The White House press corp, and most of Mainstream media is obsessed with Dick Cheney. Everyone wants to know what happens if Cheney's "victim" dies? What does Cheney have to hide that a "cover-up" is deemed necessary by "this administration"? Was Cheney drunk? James Carville wants the blood alcohol tests on Cheney and his "victim" released. The liberal feeding frenzy is so intense they apparently haven't even considered the fact that Mr. Whittington and family are undoubtedly watching the news. So what's Cheney's "victim" supposed to think about media speculation of his death? Whatever it is I suspect it's none too kind.
In the meantime, what are these media elites missing?
United Arab Emirates firm seeking to control as many as 6 U.S. Ports.
Does anyone honestly think this is a good idea? Instead of going after the Bush administration on crimes that are more "flights of fancy" than of any real substance, they could attack on more serious fronts like the potential compromise of 6 U.S. ports by allowing a Muslim firm to run and, effectively, control them.
Saddam, Aziz and others, on tape, talking about the Iraqi WMD program-- that the WMD's DID exist and that their use in terror attacks on U.S. soil was the goal.
How many times over the last couple of years have we had to listen to Media, the Political-Left, and their unwashed masses scream and froth at the mouth about 'No WMD's in Iraq?' Never was, in fact, because Bush lied, Cheney and Powell manipulated evidence, and Karl Rove, the great puppetmaster himself, directed it all like some mad conductor from his dark, evil, basement office beneath the Oval Office. Does the Left even wonder why we question their grasp on reality? Probably not.
Also being ignored is General Georges Sada's personal account of Iraq's WMD's, their transfer to Syria, and Saddam's atrocities. Why isn't the media all over his book -- "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein"? Because they want to destroy the presidency, not vindicate it.
The Media is acting as though Cheney and friend, both victims of a hunting accident, is the most pressing news event in the world. It's not. The press is upset that the White House press corp wasn't immediately notified of the accident. How dare he allow Mrs. Anderson to contact a local... A LOCAL... news outlet!!!! This is what constitutes "deception" in the mind of Liberal Media... This is the perfect picture of a "cover-up". Rigghhhht. The sheriff was on the scene almost immediately, and declared it an accident. Sorry. No cover-up. Besides which, how many on the left understand that the Secret Service is more than just a bodyguard detail? They are in fact a Law Enforcement Agency.
The media is losing it. Choosing to produce political-porn, rather than inform the public of what's happening to the world in which we live. Iran is quickly becoming pre-WWII Germany, albeit with bigger and brighter toys. Radical Islam cares only about seeing/making America dead. And what does America care about? American Idol?
It's spiraling quickly down the drain, people. If you can't see it, you're living in Dreamland... Within shouting distance of Rabbit Bay, Bootjack, and Sunshine Beach, in the Land of a Thousand Loons... er, Lakes.
Secondly, if the info this man has was at all probable, then Scott McClellan would be trumpeting it at his daily briefing, G.W. would be using it to deflect attention from all the other bad news piling on his administration. The occam's razor is that this news isn't being crowed about because there is no corroborating evidence of these claims. That's why its not in the mainstream media, no one can confirm this man's claims.
1] Gen Georges Sada has not been questioned by U.S. Intelligence.
2] Scott McClellan would trumpet Gen Georges Sada as proof positive that Iraq had, and hid, WMD's.
3] There is no corroborating evidence to back up Gen Georges Sada.
4] The Reason Gen Georges Sada's story is not in the media is because no one can confirm his claims.
Chief Mumbler's Responses:
1] Until you read this post I highly doubt you had even heard of Gen Georges Sada. I further doubt you even tried to research his claims. Remember, I know where you work, and how much time you had to both research and write your disclaimer
2] Scott McClellan is too busy defending the Bush Administration from the insanity all too prevalent among the ranks of the White House Press Corp. Need I drag out Helen Thomas? Furthermore, the Administration doesn't need Gen Georges Sada's claims to confirm the presence of WMD's in Iraq... there is plenty of other "corroborating" evidence that the Media refuses to acknowledge.
3] This weeks release of audio tapes with the confirmed voices of Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Saddam's son in law, definitively confirm that there were WMD's in Iraq prior to the U.S. led invasion.
The question the media should be asking:
"What happened to them?"
Simple answer:
"Go ask Gen Georges Sada."
4] The media has no desire to confirm Gen Georges Sada. All the evidence one would need to prove WMD's were in Iraq is already available. The media simply has too much professional credibility invested in the hackneyed line -- "Bush lied".
For MSM to suddenly say otherwise would be to admit they were wrong... Something they are unwilling to admit even to themselves. Despite the fact that many Americans would respect MSM's admission of having judged too quickly-- and harshly, I can only surmise that MSM fears otherwise.
Simply put, Their credibility is at stake.
End of Story
MUMBLER'S NOTE
instead of a tit for tat back-and-forth, if anyone disagrees with my own "Assumptions" [based on a model of logic, I might add]. How about researching facts to prove my assumptions wrong. It's simply not enough to merely turn the tables... anyone can do that, as demonstrated by this mumbler's response to comments
The reason that the Administration isn't trumpeting this from the Mountaintop is that none of it was a surprize to them.
They already KNEW that there were WMD in Iraq, but you guys refused to believe it when they told you the last 2000 times.
no one can confirm this man's story, (yet...) but you can't discredit it either.
Think about this for a second...
If President Bush is as dirty as you believe him to be, and made the whole thing up, then why didn't he ship train-car sized containers of WMD to Iraq with the first wave of Soldiers, and have them on display for all of the Media to observe and admire?
It would have been well within his power to do that, but instead, you chose to believe that he is so stupid that he would hand his opponents that stick to beat him with.
Your arguments make no sense.
Nicely put Cap'n
2. Of course suddenly being able to remove all the egg that landed on the administration's face when WMD's weren't found at the start of the war wouldn't be a priority!
We know EXACTLY where the WMDs are: North, South, East and West of Baghdad!" - Donald Rumsfeld
If Scott McClellan could make a statement endorsing the claims of Gen. Sada you know he would. Unfortunately he can't.
3. & 4. These are both points of view that are simply not substantiated by the facts. The audio tapes of Saddam et. al. are not definitive. The supposed MSM's attatchment to this "Bush Lied" meme is unproven. If hannity could endorse these claims he would. If rush could endorse these claims he would. So would the New Republic, and John Podhertz, and Mary Matlin, and Dick Cheney and Donald Runsfeld.
I'm sorry you've just been lead astray by your blind hope for the infallibility of this administration.
Nice try, Ben.
The reason that the Administration isn't trumpeting this from the Mountaintop is that none of it was a surprize to them.
and of course everyone believes them right? "Over half (53%) now say the administration "deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,"
"If President Bush is as dirty as you believe him to be..."
Item one is that I don't believe the president is "dirty." I think he is unconcerned for ordinary Americans. I think he is uninterested in the business of running a successful country, and I think he has surrounded himself with people that are using his administration to try out idealogical theories of governance without concern for the well-being of the American people. I don't think false containers of WMD's were sent to Iraq because the deception can't be done and pass unnoticed by Congress and the media. A congressional oversight committee would eventually realize we were missing a couple hundred tonnes of Serin. Or some media hawk would wonder where all the biolab equipment in the buget had been moved too. That's the benefit of an open government. Of course a lot of people in this administration don't like that aspect of democracy.
1] Publishing houses pick and choose what they think the public will buy. they're in it for money, so this argument doesn't wash.
2] What egg? There were WMD's there-- not the stock-piles that Saddam moved to Damascus and elsewhere, but nerve and chemical agents were found. As for Rumsfeld's statement; it's not likely the administration knew Saddam was moving his arsenal.
3] If by "Unproven" you mean media fawning over the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Gore, and a whole host of others screaming "Bush is a liar!" then you're right. We didn't hear any of these upstanding meme-bers of society disparage the President and impugn his integrity. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid didn't publically call Bush a "Liar" and "Loser".
Georges Sada has and is making the circuit, but again, MSM won't cover it.
Oh! God alone is infallible.
"Over half (53%) now say the administration "deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," "
First, I'd like to see the question posed; how it was worded. Secondly, the general public are, for the most part, sheep. They'll believe what they're told [by MSM] and allow themselves to be led by whatever 'truth' MSM feeds them. 53%? It's not to be trusted, because-- per your objection to "points of view" --are not substantiated by fact.
I think [Bush] is uninterested in the business of running a successful country, and I think he has surrounded himself with people that are using his administration to try out idealogical theories of governance without concern for the well-being of the American people.
I find it interesting that you would use the argument of "Ideological Theory". Because of Liberalism we have:
A welfare system that rewards sloth, un-wed motherhood, and the constitutional right to an abortion. In point of fact were it not for this president, Liberalism would also have the constitutional right to "partial-birth" abortion-- as heinous a crime as I can imagine.
Because of Liberalism, African Americans have returned to the plantation in droves, believing the lies of Democrats that they are better off under the oppressive wing of the great democratic hen. Democrats opposed the abolition of slavery; they instituted Jim Crow, they opposed, and attempted to filibuster the civil rights act. Want proof? Historical evidence? It's here. Warning: it's a lengthy read.
Because of Liberalism, public education in this country is consistently and insistently vomiting out students ignorant of far too many aspects of this nation, and the natural laws by which this world operates.
Liberalism believes it is okay to take property from one private citizen to give to another private citizen.
Because of Liberalism, Christianity is being swept out of the public square-- against the Constitution of the United States, I might add.
Because of Liberalism, America is bad, and deserves to be punished. Not allowing would-be murders to sleep, or stand, or lay down, is considered torture by Liberalism. Force-feeding a prisoner who is on a hungerstike is torture. Giving them Quran's is torture. Giving them three squares a day, fresh clothes, clean beds, is torture. Turning off the air-conditioner is TORTURE!!! Gasp!!! But-- and correct me if I'm wrong --very, very few of these tortured souls had air-conditioners in their blistering hot native desert lands.
Liberalism would have the United States of America emasculate itself before the rest of the world before defending itself against terrorism. Liberalism would have America adopt a grovelling lick-spittle posture to the United Nations who, as an institution, hates America.
By every measure, Liberalism has proven itself to be an abject failure.
Thanks be to G-d that I am not a Liberal.