cover-up there,” Jacobs said. “We were one of the few
magazines that actually did call to task those liberal bloggers for the news
stories over the weekend.”
Contrary to Jacobs’ claims, the article at least partly defended the allegations made by “liberal bloggers” such as Daily Kos by providing a
section detailing the evidence supporting bloggers’ suspicions. “What started
as an Internet rumor quickly built up steam as bloggers speculated Sarah was
never pregnant and Trig was really Bristol’s baby. Indeed, the facts did seem
odd,” reads the mid-page detail box. The timeline states that in May “online reports surface [that] Sarah is covering up for her daughter,” not that Internet rumors
questioned whether she had given birth to Trig (emphasis added).
Us Weekly also went so far as to compare pictures of Palin’s
previous pregnancies and ask, “Where’s the bump?”
While the story did point out that the scandal was false, it
used this development as an avenue to criticize Palin’s opposition to sex
education and abortion. Reinstein writes, “As the mainstream media began
reporting the story, Palin—her hand forced—made the stunning pregnancy admission
about her daughter….Still while putting to rest one scandal, Palin appeared
to have opened another of greater significance. Staunchly antiabortion (even in
cases of rape) and opposed to sex-education classes (she believes in abstinence
instruction for teens) questions began to arise about not just her judgment but
that of McCain’s.”
Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain
Suspicions that the article was intended as a hit job on
Palin were heightened by the magazine’s repeated praise for Michelle Obama. The
September 15 issue, which trashes Palin, also features a two-page spread
celebrating Michelle Obama’s wonderful sense of style.
In the article, Mario Pinto, a Chicago fashion designer,
tells Us Weekly that Michelle Obama has the “grace and beauty of a dancer,”
“possesses a natural and unpretentious sophistication,” and has “timeless”
style. (Pinto gave the maximum individual contribution—$2,300—to Obama during
the primary).
Just a few months earlier, the magazine boasted a cover
featuring an affectionate Barack and Michelle Obama with the title, “Why Barack
Loves Her.” “The untold romance between a down-to-earth mom and the man who
calls her ‘my rock,’” reads the front cover.
Jann S. Wenner, Us Weekly publisher and co-founder of
Rolling Stone, is known as an outspoken Democrat and Barack
Obama supporter. But readers might not realize just how much Wenner loves
Obama.
Wenner exceeded his federal contribution limits for both
Obama’s primary and general campaigns by February of this year, with total
contributions of $5,450 for this election cycle, according to the Federal
Election Commission (FEC).
The Obama campaign corrected for the excessive donations by
sending $850 back to Wenner after he surpassed the legal limit. With such
generosity, Wenner certainly demonstrates a higher-than-normal zeal for an
Obama victory.
Half a Picture
While Jacobs may claim that the article was balanced,
stunning omissions by the article’s writer, Mara Reinstein, belie this
assertion. She begins her article on Sarah Palin by describing how the governor
giggled at insults made by a radio broadcaster toward state senator Lyda Green
(R), a cancer survivor. “It’s been very difficult to work with her,” Green
said. “I wish there had been more vetting.”
“That was the understatement of the century,” writes
Reinstein. As the author creatively describes, “within hours of McCain’s
surprise introduction…the scandals began to emerge as quickly as flies at a
Labor Day picnic.”
Reinstein’s article was replete with factual errors and
outright omissions. The gossip magazine devoted six pages to the
“controversies” surrounding John McCain’s choice of Palin as his vice
presidential running mate, including
- her
alleged membership in the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) (actually, her
husband was the member); - pursuing
bloggers’ rumors about Trig’s motherhood cover-up; - “Troopergate;”
- Faye
Palin’s lukewarm reception of her stepdaughter-in-law; and - a
cameo mention of Todd Palin’s DUI (without noting that it occurred over two
decades ago).
While happy to point out that “Palin is under investigation”
for “abuse of power” in terminating the state’s Public Safety Commissioner for
not firing her state trooper brother-in-law, Reinstein’s story omits that
Michael Wooten may have
- threatened
to kill Palin’s father; - tasered
his 10-year-old stepson; - drunk
alcohol in his patrol car; and - cheated
on his wife.
None of these scandals, it seems, were considered
significant enough to make it into the Palin feature.
Reinstein’s article also points to the fact that Faye Palin,
Sarah’s step-mother-in-law, supports Obama instead of Palin. (“Oops” reads the
introductory title). A little more research reveals a reason why Faye might not
support the Alaskan governor. When Faye ran for mayor of Wasilla in 2002, Sarah
Palin endorsed her pro-life opponent Diane Keller. Keller won the election.
These inaccuracies haven’t kept Reinstein from arguing that
she is the victim of a Fox-led witch hunt. “The facts were out there, and there
was no way to sugarcoat them,” Reinstein writes for the Huffington Post. “All I
could do was address the relevant issues—and most importantly, remember the
readers’ needs.”
“We’re a magazine that thrives on babies, intriguing women
and scandals. For this particular week, our potential vice president just
happened to fit the bill.”
Arguing that she is a staunch McCain supporter, Reinstein
asserts, “As I typed away in my cramped Manhattan office, I never expected the
article to become a Fox News rallying cry (the jeers were all the more
perplexing given that so few people had even read the piece beforehand).
Nonetheless despite the baby-mama dramas—and the stinging phone calls—I still
feel that McCain would make the best president. And, no, I’m not ashamed of
myself.”
Apparently Reinstein feels that she’s the one who’s
been unfairly treated.
Share This
About the author
No comment for Profile of a Hit Piece
Disgusted Patriot, I agree. I hope their numbers drop and the the nasty left wingers get their just deserts – pink slips in their paycheck envelopes.
Add the Los Angeles Times to your list of newspapers who have tanked and US should join them!!
I seen a small patriotic act in my supermarket,I wish I could salute that person who placed in front of the US magazine a piece of cardboard over the words on the front cover,they showed their disgust for this vile headline.
It feels like a cancer moving through our country,I feel the pain, but I also feel that God is warning us. Do not loose the faith that we are strong, and that he is watching out for his children. GOD HAS TRULY BLESSED AMERICA.
United we will rid this cancer not thru chemo but thru prayers and faith of the true American Patriots amongst us.
“If we don’t stand for something we will fall for anything”
DEE 47:
Yes Ma’am and I agree!! God has Blessed America. And even with its problems, it is still the best country in the world!
I am almost to the point of hoping that the Democrats win this one. The reason is a macbre sense of “good for us” for being so stupid to vote them in to begin with. Anyone who thinks that a president with 143 days of experience in congress has got to have his head examined. Anyone who thinks that a vice president who goes against his faith in his policies will do a good job has to have their head examined. What is wrong with these people who want to throw their country away?
Federico
>>What is wrong with these people who want to throw their country away?
It’s the perks that go with membership: you immediately become intellectually and morally superior to patriotic conservatives; at least you get to think so. (I would say “republicans” if so many weren’t spineless slugs.)
Besides, like Paul’s grandfather in “A Hard Day’s Night,” Obama is “clean,” as Joe Biden noted. Guess Joe doesn’t think that Obama has that old funk.
But we’ll just have to wait and see how Obama fares in the debates. He did so poorly in the Saddlebuck forum (where each got the stage to himself, while the Rev asked roughly the same questions) that McCain was accused of knowing the questions in advance. How lame can the libs get?
Obama simply isn’t the bright, clean, and articulate golden idol that he is when delivering a canned speech using a prompter when he has to think on his feet, so to speak, but actually has to think (that’s where the “uh, uh, uh, etc.” moments occur) before giving a ridiculous answer.
The fact that he replied, “That’s above my pay grade,” when asked about when life begins gives one a broad hint as to how well he will do in the real debates, given his support of allowing babies scheduled to be aborted accidentally popping out, then allowed to die from hunger and exposure, which is negligent homicide: life DEFINITELY begins after birth! This is another flip-flop from “shoot from the lip” Obama: while originally open to many Town Hall meetings and debates, he has set the limit at three.
That notwithstanding, he should have ample opportunities to “uh, uh, uh” his way through answers when they aren’t displayed on a prompter for him to read from.
This guy had no business running for president in the first place. If not for the media, which has covered him like they covered for Bubba, The One would have been The None early in the primaries. I suspect that Hillary threw the nomination to avoid taking office at a bad time.
I wonder if the dem powers that be really want to win this one. They might be walking into a mine field and best leave it to McCain, letting him take the heat and the risk that will surely arise over the next four years.
And if Obama doesn’t lay off Sarah Palin, it won’t make any difference, anyway. Obama, after all, was conceived by a 17 year old unmarried teen, too!
HEY VOX, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS ARE GOING TO BE A WILD RIDE THROUGH A MINE FIELD. I ACTUALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH THE MAVERICKS.
BUT, IF FOR SOME REASON KNOWN ONLY TO OUR CREATOR THE DINGALINGS WIN, WE ARE TAKING A WILD RIDE STRAIGHT INTO HELL. WITH NO GUARANTEES OF COMING BACK.
ONLY MY OPINIONS/QUESTIONS
McCain/Palin are going to take many hits, in many forms, from the MSM.
I think the blatant liberal (leftist?) MSM has awakened a sleeping giant of the GREAT AMERICAN PEOPLE. We have FINALLY come to realize if it has 4 legs, wags it’s tail and barks: IT IS A DOG. We have seen the MSM for what it is, and can pretty much discard it’s integrity, reliability, and fairness. It is what it is.
Now, stop and think: Pelosi has indicated SHE
wants the “Fairness Doctrine” (lying title) revived.
Personally, I think RIGHT NOW, getting the Broadcasters Freedom Act passed in the House is more important than the oil drilling. No, I’m not drunk or dumb. Let me explain.
RIGHT NOW focus is on oil drilling..rightfully so; however, ‘lesser’ bills are not going to get
the attention some of them deserve, and the Broadcasters Freedom Act is one of them. That could easily ‘slip by unnoticed’ and FAIL passing.
The “Fairness Doctrine” could ‘slip by unnoticed’
and PASS. Because OIL gets the headlines.
But what do WE stand to lose while they debate
oil drilling…which won’t quickly come to a vote?
The FCC controls radio. There are 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and the President gets to appoint
the boss of it. It will almost ALWAYS be a 3-2 decision, depending upon what party the chief
belongs to. (one reason I won’t vote Obama)
With the Broadcasters Freedom Act, that will change.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but I can almost
guarantee you that IF the “Fairness Doctrine” is
revived, even under a new title, the CONTROL of the internet will be right on its heels! The
Democrats/liberals want CONTROL!!!!
Let’s say there are 4 avenues of “free press”
or “freedom of speech”:
TV
Newspapers (magazines)
radio
Internet.
The liberals sure seem to have TV & press. THEY
WANT THE RADIO, specifically radio talk hosts who would be forced to GIVE equal time to opposing views. Can you imagine a pro-life host GIVING
equal time to an abortionist? It would be the same as Dan Rather GIVING George Bush equal time.
NO, they aren’t aiming at television. Just radio. Liberals used to be on radio and the audiences weren’t listening, so they left. About
the same time conservatives were being pushed off TV, and they moved to radio and SUCCEEDED! So, now the liberals want to force radio talk hosts to GIVE equal time to opposing views.
Were TELEVISION involved, could you imagine
Katie or Gibson GIVING equal time to the views of
“The Savage Nation?” Or Rush Limbaugh? NO WAY.
So what’s left. Ahh, you get an A: The internet!
Can’t you figure it out yourselves? After getting
the “Fairness Doctrine” revived, maybe under a new
title, but with the same bottom line, the only
UNcontrolled avenue will be the Internet, Bubba.
THAT IS WHY GETTING THE RADIO BROADCASTERS ACT
PASSED ASAP, NOW, URGENTLY NOW is more important
that the debate on oil. Oil is on page one.
The Broadcasters Freedom Act could FAIL, and the
“Fairness Doctrine” get PASSED, while in the Want Ads.
We HAVE TO contact our Congressmen/women and TELL
THEM TO DEMAND A STANDUP VOTE (where each is held accountable) AND VOTE ‘YES’ TO THE BROADCASTERS
FREEDOM ACT, and NO to reviving the “Fairness
Doctrine.” It will take thousands of calls, especially NOW..just before election, so they will HEAR THE GRASSROOTS OF AMERICA SAY, “Can you hear me NOW?” Call until their phones are on melt down. Faxes are nicer, but CALL CALL CALL NOW !!
Once we secured the safety of radio talk,(and likely the Internet, too!0 THEN WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE OIL DRILLING, AND THE RADIO TALK WILL BE THERE TO BACK US UP. That might even help SPEED UP the fair and full debate on oil drilling.
You would get a kick out of an article tonight on the “HUFFINGTON POST” – that liberal bastion of the “truth” and a reporter says, that the Republicans have an advantage – and its THE PRESS!!!!!! LOL!! :>)) I guess he hasn’t been reading the news lately.
There is ONE way to stop this and that is to CALL and swamp the switchboard at the senate offices and/or to call your senators individually.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
You can find your senators at the link above
Hse:http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Harry Reid is trying to get an energy bill through WITHOUT DRILLING!! CALL HIM ALSO AND TELL HIM TO DRILL HERE AND DRILL NOW.
The book, Globilization says we can get out of debt and into the BLACK with tons of $$$$ is we convert our cars to natural gas, and then sell our oil on the open market like OPEC does. Sound good everyone?
Michelle is a marxist in disguise and is anything but gracious or trend setting. She was blasted by the blonde Elizabeth Hasslebeck for restricting topics that they could talk about:
The View” co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the show’s token conservative and an ardent supporter of John McCain, appeared at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul last week and spoke at an event honoring Cindy McCain. Given that “The View” is a necessary destination for the candidates and their wives this year, Hasselbeck felt qualified to explain the difference between Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama, though she avoided singling Obama out by name:
“Cindy came into our hair and makeup room, fresh as can be, and unlike another wife of a political candidate who shall remain nameless, she didn’t come with a list of topics that we weren’t allowed to touch. Nope, that’s because she has nothing to hide.”
I just cancelled my subscription to US Magazine!
I told them they should call the magazine “Obama Weekly” and that the more they trash Sarah, the more resolved we become to get McCain elected!
Hey, I thought Obama was all powerful, why don’t they send him down to Texas to stop Hurricane Ike?
Linda – good for you and I hope the other 6000 subscriptions they lost teach them a lesson about biased and yellow journalism!
Obama can’t stop IKE – he couldn’t even get rid of asbestos in apartment buildings in Chicago when he was a “community organizer” and state senator. HOwever, he did give 500 million in $$$ to Antonin Rezko and other “buddies” who gave to his campaign. Read the 9 page expose by the Boston Globe at this link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/
To hear obama tell it, he was a “great” organizer -however, folks in his district don’t think so!
Many other damning articles about the Obama’s and their SOCIALISM plans are printed by the Investors Business Daily about Obama and his wife Michelle who want to be President and First Lady of a nation based on Capitalism and yet teach that WHITE SUPREMACY is an element of it!
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=305420655186700
These two are SOCIALISTS and I don’t want their hand on the national treasury especially with the tax and spend congress we have right now. Vote MCain!!
If you so called conservatives will stop feeling so indignant for 5 minutes you will realize your new, shiny object is just another in a long line of DISTRACTIONS from the real issues at hand.
Now, ask yourself why nobody talks about why the value of your house is decreasing? Why the dollar isn’t worth jackshit? Why the price of oil is $100/ barrel? Why we, as a Nation, are running headlong into bankruptcy? If you would rather hear about scandals, who had a DUI or the latest teen preggy style must-have then keep or resubscribe to US, People, or USA Today. If the important issues of today’s misguided world are what you want addressed, ASK your candidate, the Party, the MSM. Demand answers or at least a reply. And vote 3rd Party for spite. No change will happen if there are no real choices from the Dem/Rep monopoly.
Its more than a distraction for the many leftwing hatemongers trying to destroy Palin by picking apart her family.
Unfortunately, they have some serious influence in the media.
Carolyn makes a very good point about securing our First Amendment rights first by making sure no bills are passed that would reduce the influence of talk radio while we are distracted by some other thing like oil drilling. I agree with that strategy.
The other thing I wanted to say is that I am beginning to feel a groundswell of support for the McCain Palin group in addition to the ones who were already going to support them, coming as a result of all this idiotic bashing.
I hope the ground swell is larger than the 50ft. waves expected in Galveston from Hurricane IKE! We NEED to defeat the socialist and his wife who are both scary individuals! They are totally grounded in socialistic theory but what is even scarier is to have him as President and the congress under Pelosi at his beck and call. Now that gives me nightmares!!
So everything you guys are against is a distraction. That way only your agenda is important.
Drill for lower oil prices and less dependence on foreign nations.
Though i’m no fan of the corporate media, and thus second-guess everything i read, i can’t help but wonder…since it seems conservatives are so quick to blacklist any news outlet whose reports aren’t palatable to their agenda as ‘liberal media’…where do you get your information?
blackhat,
A good question.
When I actually had a TV, I watched everything – from Fox to FSTV – that’s the only way you are going to get the truth. You have to wade through a lot of garbage on both sides, but in all the diatribe, are some news about what is happening. These news organizations try to hide it by presenting it as bad or good, ignore that, but the actual news of what happens is what we need.
You won’t get that by watching just one side. You need to watch all of them, no matter how it affects your blood pressure.
Imagine if the news media had actually delved into the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
What if they had truly presented the facts about whether or not there was any connection to Al Queda?
What if they had worked hard to talk with inspectors and others who would know concerning the presence of WMD?
What if they had taken apart the statement that they had the ability to launch an attack in 45 minutes and we can’t wait for the mushroom cloud?
What if we had seen the actual wide range shot of the ‘massive’ demonstration when the statue of Saddam was pulled down? You know the one where it shows relatively few in the center of the shot?
What if they had asked the odds on the one soldier who was carrying the flag from he Pentagon just happening to be at the pulling down and able to put that flag on the statue.
What if we had heard the truth about Jessica Lynch, rather than the made for TV story we got? It finally came out, but what if it had been told correctly up front?
What about the football player that was killed by friendly fire and the government didn’t want that known so they could use him more for their PR?
The media promoted the frenzy of the silliness toward France? Remember the constant pictures of signs about ‘Freedom Fries’, dumping French Champagne, etc.???
Maybe it would be better had they pointed out the fact that France was doing what was best for their people, not getting bogged down in another costly war. They did warn us about Indo-China. We didn’t listen then either.
What if the media had pointed out the fallacy of going to the other side of the world, ‘to protect us and make this country safe’, while making dadgum sure that border stays open for anyone and anything to cross.
What if the media had truthfully shown this President’s complicity in illegal immigration and the things this administration has done to promote and protect it?
What if they had shown how many citizens have been killed by illegal immigrants since this President has been in office. Most reports I have seen make the lowest number of citizens killed by illegals, since 9/11, at more than was killed 9/11.
Yet we invaded a country that had no connection to 9/11.
Yes the media has been behind Obama since day one – but against this President and the war – not hardly.
Blackhat – who says conservatives blacklist anything? I watch all souces of news and read all books – that is the best way to make a decision – know both sides and then choose.
I hear you about the nightmares Helen. It is really frightening. Terrifying!
Lady Texan – Again you are doing the illogical thinking evident in folks who rely on EMOTION rather than fact. And I know you are smarter than this : WMD’s were believed in by CLINTON and company and handed to BUSH – so the blame need to go the origin of the intelligence and the “talk” – just type in Clinton and 1998 comments about WMD’ and you will see that even he and Albright and etc believed that Saddam had WMD’s.
Yet we invaded a country that had no connection to 9/11. – HARDLY MY DEAR – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
hERE IS THE MSNBC REPORT WHICH YOU DON’T BELIEVE. READ IT AND LEARN!
lady Texan – so you don’t have to bother looking it up – :
Why did all of those Democrats lie?
The exact quotes of these political luminaries follow.
Did they all lie?
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”—From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities”—From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.”—Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”—Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.”—John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.”—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”—Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.”—Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.”—Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.”—Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“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 that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Why did all of those Democrats lie?
US will eventually tank because it is just a cover for leftist morons who are so into the Hollyweird set. Their readership, now that they’ve been exposed, will continue to decline just like Newsweek, NY Times and the Washington Post. Liberals never let the truth get in the way of trying to burn conservative.