Ezekiel Emanuel: MUST READ

This is a MUST READ post from John Goodman's Health Policy Blog.

In his speech to the American Medical Association, President Obama said what White House health advisor Ezekiel Emanuel and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag have said in print some time ago. The only way to control health care costs is to get doctors to provide less care — fewer tests, fewer procedures, fewer everything. Of course, the Administration wants to eliminate only that care that is "unnecessary."

...[T]he Administration is proposing a new federal health board to decide whether health care services are "effective" or "appropriate." When he first advanced this idea in Critical, Obama health care guru, Tom Daschle, pointed to the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as the model. NICE has adopted a rule of thumb that health expenditures are inappropriate if they involve spending more than $22,000 to save six months of life. As a result, British cancer patients do not have access to drugs that are routinely available in the United States. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 25,000 British cancer patients die prematurely every year because of these restrictions.

If health care is to be rationed, what's the right way to do it? Zeke Emanuel (who is also the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) wrote an entire article on this subject in the Lancet on January 31, 2009. Emanuel advocated allocating health resources in order to maximize collective life years. Suppose a 25-year-old and a 65-year-old have a life threatening disease. Since the 25-year-old has many more potential years of life ahead of him, he should receive preferential treatment, says Emanuel.

...There's more. In a different article written more than 10 years ago for the Hastings Center Report, Emanuel said health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He continues, "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

I don't say this casually.

Zeke Emanuel is like someone from the Third Reich.

In effect, the policies Ezekiel Emanuel is encouraging Obama to adopt would create a virtual death camp for seniors and the very young and the mentally challenged.

This is immoral. Where is the compassion?

I never thought health care in America would be modeled on a death camp philosophy.

"Dr." Emanuel wants to care for the economic health of the state, not tend to needs of people. His goal is to cut costs. (Obama calls that "making difficult decisions.") Emanuel wants to trim the high price of health care by literally eliminating people who are a drag on the system, like the elderly.

HEALTH SERVICES DENIED.

How can Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold support this horor? Oh, that's right. They're exempt. They won't be subjected to rationed health care.

Unbelievable. This is America!

I really can't believe this. I can't believe Emanuel's ideas are even being considered by Obama and the Democrats. Absolutely heartless.

I don't recognize my country anymore.
_________________

Related posts:

Ezekiel Emanuel: Complete Lives System, The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009

Ezekiel Emanuel: 'Thinking has Evolved'

Americans NOT Sold on Stimulus

Barack Obama continues to try to create panic. He keeps telling Americans that we have a lot to fear.

Making his case in the most dire terms, President Barack Obama said that if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it.

"We can't afford to wait. We can't wait to see and hope for the best," Obama said in Elkhart, Ind., a community reeling in job losses during the recession that has defined his young presidency. "We can't posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us in into this mess in the first place."

Obama took the Washington debate Monday to a Midwest setting of everyday Americans, sought to build support for a massive infusion of government spending.

There's that "we may never recover" stuff again.

If we recovered after the Jimmy Carter years, I have confidence we'll manage.

This playing on the people's fears isn't working. Obama should cut it out.

The popular president got at least one biting question during a candid question question-and-answer session, when a woman who identified herself as Tara took Obama to task for some of the tax lapses of his high-level nominees.

"You've come to our county and asked us to trust you, but those that you have appointed to your Cabinet are not trustworthy and can't handle their own budget and taxes," she said. Others in the town-hall session booed her, but Obama interjected: "No, no, this is a legitimate question."

Of course, it's a legitimate question.

How boorish of the people in attendance to boo the woman!

Although this AP account doesn't mention it, the booing grew louder when the woman mentioned Sean Hannity's invite to have a beer with him.

It appears that Obama was addressing a very supportive, Democrat crowd. What good is preaching to the choir?

Obama said he has taken responsibility for the perception that some people shouldn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Two nominees, including Tom Daschle, who was in line to be secretary of Health and Human Services, withdrew from consideration after revelations of delinquent taxes.

But he added that the mistakes were honest ones and said: "If you're not going to appoint anybody who's ever made a mistake in your life, then you're not going to have anybody taking your jobs."

Yeah, we heard that on five networks last week.

On the economic crisis, Obama acknowledged that the legislation currently circulating in Congress is not beyond criticism, even poking fun at its authors at one point. Said Obama: "It's coming out of Washington. It's going through Congress."

"You know, look, it's not perfect," the president conceded. "But it is the right size, it is the right scope. Broadly speaking, it has the right priorities to create jobs that will jump-start our economy and transform the economy for the 21st century."

Wow. That's looking at the bill through rose-colored glasses.

Americans know better.

From Rasmussen Reports:

As Congress debates the economic stimulus plan initially proposed by President Obama, would you like to see the plan include more tax cuts and less government spending, more government spending and less tax cuts, or would you rather see the plan pass pretty much as it is today?


62% - More tax cuts and less government spending
14% - More government spending and less tax cuts

20% - Pass pretty much as it is today

5% - Not sure

Americans aren't happy with Obama's plan, not happy at all.

Obama's Daschle Mistake: "Two Sets of Rules"

More Barack Obama hypocrisy...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday acknowledged an error after former Senator Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as health secretary over tax problems, saying, "I've got to own up to my mistake."

Obama made the admission in an interview with NBC as part of a media blitz to rally support for a nearly $900 billion economic stimulus plan, an effort overshadowed by the latest embarrassing setback in the formation of his cabinet.

"I've got to own up to my mistake which is that ultimately it's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said, according to a transcript of the interview.

If there aren't two sets of rules, then why is Tim Geithner the secretary of the Treasury?

Of course, there are two sets of rules in the Obama administration.

Obama supported tax cheat Tom Daschle.

Has Obama stripped Daschle of his position as the director of the new White House Office of Health Reform?

What was that about two sets of rules?

Obama is a hypocrite. Daschle is a crook.

Obama's Statement on Daschle's Withdrawal

From Washington Wire, WJS:

The text of Obama’s statement on Daschle’s withdrawal of his nomination:

This morning, Tom Daschle asked me to withdraw his nomination for secretary of health and human services. I accept his decision with sadness and regret.

Tom Daschle has devoted his life to public service and health care reform, so that every American has access to health care they can afford. I had hoped that he could bring this passion and expertise to bear to finally achieve that goal, which is so
essential to the progress of our economy and the well-being of businesses and families across our nation.

Tom made a mistake, which he openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I.
But that mistake, and this decision, cannot diminish the many contributions Tom has made to this country, from his years in the military to his decades of public service.

Now we must move forward, with our plan to lift this economy and put people back to work.

Obama certainly did excuse Daschle's "mistake."

Yesterday, he was asked, "Mr. President, do you still stand behind Tom Daschle?"

Obama responded, "Absolutely."

Video here.

Obama knew about Daschle's tax evasion and his issues as a possible unregistered lobbyist.

Nonetheless, Obama "absolutely" supported Daschle.

*Flip Flop Alert*Flip Flop Alert*Flip Flop Alert*

Obama supported tax cheat Daschle before he didn't.

The question remains: Will Daschle, tax cheat and crook, be part of Obama's administration in this capacity?

Remember:

Mr. Obama has named Mr. Daschle to a second position, as director of a new White House Office of Health Reform. That job is not subject to Senate confirmation.

If Daschle does keep this post, why is that acceptable to Obama?

Daschle should have no place in Obama's administration.

Just how hypocritical can Obama be?

We're learning.

Another question: Does Daschle expect the IRS to enforce our laws?

"Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter."

--Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Tom Daschle's Statement Withdrawing his Nomination

From Washington Wire, WJS:

The text of Daschle’s statement withdrawing his nomination for secretary of health and human services:

I have just informed the president that I am withdrawing my name from consideration for secretary of health and human services. To be chosen by President Obama to run the Department of Health and Human Services and to lead the reform of America’s health care system is one of the signal honors of an improbable career.

But if 30 years of exposure to the challenges inherent in our system has taught me anything, it has taught me that this work will require a leader who can operate with the full faith of Congress and the American people, and without distraction.

Right now, I am not that leader, and will not be a distraction. The focus of Congress should be on the urgent business of moving the president’s economic agenda forward, including affordable health care for every American.

We need the best care in America to be available to all Americans. We need this effort to succeed. Lives and livelihoods are at stake.

I will not be the architect of America’s health system reform, but I remain one of its most fervent supports. Thank you.

Will Obama allow Daschle to keep his other position?

Remember:

Mr. Obama has named Mr. Daschle to a second position, as director of a new White House Office of Health Reform. That job is not subject to Senate confirmation.

Will Daschle, tax cheat and crook, be part of Obama's administration in this capacity?

If so, explain why that's OK?

Daschle Withdraws Nomination, Obama Fails

We know that Tom Daschle is a tax cheat. He's a crook.

He's withdrawn his nomination.

Good.

I wonder if Barack Obama regrets his staunch support of tax cheat Daschle.

Obama's judgment has been tested. He failed.

Tom Daschle Should Hit the Road

It's time for tax cheat Tom Daschle to withdraw his nomination.

It's no surprise that Republicans are calling for that. Sen. Jim DeMint wants Daschle to step aside. That's to be expected.

Eventually, I think Daschle will withdraw his name.

The problem: He has to do it in a way that will allow Barack Obama to save face.

Step one in the dance choreographed by the Obama administration: The New York Times editorial.

When President Obama nominated former Senator Tom Daschle to be his secretary of health and human services, it seemed to be a good choice. Mr. Daschle, as the co-author of a book on health care reform, knew a lot about one of the president’s signature issues. As a former Senate majority leader, he also knew a lot about guiding controversial bills through Congress, where he remains liked and respected by former colleagues.

Unfortunately, new facts have come to light — involving his failure to pay substantial taxes that were owed and his sizable income from health-related companies while he worked in the private sector — that call into question his suitability for the job. We believe that Mr. Daschle ought to step aside and let the president choose a less-blemished successor.

Mr. Daschle’s tax shortfall is particularly troubling because it comes on the heels of another nominee’s failure to pay taxes due. We were not pleased when the president’s Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, admitted that he had failed to pay tens of thousands of dollars in federal self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund despite having signed paperwork acknowledging the obligation.

Now we are confronted with an even larger lapse by Mr. Daschle, who failed to pay $128,000 in taxes, primarily for personal use of a car and driver provided to him by a private equity firm for which he consulted. Although the firm — headed by a major Democratic donor — had not issued a form 1099 for the value of the car service, Mr. Daschle said he became concerned last June that he might owe taxes on it and instructed his accountant to investigate. Neither was concerned enough to actually pay the taxes.

Only after the Obama transition team flagged unrelated tax issues that would require filing amended returns did Mr. Daschle and his accountant address the need to report the personal use value of the car service — more than $255,000 over three years — as income. Only after he had been chosen to be the health secretary did Mr. Daschle tell the transition team about the unpaid taxes. He paid some $140,000 in back taxes and interest on Jan. 2 to settle several tax problems — and he acknowledges owing more.

In both the Geithner and Daschle cases, the failure to pay taxes is attributed to unintentional oversights. But Mr. Daschle is one oversight case too many. The American tax system depends heavily on voluntary compliance. It would send a terrible message to the public if we ignore the failure of yet another high-level nominee to comply with the tax laws.

...Mr. Daschle is another in a long line of politicians who move cozily between government and industry. We don’t know that his industry ties would influence his judgments on health issues, but they could potentially throw a cloud over health care reform. Mr. Daschle could clear the atmosphere by withdrawing his name.

If the New York Times Editorial Board is calling for Daschle to hit the road, the end must be near for Daschle.

Just because Obama "absolutely" supports Daschle doesn't mean Daschle can survive.

Obama said that when he still thought he could get away with anything.

Those heady days of his inauguration are long gone. He's learning that at least some people know he can't walk on water.

Just as Obama initially thought he could maintain his very close ties to Jeremiah Wright, I think we've seen the same thing with Daschle.

Obama knows he has to throw out Daschle.

Daschle has to fall on his sword for Obama. I don't think he wants to do that, but the pressure will be so great that he will.

1986 Daschle Campaign Ad

This 1986 campaign ad has come back to bite Tom Daschle.



Too funny.

Daschle needs to withdraw his nomination now.

Better yet, Barack Obama needs to demand it.

I think all this stuff reflects terribly on Obama.

He's the hypocrite-in-chief.

Tom Daschle: Tax Cheat and Major-League Hypocrite

This is a really interesting quote from tax cheat Tom Daschle, Barack Obama's choice to be the secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

John J. Pitney found:

"Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter."

--Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Priceless.

Tom Daschle Tax Cheat Apologizes

Barack Obama "absolutely" still supports tax cheat Tom Daschle to be part of his Cabinet.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Trying to salvage his nomination, Tom Daschle apologized Monday for delinquent tax payments as President Barack Obama and a top Senate chairman stood by him as the choice to lead the Health and Human Services Department.

...Obama, speaking to reporters, said he was "absolutely" supporting his Cabinet choice. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate panel, said he backed Daschle's confirmation. The expression of support from Baucus came hours before Daschle was scheduled to meet with the committee and despite a less than amicable relationship between the two men.

Daschle wrote a letter to the top leaders of the Finance Committee. The letter, released Monday, sought to explain how he overlooked taxes on additional income for consulting work and the use of a car service. He also deducted more in charitable contributions than he should have.

Daschle recently filed amended tax returns for 2005-07 to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest.

"I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns," said Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader. "I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them."

In the letter dated Feb. 1, Daschle provided a timeline for when the errors were discovered and tax payments made.

...Daschle filed the amended returns after Obama announced he intended to nominate him as secretary of Health and Human Services.

Daschle explained in his apology letter that the presidential transition team flagged charitable contributions they concluded were deducted in error. When his accountant realized amended tax returns would need to be filed, he suggested addressing another matter that Daschle raised with him earlier in the year: whether the use of a car service provided by a close friend and business associate, Leo Hindery, should be reported as income.

The unreported income for that car service totaled more than $250,000 over three years.

..."I disclosed this information to the committee voluntarily, and paid the taxes and any interest owed promptly," Daschle wrote. "My mistakes were unintentional."

This is crazy.

There is only one reason that Daschle filed amended returns -- He had to.

If Obama hadn't picked him, there is no way that Daschle would be the turning over the money he should have paid to the government.

His apology is a joke.

"I disclosed this information to the committee voluntarily, and paid the taxes and any interest owed promptly."

No, he didn't pay his taxes promptly. "Promptly" doesn't mean pay your taxes when you're being scrutinized for a Cabinet position. It means pay your taxes when they're due.

When tax cheat, lawbreaker Daschle says, "My mistakes were unintentional," he means he never intended to be called on his evasion. He was skirting the law.

It's disturbing that Obama is willing to tolerate this stuff at the same time he's passing judgment on others, calling them shameful.

I'd like to see a little consistency from Obama, like stop serving wagyu steak.

Shameful!
____________________

Speaking of being inconsistent...

Look at what John J. Pitney found:

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ”

--Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Priceless.

Tom Daschle Tax Cheat

Barack Obama sure knows how to pick 'em.

Another cabinet pick has tax trouble.

It looks like Tom Daschle is an even bigger tax cheat than Tim Geithner.

And as usual, the damaging information is dumped very late on Friday afternoon.

From the New York Times:

President Obama’s pick for secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, failed to pay more than $140,000 in taxes, mostly for free use of a car and driver that had been provided to him by a prominent businessman and Democratic fund-raiser, administration officials said on Friday.

Mr. Daschle, concluding that he owed the taxes, filed amended returns and paid more than $100,000 in back taxes and interest on Jan. 2, the officials said.

Daschle is a crook.

There's no way this tax cheat would have paid these back taxes if Obama hadn't picked him to be a part of his cabinet.

The car and driver were provided by Leo Hindery Jr., a media and telecommunications executive who had been chairman of YES, the New York Yankees regional sports network. In 2005, Mr. Hindery founded a private equity firm known as InterMedia Advisors. Mr. Daschle was chairman of InterMedia’s advisory board.

In a financial disclosure statement filed this month with the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Daschle reported that he had received large amounts of income from InterMedia, including more than $2 million in consulting fees and $182,520 in the form of “company-provided transportation.”

The belated tax payments help explain delays in the confirmation of Mr. Daschle, a former Senate Democratic leader who had been expected to win swift approval.

Despite the embarrassing admission — the second for one of President Obama’s cabinet choices — the White House and Democratic senators quickly released statements on Friday evening in Mr. Daschle’s support.

I love how the Times refers to Daschle's lawbreaking as an "embarrassing admission."

The guy is corrupt.

And Obama and Dem senators willing to support Daschle are just as slimy.

"New era of responsibility" keeps echoing in my head. What an absolute crock!

...An administration official said Mr. Daschle had paid $32,090 in back taxes and interest for 2005, $38,507 for 2006 and $69,570 for 2007.

The official said Mr. Daschle’s failure to pay the taxes was “a stupid mistake.”

We should not have to tolerate all these "stupid mistakes." These crooks are not fit to serve. Period.

A Senate aide said Mr. Daschle also had a tax issue that involved charitable contributions.

This is shocking. A Democrat involved in making charitable contributions is almost unheard of.

Administration officials said Mr. Daschle should not be penalized because he had discovered the tax liability himself, paid up and brought it to the attention of the Finance Committee, which is vetting his nomination. They said he realized in June 2008 that he might have a tax problem.

If that's the stand that administration officials are taking, then I think they are complicit in Daschle's corruption.

...The White House and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, affirmed their support for Mr. Daschle on Friday.

James P. Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said: “Senator Daschle will be confirmed as secretary of health and human services. He has a long and distinguished career in public service and is the best person to help reform health care in this country.”

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, used almost identical words, predicting that Mr. Daschle “will be confirmed.”

Sure, tax cheat Daschle will be confirmed. Even though he has other issues, some related to lobbying, Daschle will be confirmed.

The Democrats can do whatever they want. They can be as corrupt as they want to be.

...Mr. Obama has named Mr. Daschle to a second position, as director of a new White House Office of Health Reform. That job is not subject to Senate confirmation.

Obama has found a way to guarantee that Daschle will be at his side. Slick.

So just what is the change that Obama is bringing to Washington?

Here's a change: Obama has broken his promise about lobbyists working for him. He's changed his position on that.

This is also new: Obama and his comrades are excusing lawbreaking and setting a new standard -- Pay your taxes when you're nominated for a cabinet position. You can hold off until then. No problem.
______________

More Daschle Tax Issues

Reid "confident" free car won't wreck Daschle

Darkness and Light

I still say that Maureen Dowd missed her calling.

She's wasting her talent on political commentary. She should write romance novels, heavy on the drama. She would also be good at pop psychology, a cross between Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura.

In her column, "Darkness and Light," she tackles the Clintons' collective psyche, finding similarities with (GASP!) Dick Cheney.

That comparison is about low as one can go in the world view of liberals.

She writes:

Hillary Clinton denounced Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, but she did not absorb the ultimate lesson of the destructive vice president:

Don’t become so paranoid that you let yourself be overwhelmed by a dark vision.

I think Hillary truly believes that she and Bill are the only ones tough enough to get to the White House. Jack Nicholson endorsed her as “the best man for the job,” and she told David Letterman that “in my White House, we’ll know who wears the pantsuits.” But her pitch is the color of pitch: Because she has absorbed all the hate and body blows from nasty Republicans over the years, she is the best person to absorb more hate and body blows from nasty Republicans.

Darkness seeking darkness. It’s an exhausting specter, and the reason that Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Claire McCaskill and so many other Democrats are dashing for daylight and trying to break away from the pathological Clinton path.

“I think we should never be derisive about somebody who has the ability to inspire,” Senator McCaskill told David Gregory on MSNBC on Tuesday. “You know, we’ve had some dark days in this democracy over the last seven years, and today the sun is out. It is shining brightly. I watch these kids, these old and young, these black and white, 20,000 of them, pour into our dome in St. Louis Saturday night, and they feel good about being an American right now. And I think that’s something that we have to capture.”

Tuesday’s voting showed only that the voters, like moviegoers, don’t want a pat ending. Even though Hillary reasserted her strength, corraling New York, California and Kennedy country Massachusetts, she and Obama will battle on in chiaroscuro. Her argument to the Democratic base has gone from a subtext of “You owe me,” or more precisely, “Bill owes me and you owe him,” to a subtext of “Obambi will fold at the first punch from the right.”

...As she talked Sunday to George Stephanopoulos, a former director of the formidable Clinton war room, Hillary’s case boiled down to the fact that she can be Trouble, as they say about hard-boiled dames in film noir, when Republicans make trouble.

“I have been through these Republican attacks over and over and over again, and I believe that I’ve demonstrated that much to the dismay of the Republicans, I not only can survive, but thrive,” she said.

And on Tuesday night she told supporters, “Let me be clear: I won’t let anyone Swift-boat this country’s future.”

Better the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t. Better to go with the Clintons, with all their dysfunction and chaos — the same kind that fueled the Republican hate machine — than to risk the chance that Obama would be mauled like a chew toy in the general election. Better to blow off all the inspiration and the young voters, the independents and the Republicans that Obama is attracting than to take a chance on something as ephemeral as hope. Now that’s Cheney-level paranoia.

Dark, light, the devil, the dragon, hard-boiled dames, film noir.

It's hard to believe that she is talking about Super Tuesday and the Democrat candidates, with a nod to her favorite piñata, evil personified -- Dick Cheney.

I guess that's what it takes to be a Pulitzer Prize winning writer.

Dowd concludes:

[I]f [Obama] wants to be president, he will still have to slay the dragon. And his dragon is the Clinton attack machine, which emerged Tuesday night, not invincible but breathing fire.

After wading through Dowd's drama, I think it's fair to say that she hasn't lost any of her intensity when it comes to slamming the Clintons.

Obama is the light, goodness.

Hillary and Bill are darkness and fire.

It's interesting that Dowd so frequently mocks President Bush as having a simple-minded, black and white view of everything.

I think this column exhibits the same qualities that she so frequently identifies with our 43rd president.

The Many Faces of John McCain

John McCain has been the vulture circling above Donald Rumsfeld's head for years.

On Tuesday, he swooped down in anticipation of Rumsfeld's demise.

On Sunday as a guest on Meet the Press, McCain once again expressed his displeasure with Rumsfeld but said that he respected the President's right to select his "team."

Transcript

MR. GREGORY: Do you think Secretary Rumsfeld should keep his job?

SEN. McCAIN: That’s up to the president of the United States. The president picks his team and the president—as long as the president has confidence in him, then he’ll keep that team.

MR. GREGORY: Even at this stage of the war, you think, you still stick to that position that it’s up to the president?

SEN. McCAIN: Because elections have consequences. The president has the right to pick his team. I’ve been asked a number of times if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld and the answer is no.

MR. GREGORY: But you still think he should stay in place if the president wants him.

SEN. McCAIN: I think the president should pick his team and I will support the president’s selections.

On Tuesday, McCain had a very strange way of showing support for the president's selections and their Iraq strategy. Only two days after claiming to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush, McCain was mercilessly bashing the Iraq war plan and mocking the administration.

It's those "inconsistencies" that make McCain appear to be a cheap media whore and, frankly, unstable.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach."

The potential 2008 presidential candidate, who a day earlier had rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. forces, said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military.

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

Those phrases are closely associated with top members of the Bush administration, including the president.

McCain and AP conveniently leave out the many times that top members of the Bush administration, including the President, warned that the birth of a democracy is a difficult task.

On October 16, 2003, Rumsfeld wrote, "It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."

Is a "long, hard slog" the same as a "day at the beach"?

McCain's memory is obviously quite selective.

The Arizona senator said that talk "has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking."

Americans who weren't paying attention may have been under the impression that Iraq was going to be a day at the beach, but that's their fault for not listening.

...Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was glad to hear McCain has realized "we need more than tough talk" on Iraq.

"It's time we win the war on terror," said Reid. "To do that we must change the course in Iraq."

On Monday, McCain said at an appearance in suburban Cleveland that if U.S. troops announce a specific date to leave Iraq, insurgents will bide their time until they have an opportunity to act without interference.

"The chaos that would ensue would have direct implications for our national security," McCain said.

Here's some confusion. Naturally, Reid doesn't know what's going on.

Reid thinks that McCain is getting on board with the retreat and defeat Dems.

He's not. However, he is being highly critical of the way the war has been managed.

DeWine said Congress would not have had the chance to authorize the war if the intelligence on Iraq's military capability and intentions were accurate.

"It would never have come up for a vote so it would have been an entirely different situation," he said.

One more time--

Bush cannot be blamed for the faulty intelligence.

It was the same information that the Dems adhered to under Clinton. It was the same stuff that the rest of the world believed.

In January of 2004, Jonah Goldberg wrote:

[N]obody has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. The German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German assessment was even more dire than our own. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005.

Bill Clinton and his entire administration believed Saddam had WMDs. In 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's point man on WMDs, testified to Congress, "Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors" including our 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

The threat - chemical, biological and nuclear - against U.S. territory proper was only a few years away, according to Einhorn. Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder: all of these people believed Iraq had major stockpiles of WMDs.

Were they all "liars" like President Bush? No? Why not?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say Bush lied while others who said the same thing were being honest. The White House was operating with fundamentally identical information to that of Clinton, Pollack and Einhorn. What was different was that this White House needed to deal with the post-9/11 world.

Have mistakes been made in Iraq? Of course.

Has there ever been a war when mistakes weren't made?

Whether it's the intelligence, or the war plan, or the plan to secure the peace that's being criticized is irrelevant.

What matters is what happens next.

If changing course means cutting and running, then that course would prove to be disastrous.

Look at what resulted when Clinton failed to adequately arm our troops in Somalia, and then decided to cut and run after the battle of Mogadishu.

From Frontline's "Hunting Bin Laden":

When the Marines landed in the last days of 1992, bin Laden sent in his own soldiers, armed with AK-47's and rocket launchers. Soon, using the techniques they had perfected against the Russians, they were shooting down American helicopters...

"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

Defeat in Iraq is not an option. For our safety, it's not an option. Bin Laden's own words tell us that defeat is not an option.

I think McCain's Tuesday comments in Ohio reveal his effort to position himself to reject Bush's policies while at the same time refusing to align with the Dems' surrender strategy.

Although McCain is distancing himself from Bush, he's still demanding victory in Iraq. He's trashing the President but he's not accepting the liberal's retreat plan.

McCain is trying to be all things to all people, but I think he ends up being nothing to nobody.

Delusional Daschle

Three things are certain in life -- death, taxes, and Tom Daschle will not be the 2008 Dem nominee for president.

Whenever I read a report about Tom Daschle flirting with the thought of making a run for the presidency in 2008, I think that he must suffering from some sort of disorder.

It is irrational for him to think that he has even a snowball's chance in hell of being successful in any primary, including South Dakota.

It's not going to happen. No way. Anyone believing otherwise is disconnected from reality, and possibly clinically delusional.
ABERDEEN, S.D. (AP) -- Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, accusing the GOP of spreading a message of fear, says he is considering a 2008 presidential bid.

"I haven't ruled anything out or anything in at this point," Daschle said in an interview Saturday night after a hometown dinner in his honor.

"I'm encouraged by the strong support many people have voiced for my candidacy around the country and in South Dakota. I'll make a decision at some point later on this year," he said.

I find it very hard to believe that "many" people are encouraging Daschle to run.

Daschle said President Bush and Republicans have overemphasized the importance of the war on terror, and he said the U.S. is no safer now than it was before the Iraq invasion.

Is that supposed to mean that Daschle wouldn't give priority to the war on terror?

It's importance cannot be overemphasized.

Does Daschle have short term memory problems?

At the time of the 9/11 attacks, he was still a senator. He hadn't been booted out of office yet. Daschle should know better than to diminish the seriousness of the war on terror.
"This country is not more secure when a president infers that he is above the law and can wiretap and eavesdrop on average citizens," he said. "We're not more secure when we turn ports over to foreign countries."

He's echoing the tired talking points that the other Dems have been using -- just the same old negativity and fear mongering. In those two sentences, Daschle managed to spell out the Dems' entire message. Actually, it's a good summation. The Dems have no solutions, only criticism. They are the party of retreat and defeat.

It's not as if Daschle has anything fresh to bring to the party. He has nothing positive to offer, no vision, no ideas.

What would cause any Dem to look to Daschle to lead the party to victory in 2008?

Battlefield South Dakota

Red state South Dakota, home of pro-abortion FORMER Dem Senator Tom Daschle, has initiated a battle that may be not be settled until it gets to the Supreme Court.

From the Los Angeles Times:

South Dakota legislators today gave final approval for a ban on almost all abortions, firing a burst in the battle over one of the nation's most contentious political issues and a shot that backers hope will be heard by a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

The state House today passed the latest version of the bill 50 to 18, sending it on to Gov. Mike Rounds, who indicated that he would likely sign the bill.

Under the law, which would go into effect July 1, most abortions would be illegal and doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.


When you break a law, there is a penalty. If abortion is illegal in South Dakota, someone performing the procedure would deserve a punishment.

Are we supposed to be horrified at the thought of a doctor going to prison?
"I've indicated I'm pro life and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Rounds told the Associated Press. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."

By signing the bill, the governor would be doing what his constituents expect him to do. He's not an out of the mainstream nutcase.

Rounds is South Dakota mainstream, whether the liberal elite like it or not.


The South Dakota law is an attack on Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision by the Supreme Court that established a women's right to an abortion.

I love the way the reporter, Michael Muskal, says that the Supreme Court "established a women's right to an abortion."

That's also known as creating law, legislating from the bench.

Something that really bugs me is the libs' hypocrisy about this.

I have never heard a single lib accuse the judicial branch of destroying the checks and balances in American government. Why don't the libs claim that the judiciary is engaged in an abuse of power?

One of the Dems' favorite talking points is that the Bush Administration has shredded the Constitution, and King George has usurped power.
Since the judicial branch has been the Dems' only hope of realizing their agenda, I'm sure it's troublsome for them to accept eight years of Bush appointments and nominees. Too bad.

No doubt the Dems will be beside themselves if the new Supreme Court does proceed to actually interpret the Constitution and base its decisions on the law, rather than making law and acting as legislators.

...Passage of the South Dakota bill, which had been widely expected, was attacked by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights groups.

"This bill contains an inadequate exception to protect a woman's life and no other exceptions — not for rape, not for incest, not even to protect the woman's health," President Nancy Keenan said in a statement on the group's website. "Clearly emboldened by President Bush's judicial appointments, South Dakota has passed dangerous and unconstitutional legislation that its supporters admit is a direct attack on Roe v. Wade."

Keenan lies.

The bill CLEARLY allows for the protection of the mother's life.
Text

Section 4. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.

Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

Of course, the South Dakota legislature was emboldened to challenge the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. The state's right to pass its own laws regarding abortion has been blocked since 1973, and now there are constructionists on the Court.

For the first time since Roe v. Wade served to overturn abortion laws that states had in place, there's a chance that the Court may actually look at the legality of that ruling.

The libs have said that Bush is abusing his powers, packing the court with ideologues. Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy both specifically accused him of "packing the court."
That was and is so lame.

The American people elected Bush with the expectation that he would appoint constructionists. He kept his campaign promise. That's not a power grab; that's a president carrying out the will of the people.

When libs and unrestricted abortion on demand proponents whine about the current Court, they fail to recognize that the people elected Bush. He has exercised the authority granted to him by the Constitution.

There's nothing corrupt about that. It's democracy.

According to the state motto of South Dakota, "Under God the people rule."

Yes, they do.

Tom Daschle???

Time away from Washington obviously hasn't helped to clear Daschle's mind.

He's loonier than ever.

From the Argus Leader:

Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle is weighing the possibility of running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

"I have received a lot of encouragement," Daschle said in an email today to the Argus Leader.

Daschle didn't rule out the possibility of an official announcement in the near future. But for now, he said, he has no plans to run for national office.

In his email, Daschle said the primary factors in his decision "would be my family and our mutual decision to consider the rigors of a campaign and reentry into public life."

Daschle made similar comments over the weekend to another publication. In a Saturday story in the National Journal, Daschle said he was "taking a look at" entering the race.

Analysts see the 2008 race beginning to take shape, with candidates and possible candidates from both parties hinting more openly about their plans.

Larry Sabato, a political expert at the University of Virginia, said Daschle was not in his latest rankings of likely Democratic candidates because he wasn't convinced Daschle would run.

"I wouldn’t call him the favorite, or even second or third. But it’s early," Sabato said.

What? What is Sabato talking about? He's a political expert?

No kidding Daschle isn't the favorite. The chances of Daschle being the Dem nominee are probably the same as me sweeping the Dem primaries and winning the 2008 election.

Supposedly, Daschle's getting a lot of encouragement to run for president. He must be confused.
Perhaps he's being encouraged to seek the presidency of his Neighborhood Watch group. No one could seriously be urging him to run to be the President of the United States. I find that beyond belief.

The past few days certainly have held their share of disturbing flashbacks. You think Gore and Daschle are gone, and then they come crawling back up to the surface again.

It's creepy.

The Unbearable Relativity of Eleanor Clift's Rage

Eleanor Clift has lost her mind.

If she hasn't, she is being incredibly disingenuous in her statements about the intelligence that the WORLD had about Saddam Hussein's regime.

On The McLaughlin Group, Clift was screeching about the Bush administration lying us into war.

Clift and all those reiterating that claim are truly embarrassing themselves. They've done so from the first time they began chanting that mantra and it appears that they intend to continue, with no end in sight.

The reality is Clift and her fellow libs cannot insist that Bush lied the U.S. into war without insisting that Clinton and the Dems lied about Iraq as well.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Clift fell back on that tired old Dem talking point about the administration cherry-picking intelligence to build a case for war.

Apparently, Clift is content to do some cherry-picking of her own.

FACT:

WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAID ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME WAS NOT QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATS SAID.

LIES! ALL LIES!

Saturday in Crawford, there was an ideological showdown between supporters of our troops and their mission in Iraq and the anti-Bush, anti-war Cindy Sheehan crowd.

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- Several thousand people descended on President Bush's adopted hometown Saturday, most in a cross-country caravan for a pro-Bush rally and others to support an anti-war demonstration led by grieving mother Cindy Sheehan.

Bush supporters gathered for an event marking the culmination of the "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" tour, which started last week in California. The crowd of about 1,500 chanted, "Cindy, go home!"

"You are giving hope and encouragement to the enemies of America," said former California Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, a Republican who co-founded the group that coordinated the rally.

Meanwhile, busloads of war protesters gathered several miles away at "Camp Casey," named for Sheehan's 24-year-old son who died in Iraq last year. Several hundred people attended a bell-ringing ceremony honored soldiers serving in Iraq.

"I know that the Camp Casey movement is going to end the war in Iraq," Sheehan said, adding that no other families should have to suffer the loss of a relative. She led the crowd in chanting "Not one more!"

A few Bush supporters went to the edge of the anti-war camp on Saturday, trying to remove some of the hundreds of white crosses bearing fallen soldiers' names. They had a list from families who did not want their sons' or daughters' names associated with Sheehan's group.

Sheriff's deputies said they could remove the name tags but not the crosses, so the group removed a few tags and left without incident.


The New York Times gives its usual anti-Bush slant on its coverage of Saturday's Crawford protests.

One portion of the article jumped out at me. It was a comment made by Lawrence Tremblay of New Windsor, New York. Tremblay, whose son, Joseph, was killed by a roadside bomb in April, was among the Sheehan supporters.

He said, "The quiet Americans, and there are a lot of us, need to start standing up and tell our government, 'Do this thing right.' "

Mr. Tremblay said that he began seeing a therapist after his son's death, and that the therapist had asked, "Who are you mad at?"

"A lot of people get mad at the military," he said. "A lot of people get mad at God. A lot of people get mad at everybody. I looked at her and said, 'I am not really mad at anybody.' Then a minute went by and I said, 'You know something, I am mad at somebody: George Bush. Because he lied. That's why I am mad.' "

That has to be the most repeated line by those among the radical far Left--"Bush lied."

Cindy Sheehan uses it in her controversial ad.

She says, "You (Bush) were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction-you were wrong about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda—you lied to us and because of your lies my son died."

Code Pink stages despicable protests outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including signs that read, "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The liberal Democrats in the House and Senate also love to say that Bush lied.

In Senate floor remarks on October 16, 2003, Ted Kennedy said, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."

A litany of similar remarks have been reiterated by Leftists for years now.

They all boil down to one theme--Bush lied.

Jonah Goldberg addressed this over a year and a half ago.

He wrote:

For Bush to have lied, he had to have known that there were no WMDs, right? It's not a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you think is true that later turns out to be false, we don't call that a "lie," we call that a "mistake."

You could look it up.

This vital distinction seems to be lost on many smart people.

...Unfortunately, there are too many anti-Bush slanders out there to count, let alone debunk, but they are all premised on the "fact" that Bush lied.

But nobody has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. The German, Russian, French, Israeli, British, Chinese and U.S. governments all agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The German assessment was even more dire than our own. They were convinced Saddam would have a nuclear weapon by 2005.

Bill Clinton and his entire administration believed Saddam had WMDs. In 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's point man on WMDs, testified to Congress, "Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors" including our 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

The threat - chemical, biological and nuclear - against U.S. territory proper was only a few years away, according to Einhorn. Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder: all of these people believed Iraq had major stockpiles of WMDs.

Were they all "liars" like President Bush? No? Why not?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say Bush lied while others who said the same thing were being honest. The White House was operating with fundamentally identical information to that of Clinton, Pollack and Einhorn. What was different was that this White House needed to deal with the post-9/11 world.

Maybe that clouded Bush's judgment - or opened his eyes. Let's have that argument. I certainly believe mistakes were made (though I still believe the war was right and just). But if you start from Kennedy's premise that the WMD thing was made up, I can't take you seriously.

Goldberg sums it up so well.

I agree with him. When discussing the war, if you start from the "Bush lied" premise, I cannot take you seriously.

What makes this "Bush lied" stance so ridiculous is that SO many Dems are on the record telling the same "lies."


"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily."

--Tom Daschle, Feb. 11, 1998.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998

"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

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

--Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, November 10, 1999

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

--Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

--Ted Kennedy, September 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, October 9, 2002

"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

--Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002

"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."

--Henry Waxman, October 10, 2002

"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

"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 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

--John F. Kerry, January 23, 2003

"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

"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."

--Madeleine Albright, 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

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

--Jacques Chirac, October 16, 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, 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

--Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, April 2003

"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, 1998

Source: The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy

Remember, back in October of 2002, the Senate voted 77 to 23 in favor of the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq.

In the House, the vote was 296 to 133.

Kerry, Rockefeller, Lieberman, and Daschle all voted for the resolution.

Prior to Bush's election, when Clinton was in office, the Dems were hawks, pushing for military action in Iraq.

You can't say that they were fooled by the Bush administration's supposedly fabricated claims about WMD.

If Bush lied, then so did Clinton when he signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."

Clinton said: "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."

CLINTON AND HIS ADMINISTRATION BELIEVED IRAQ POSSESSED WMD AND WOULD USE THEM OR SUPPLY THEM TO TERRORISTS.

We know Clinton is a liar.

The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court. This came as a result of Clinton's Arkansas law license being suspended for five years and being issued a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.

Let's put all that aside and stick to Iraq.

Did Clinton lie about the danger that Saddam Hussein's regime posed to the U.S.?

If he didn't, neither did Bush.

In the final analysis, Bush didn't "lie."

The ones calling him a liar are lying.