On Meet the Press, we get a staggering sense of the lies and obfuscations of the Left senators. We see who were the ones who misrepresented themselves before the American people. The Excerpts from the 11/6 show:
First, on the Supreme Court:
MR. RUSSERT: Samuel Alito, the president's new nominee--let me take you back when he was appointed to the Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit. Here's Ted Kennedy. "Well, I just join in the commendation. You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest. I think it is a very commendable career and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge. ...We are glad to have you here and we will look forward to supporting you and voting for you."
So I assume based on that, you'll support him for the Supreme Court.
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, it's possible, but let me just point out that that was for a lower court and some 15 years ago. And since that time, he's had 15 years of decisions on the circuit court. Those are thousands of decisions that he's been participating in. First of all, I'm rather distressed and troubled and I'm sure the American people are on how we arrived at this particular nominee. We went through Harriet Miers' situation which the right wing had a litmus test that Harriet Miers didn't meet, and then they sort of knocked her down. Now, we have a new nominee. So it's--and the people that were so enthusiastic about knocking down Miers are so enthusiastic for this nominee. We have to find out: Why are they so enthusiastic this time and what do they know that we don't know?
Now, he has had an important career. There are some important areas that I'm concerned about, his decision about the strip-searching of a 10-year-old girl that was basically rejected by the court, his decision on the Family and Medical Leave which is so important to workers who are trying to make a judgment between the child that they love and the job that they need--that position was over turned by the Supreme Court--and also decisions with regards to disabilities rights where a young person needed a chair to be able to participate in a class and he rejected those rights. So we'll have a full hearing. Looking forward to it. It's an important decision. I'm open-minded. And we'll look forward to the hearing.
OK, first, Russert goes and hits Kennedy with his own statements about Alito. Promptly Teddy Boy says, yeah, but that was a long time ago, I was actually sober, I hadn't had my cocktail yet, blah de blah. Then, Ted Kennedy, who CREATED the myth of Robert Bork as some type of Klansman has the audacity to say he should consider what the Conservatives who clamored against Miers and love Alito know that he doesn't. Come on now, Mr. Senator, when have you ever cared about what Conservatives know? You are just looking for more excuses.
But wait, continuing about Judicial Nominees:
MR. RUSSERT: When Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court, Ted Kennedy said, "It's offensive to suggest that a potential Justice of the Supreme Court must pass some presumed test of judicial philosophy. It is even more offensive to suggest that a potential Justice must pass the litmus test of any single-issue interest group."
And yet if someone came before you as a nominee to the Supreme Court and they said they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, you'd vote against them.
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, if someone came before us and said, "Look, I want--my intention is to overturn Roe v. Wade," that's bringing an ideology to the court. That's bringing a judicial philosophy that is not just a review about how you're going to look at the Constitution, but that's an ideological decision that they want to go to on court for a specific purpose.
MR. RUSSERT: But that's a...
SEN. KENNEDY: Wait a second.
MR. RUSSERT: But that's a single-issue litmus test.
SEN. KENNEDY: Now, wait a second. I am opposed to any litmus test for any nominee. That's been my position.
Of course, it doesn't matter that many constitutional scholars, regardless of their views on abortion, say that abortion is bad case law and bad constitutional law, NARAL is supreme. Of course, Teddy boy tries to get around his own hypocrisy, again....I am surprised he didn't just storm off, but wait, he is too delusional to do that. Or too drunk.
However, the comedy of dancing around the truth gets better when Russert brings up Iraq. Teddy Boy shows that classic Chappaquiddick form in this excerpt:
MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Iraq. There's a big debate now about whether or not the data, the intelligence data, was misleading and manipulated in order to encourage public opinion support for the war. Let me give you a statement that was talked about during the war. "We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents...all U.S. intelligence experts agree they are seek nuclear weapons. There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them. ... In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon. ..."
Are those the statements that you're concerned about?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I am concerned about it, and that's why I believe that the actions that were taken by Harry Reid in the Senate last week when effectively he said that we are going to get to the bottom of this investigation, this had been kicked along by the Intelligence Committee, by Pat Roberts for over two years. And Harry Reid did more in two hours than that Intelligence Committee has done in two years. And the American people are going get this information.
And it's important that they get this information about how intelligence was misused because of the current situation. It's important to know where we've been, but it's important to know where we are today, because we're facing serious challenges over in Iran. We're facing serious challenges in North Korea. And we cannot have a government which is going to manipulate intelligence information. We've got to get to the bottom of it, and that is what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the United States Senate last week. That was a bold stroke, one that has the overwhelming support of the American people. It's about time they get the facts on it. They haven't got the facts to date. They deserve them, and they'll get them.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the Senate in 2002--let me show you who said what I just read: John Kerry, your candidate for president. He was talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry. Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein. You, yourself, said, "Saddam is dangerous. He's got dangerous weapons." It wasn't just the Bush White House.
SEN. KENNEDY: The fact is--and I voted against the war, because every military--I'm in the Armed Services Committee, and every military leader highly decorated, military leader, said that it was foolish to have a military intervention at that. General Hoar, with the Marines--General Hoar, who has more Silver Stars than you could possibly count said if we go into Baghdad, it'll look like the last five minutes of "Private Ryan," so we know we had enough information to vote against it, I believe.
OK, Teddy boy gets caught with his pants down (which is not unusual for him), and what does he do? He evades the question. Russert is asking about the hypocrisy of talking about the administration being incorrect in intel when the Dems said even more damning things about Saddam, and Teddy boy couldn't even tell the difference between a Kerry quote and a Bush quote. Also, look what he says about going into Baghdad. Was it like Private Ryan? No. In fact, all the defense that was there was Baghdad Bob saying we weren't there in the first place. The Senator has no intent of being truthful.
Here is the truth. If anyone lied about going to war, it was the Democrats. Let's go back in the way back machine. Its 2002. It is an election year for Congress. Democrats are doing OK, but Bush's approval ratings frighten them. This is before the Paul Wellstone meltdown memorial service. They need to leech some of that patriotic approval from the President. So, when talk of possible action in Iraq comes up, Teddy, Hillary, John Kerry, Schumer and others demand open hearings on going to war with Iraq and Saddam. All the Democrats take turn beating their chests and decrying Saddam's weapons capabilities. All the Democrats rush to jump to the front to say they are pro-military, pro-intervening, pro-war, it was the Democrats. At the time, all the polls said the people supported going after Saddam next, that they thought he did have weapons of mass destruction. Now, if the Senators like Teddy and Johnny knew that the intel was flawed, having seen the SAME intel as the Presdient, then why didn't they all speak out as voices of conscience? Why didn't they? Well, because they simply wanted to triangulate on another issue, and then gripe about it when it didn't all turn out. They were guilty of putting elections over their duty of oversight, if we are to believe their B.S. of they knew all along there were no weapons. Here is the childish excuse of Chuck Schumer, who voted for the war before he realized he was against it, from Fox News Sunday:
C. WALLACE: As we noted, the Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session this week to try to force or get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the manipulation, the exaggeration of pre-war intelligence by the White House.
I want to play a clip from your statement back in October of 2002 when you voted to authorize the use of force. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.
END VIDEO CLIP)
C. WALLACE: Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the president did.
SCHUMER: Yes. The bottom line is I wasn't as sure of it as the president was, but I believe in a post-9/11 world, Chris, that the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong. And you know, that is true.
Yep, the Dems are all about accountability, except of course when looking at their own culpability. They wanted to rubber stamp the war purely for political reasons. The records of the Kennedys, Bidens, Schumbers, and Clintons show they didn't care to go to war, but politically they had to get some of that fervor for the election, so that is what they did. They approved this war purely for political purposes, and since it hasn't been the cakewalk some said, they have now backed off and used this war as a way to attack the President. If they truly felt as strongly about the issue as they do, they would all resign. I mean, I was not as sure as the President, so there, Mr. Wallace!...come on now.
