More Anti-Iraq War Propaganda from Washington Post

Wasted Lives

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page A19

Back when I was in the National Guard and fearing a call-up for the war in Vietnam, I went to England on vacation. So it may be only natural, I suppose, that the thing I most starkly recall from that trip was England's majestic cathedrals -- not for the Gothic wonder of them all, but for the tombs of fallen soldiers. They died -- always valiantly -- often in conflicts of little account and no memory. The word "wasted" came to mind.

That word has made something of a comeback. It was used by both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama -- and the context was the present war in Iraq. McCain used the "W" word when he announced on the David Letterman show that he would run for president. "Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," he said. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." Precisely so.

---------------snip-------------------

It is painfully hard to say -- and even harder to write -- that the lives lost in Iraq were wasted. It sounds like a judgment on the dead when it is meant, of course, as an indictment of the living: America's political leadership. But some sort of finger has to be pointed at the president and some sort of reminder offered that it is not just a policy that has failed but that people have been killed or wounded. This is the real cost of a war that need not have been fought.

What infuriates some war critics is the sense that what is now supposed to matter most -- the lives of American soldiers -- at first did not matter much at all. They were subordinate to the political-ideological agenda that dismissed concerns about the loss of life as sentimentality a great power could ill afford. Besides, the war would be brief and casualties few.

It is obvious that, for Mr. Cohen, no cause is worthy of the lives of our troops unless of course it is to free WHITEMuslims in Bosnia. Seems that Liberals like Mr. Cohen don't believe that these ARABS aren't capable of self-government. Back when President Bubba invaded Bosnia, Liberals were mysteriously silent in their protests over America's interventionist foreign policy.

These people have no shame, and no love for America or our troops. Yes Richard, if you are against the mission, you do not support the troops. It is an impossibility. If this is an "illegal war," then the troops are engaged in a criminal action. If we are "massacring" Iraqi civilians, then our troops are committing murder.

Additionally, when you call for a "redeployment" (a not so code word for retreat), you are telling our enemies that we don't have the guts to stick it out. You are telling our enemies that Osama bin Laden was right and American troops are incapable of winning a war.

During World War II, people like Cohen would have been imprisoned for subversion, as he should be right now.

Self serving criticism of our nation is the lowest form of attack.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

No "Celebration" for America's 400th Anniversary in Jamestown!

Alright folks, you want mad, I'm mad! Seems that political correctness has run completely amok in America. We Americans are no longer allowed to "celebrate" the extablishment of the settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, because as Mary Wade, one member of the Jamestown organizing committee, stated "You can't celebrate an invasion."

'Celebration' banned for Jamestown's 400th
Events marking settlement's anniversary condemn its 'holocaust'

Posted: March 8, 2007

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

This year is the 400th anniversary of the arrival of settlers in Jamestown, 13 years before the Plymouth Pilgrims appeared on America's shores. And there will be discussions on the environmental impact of the settlement and its impact on African-Americans and Native Americans. But there will be no celebration.

"You can't celebrate an invasion," Mary Wade, a member of Jamestown 2007 organizing committee, has stated. After all, Indian tribes "were pushed back off of their land, even killed. Whole tribes were annihilated. A lot of people carry that oral history with them, and that's why they use the word 'invasion,' because it truly was an invasion, and I'm sure some of the Indian people will probably want to tell that as a part of the story of 400 years."

And that has some experts in history upset, since the advent of Jamestown provided what later became the United States with important introductions to Christian common law, a republican representative government, the first Protestant Christian worship service, and its first interracial marriage.

Wade's comments came in an interview with Voice of America, and highlighted the revisions that are going on regarding the history of Jamestown – and America. It also left a message about how important are the disputes over the political perspective now being applied retroactively to America's history.

"I believe this is one of the most significant battles of our day," said Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum Ministries and the founder of the Jamestown Quadricentennial: A Celebration of America's Providential History, Vision Forum's own series of events to celebrate the quadracentennial. "It is the battle for our history."

I don't know about you people but I'm way past tired of this BS Political correctness and revisionist history. The Left is demented. Michael Savage is correct, Liberalism is a mental disorder.

They believe that Americans should be ashamed of our past. They believe that we have no right to be proud of being Americans. Liberals bridle at being accused of being unpatriotic yet in the same breath condemn patriotism.

For Liberals, the United States is a place of great evil. They hate America and everything we stand for. Freedom of speech is acceptable only if they dictate what that speech is. The possession of firearms is allowable only if you are a hypocritical Liberal who can hire professional bodyguards, or if you are the state. Liberals worship at the alter of the "state."

Liberals say:

"Shame on Americans for being the wealthiest nation on Earth. Shame on America for being the most powerful nation on Earth. Shame on America for being the most Christian nation on Earth. Shame on America for standing in the breech protecting the freedom of the rest of the nations of the world. Shame on America for being a bastion of capitalism and freedom."

Well I'm sorry folks, but I refuse to be ashamed of my country, and its wealth and power. I refuse to be ashamed of our history. I refuse to allow a bunch of limp-wristed, gutless, whiners destroy my nation or rewrite its history. I am tempted to call for a boycott of the Jamestown 400th anniversary festivities, but I believe it would be better if a huge mob of real Americans flooded the town with their presence and with posters declaring a celebration of our 400th anniversary. I would recommend this course, but...bring your own food and soft drinks. Stay in hotels far way from the town and don't buy any commemorative trinkets from the town's merchants. Show them your displeasure by refusing to invest in their twisted little town.

Make this the costliest and least lucrative celebration in the town's 400 year history. Make them rue the day they chose to denigrate and insult our nations founders.

Long Live the American Republic

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Libby Decision a Gross Legal Travesty

This jury should be nullified simply based on their public statements. It also should be nullified because of the relationship between juror Denis Collins and one of the main witnesses against Libby, Tim Russert of NBC news. Collins is a neighbor and friend of Tim Russert, as well as a former columnist for the Washington Post the very Left-wing newspaper and source of this article.

Libby 'Pilloried' For Leak, Panel Members Believed

By Amy Goldstein and Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 7, 2007; Page A08

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

Still, the juror said yesterday, the jury concluded that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury that investigated the leak. Sifting through mounds of evidence convinced the panel that Libby's memory of conversations with colleagues and journalists was not as faulty as the defense contended.

"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

Collins, an author and ex-Washington Post reporter, was the only one of the seven women and four men on the jury to provide an inside glimpse into the method and thought process that the panel used to find Cheney's former top aide guilty of four felony counts.

How is it justice when the jury reveals that they were looking for revenge against Vice-President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove?

Former Washington Post columnist Denis Collins stated that members of the jury kept asking:

"We gotta tell you, we, the jury, had sympathy for Mr. Libby. We think he was the fall guy. A lot of jurors are saying, ‘What are we doing with this guy? Where's Rove? Where's Cheney?"

Collins also mentioned Joe Wilson's New York Times article as a source of truth, you know, the article which has been repeatedly proven to be false.

This whole thing has been what one might call a "revenge killing." The Left has been unable to touch President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Karl Rove, so they trumped up this case in an attempt to get at them.

Questionable Libby jurors (from NYT) include the following...

M - Juror number 1-Web architect GSA[Iraq] “It’s a very troubling
situation that the country is in.”

M - Juror number
2-Investment banker and PhD economist worked at Council of Economic Advisers for a year in the Clinton administration.

M -
Juror number 3-retired math teacher-“I don’t always agree with his
[President Bush] Iraq policy…I would have gone in with 500,000
troops”

M - Juror number 4-Former Washington Post
reporter-[On Iraq] “I’m very skeptical about everything I hear until
I see it backed up.” once worked for Post editor Bob Woodward and was a neighbor
of NBC reporter Tim Russert,

F - Juror number
6-Department of Health and Human Services worker-Said she was “not
particularly impressed with Vice President Dick
Cheney.”

F – Juror number 9-Administrator at senior
services agency-[On Iraq] “I think Bush was not
candid.”

F – Juror number 11-Retired nonprofit
administrator formerly in the Air Force-[On Iraq] "I don’t think
they have been truthful or forthright about the real reasons for
engaging."

The judge, Reggie Walton, refused to allow Libby's lawyers to impeach Russert's testimony by introducing evidence that he too had publicly lied on his television show, stating that he was defending the first amendment, while he given testimony to the FBI.

The judge also disallowed a statement from the government defending Libby's memory lapse, saying that Libby had:

“worked long hours, received daily intelligence briefings and attended many meetings concerning important matters of national security.”

To my mind, a judge should never be allowed to prejudice a defendants case simply because he is angry at council. The goal of a court is to seek the truth, not to stroke the judges ego. Punishment at some offense by a defendant's legal team should be suffered by the legal team, following the trial.

If this decision isn't overturned, it won't be for a lack of reason.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Lies From the Washington Post

One doesn't have to read very far into a Post article to find lies these days, as in:

"security breach involving Plame's work as an undercover CIA officer"

Once again the same old thoroughly disproven lies keep cropping up. One might begin to believe that Post reporters like R. Jeffrey Smith have a political agenda. Imagine that, a biased reporter at the Washington Post.

Cheney's Suspected Role in Security Breach Drove Fitzgerald

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 7, 2007; Page A06

In a small room on the third floor of the D.C. federal courthouse in late March 2004, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald stood before I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and asked him three separate times whether his boss, Vice President Cheney, had discussed telling reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The question was not insignificant for Fitzgerald, who saw his mission as revealing the full chain of events behind the security breach involving Plame's work as an undercover CIA officer. Fitzgerald was unconvinced by Libby's response that even though he "may have" had such a conversation with Cheney, it probably occurred after Plame's identity had been revealed in a newspaper column.

Fitzgerald would respond with great frustration in his summation at Libby's trial almost three years later, saying that Libby's lies had effectively prevented him from learning about all of Cheney's actions in the administration's campaign to undermine Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

More than he had previously, Fitzgerald made clear in those remarks that his search for the truth about Cheney was a key ambition in his probe and that his inability to get it was a key provocation for Libby's indictment. Although Cheney was the target, Fitzgerald's investigation could not reach him because of Libby's duplicity.

Is it proper for a federal prosecuter to be seeking a conviction out of some personal fit of pique? This whole Fitzgerald affair reeks of revenge and self-justification. He knew who leaked Valerie Plame's name from the outset. He should never have sent the FBI to question Libby or anyone else. Once Armitage's name was known and along with that the fact that this was not an effort to "undermine Plame's husband," Wimpy Wilson the investigation should have been terminated.

From the beginning Fitzgerald has been more interested in making a name for himself than he has in seeking the truth. There was no plot to out Valerie Plame (as if, as a none covert status clerk, she could have been outed). This whole business has been a witch hunt, a search for a crime that was never committed. Fitzgerald should be fired and disbarred for malpractice and entrapment.

Attorney General Gonzales should be tossed out the door right behind him.

I sure wish President Bush would "grow a pair" and do what is right in this thing rather than what is expedient.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below