Sunday, January 11, 2009

Bernie Sanders Tries Rewriting History Before Its Recorded


Bernie Sanders (I Vt), anti-war Senator and Progressive Liberal Socialist, masquerading as an Independent, sets a new low standard, even for the anti-war Bush bashing nincompoops.

It seems that Sanders is offended by the Smithsonian Institute displaying a portrait of President George W. Bush along with the caption stating his two terms were

“…marked by a series of catastrophic events” including “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”


Sanders has sent a letter to the Smithsonian partly saying,
The 9/11 attacks did not lead to the war in Iraq. What President Bush was telling us (before the war) was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was somehow in collusion with Al Qaeda. Those were misstatements of fact, as even President Bush has since acknowledged. [...] You can agree or disagree with the war. I simply think it’s important that history not be rewritten. Politicians spin all the time, but a wonderful national institution like the National Portrait Gallery should stick to the facts.”


In this, Sanders gives me cause to believe the “I” after his name does not stand for “Independent,” but Idiot.”

Hard as they have tried, the anti-war Socialist neo-coms have failed to prove that Bush lied about Iraq or his reasons for the war. The WMD claim was but one reason given and carried forward from an earlier administration.

First, President Bush never claimed that Iraq was involved with 9/11, although he and others did ask to ascertain if they might have been. Given Saddam Hussein’s antagonism towards America since the First Gulf War, I think that would have been natural even for a Democrat president, given the depth of the September 11, 2001 attacks and dereliction of their duties to not even look at the possibility.

Secondly, going into Iraq was partly due to 9/11 in that the assumption of the presence of WMD’s was prevalent throughout the world’s intelligence community, even left over from the Clinton Administration.

In 1999, claims of cooperation between Al Qaeda and Saddam were being made by Democrats in power and even broadcast on a 1999 ABC News Report Video, as well as acknowledged by a 1998 State Department announcement of an indictment handed down on bin Laden.

What was Bush supposed to think given the evidence left over for him from the previous administration? And still, he never said that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

But, 9/11 did change how Iraq was to be viewed and handled, which makes the Smithsonian’s caption true. To assume Saddam possessed what nearly every intelligence agency in the world thought and past claims, that were never refuted, of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Bush would have been derelict to not take some sort of action to prevent the possibility of their falling into the wrong hands.

Through the wonders of modern technology, video and audio has been saved of the claims inherited by the Bush administration.

The “Bush Lied” mantra that Bernie repeats falls flat once we look back and see what Democrats had to say before Bush was even known to be considering a run for President, Democrats on Iraq.

Further showing Bernie Sanders (Idiot, Vt) for the Bush hatriot he really is comes out of Canada by a student there with no ties to either American party nor with an ax to grind either way, What was it all about after all? The causes of the Iraq war.

Still left unanswered is, what happened to all the WMD’s everyone said was there, during Bush’s six month long rush to war? Media Ignore Saddam's WMD Intent.

Yet more reason to invade Saddam, who was given every conceivable chance to step down, and depose him is found in Witness To Genocide.

Also ignored by this new hatriotic class of professional Bush and Republican haters is the final results of the commission they demanded as well as their very own media reports from the complicit left-winged media prior to Bush’s election.

Even without the WMD claim, several reasons remain indicating it was the proper action to take.

What reason could be left for Bernie Sanders (idiot Vt) to send such an outlandish demand to the Smithsonian Institute other than his own personal hatred of Bush and to further the left’s destruction of the Republican Party in general?

The Smithsonian has yet to reply to Sanders and when they do, they should politely inform the idiot Senator from Vermont to kindly take his demand and shove it up his ass where it belongs!

UPDATE: Hatriotic Bush bashers are rejoicing as the Smithsonian has agreed to delete the word "led to" from their caption. Neo-coms get their way again in opposing a good man.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry but the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence and "fixed the facts around the policy" and that's why the plaque was changed. If ANY proof of a link between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion existed and if ANY WMDs were found, the Smithsonian would have resisted Sander's request.

Lew Waters said...

Unfortunately, whoever you are from Los Angeles, your claims fall as flat as liberalism does. Bush "cherry picked" by repeating the intelligence claims of Demokrats from 3 years before he was elected? Even the neo-com Demokrats were all for invading Iraq until John 'F'in Kerry, who served in Vietnam, used it to whip up opposition as he did in his traitorous post 4 month tour time.

If you neo-com liberals would pull your head out of your asses long enough to actually read something beside your usual hatriotic web sites, you'd know that even 'lurch' was calling on attacks against Iraq in November 1997.

Now, explain how Bush was lying when everything he said was a repeat of what Demokrats said earlier?

Even Saint Hitlery stated on the Larry King Show in April 2004, regarding no WMD's found, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."

Unless you libby neo-coms are prepared to claim all your buds in the Politburo are lying too, Bush did not lie.

You should have checked out he links I supplied for even more Socialist Demokratik Politburo quotes from before Bush was elected.

So, were all of the mwrong and lying too? Or, is it possible that the WMDs were either moved or Saddam was the most masterful of despots in convincing the world for years that he had what he really did not have?

Your comprehension is seriously lacking as well. No one has said there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq, just that after 9/11 the seriousness of making Saddam comply took on more importance.

In spite of all neo-com claims, Bush's pre-9/11 policy towards Iraq was to continue containment and sanctions. After 9/11, with so many thinking the WMDs were there, along with the other reasons given, would you, if you were a leader, have taken the chance and just trusted Saddam?

Silly question, I'm sure, you neo-coms trust ever dictator and despot in the world over your fellow country men who desire to keep you safe.

Sanders only goal is to perpetuate the hatriotism against Bush that you all have displayed for so long.

That the Smithsonian has caved causes me to lose much respect for them. But then again, they rely on you neo-coms for their funding.

Sieg Heil Obama, Obama Über alles

Obama Clock

Kyle Salerno said...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was the correct thing to do. Things were very tense after 9/11; and the thought of Saddam in the middle east, and all intelligence pointing to his WMDs and supposed terror ties. Sure no WMD were found, but I find it very difficult to believe he didnt have any.

Saddam gassed his own people, the US forces uncovered mass graves, torture chambers found throughout the country, illegally firing on US Air Force and other No Fly Zone personel, and to top it off-the oil for food scandal. All of that money was supposed to be going to the Iraqi civilians-but Saddam kept it for himself.

Lew Waters said...

Right you are, Kyle.

Even the Demokrats were calling for Saddam's removal and complaining of all the WMD's and other atrocities orior to Kerry's campaign and his using Iraq as he did Viet Nam to gain favor and build himself up as some great leader.

I still cringe to think what World War Two would have looked like or how it would have come out had these same power had the voice then that they were granted during Viet Nam.

The world would be a much worse place today, I'm sure.