Iraq: “Facts Don’t Matter” Says The “Leftosphere”

Liberal bloggers finally admit that "facts don't matter" to them about the Iraqi Front in the Global War on Terror.

Free Republic wrote: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926168/posts

...Media’s Treatment of the War in Iraq – A question from the audience was asked, “What about the recent facts on the ground in Iraq? What happens if developments in Iraq go well? Do these facts change or color the effort to pull all of our troops out when it appears we might become victorious for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq?”

The responses to this question from the audience member were shocking.

First to respond, Jeralyn Merritt stated, in unequivocal terms “Facts Don’t Matter!” The questioner from the audience interjected, “What? Facts don’t matter?” Merritt responded again, “That’s right. Facts Don’t Matter. We want our troops home. Until they are home, the war was just a mistake.”

Hewitt then asked the other members on the panel who were representing the Left, “Do facts matter in Iraq?”

Not only did the other two panelists from the Left (Sudbay and Armstrong) repeat the phrase in agreement, “No, the facts don’t matter”, but Daily KOS founder Markos Zuniga (from the floor) weighed in by repeating the phrase loudly, to the surprise of a few of us in the room. “No. The Facts Don’t Matter.”

The unison was stunning in its word-for-word declaration. This is more than just a talking point. It is a template... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926168/posts

Brain dead libs should be taken to Kavorkian.
It's the humane thing to do with such creatures.

Brain dead libs should be taken to Kavorkian.
It's the humane thing to do with such creatures.

Just once can we have a thread which doesn't end with the killing of liberals?

I would like to knwo the full context of these statements and an explanation from those who said them. Perhaps there is more to this argument that that one line suggests. I understand what they mean though (I think); the reasons for going to war were a mistake, so regardless of how its going, it is still unjustified.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:I would like to knwo the full context of these statements and an explanation from those who said them. Perhaps there is more to this argument that that one line suggests. I understand what they mean though (I think); the reasons for going to war were a mistake, so regardless of how its going, it is still unjustified.

We're right back to the chicken and the egg thing. If liberals like how our forces ended up on the Iraqi front of this war is moot. Our forces are there and they are winning. Even if they were losing, it would be criminal to cut their legs out from under them, but to try to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory is creating a defeat for one political party's political gain. The Democrat Party has totally invested their entire future in an American defeat in the GWOT. A victory would devastate the Democrat Party for decades. The Democrat Party is in a position where it has to do everything that it can to insure an American defeat.

In your opinion this war is unjustified. UN Resolution 1441 and Iraq defying the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement were justification. Let's also not forget that the US Congress gave their approval to go to war in 2003. The war was justified and totally legal.

The facts don't matter to them. It doesn't matter that the reasons Bush went to war in Iraq were the same EXACT reasons that Clinton began bombing Iraq in 1998. It doesn't matter that the huge majority of our Congess voted for go to war in Iraq believing the same EXACT intelligence that Clinton had in 1998 about WMDs. Had this been a Democrat war we wouldn't be hearing all this crap right now but it is a Republican war and the Democrats are totally invested in losing it just to make the Republican's look bad. They will trade American soldiers lives for votes, they've done it before.

Just a trip down memory lane for those who might have forgotten exactly what President Bill Clinton had to say about Saddam Hussein in 1998.

"CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America. "

Not surprised. Such is the basic liberal mentality.

Ya know I really don't have much of a problem with actual "liberal" mentality or even the old fashioned liberal agenda. I think it's a wrong and too simplistic manner of dealing with society's problems but at least the old school liberals still loved America and had its best interest at heart.

What we're seeing these days, the whole Democratic party in fact, is far less "liberal" than fascist. They're the people who actually do the things they always accuse the right of wanting to do. Hell in MD they're going to jail parents who don't want to give their children certain immunization shots. They demand their followers to march in lockstep (goosestep anyone) and if one of their politicians dares to break with their ideology they'll run him / her out of the party.

The Democrats can squeal about Bush listening in on foreign terrorist suspects phone calls but they won't even listen about Hillary having the FBI hand her files on people she was upset with (and she was just the first lady, not even an elected official). They won't listen when you point out that "waterboarding" was a common interrogation tactic under the Clinton administration, nobody had a problem with it then. When Hillary gets in the WH then all of a sudden waterboarding will be back in vogue and the left will fall in love with it once again.

iluvfreebeer wrote:Brain dead libs should be taken to Kavorkian.
It's the humane thing to do with such creatures.

nice

where do you come up with this stuff ?

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

Brain dead libs should be taken to Kavorkian.
It's the humane thing to do with such creatures.

Just once can we have a thread which doesn't end with the killing of liberals?

Just once would a couple million liberals do the honorable thing and take gas?

Seriously.

Maybe we should phrase it so they'd think they were just reducing their carbon footprint or something.

Buzzy wrote:Maybe we should phrase it so they'd think they were just reducing their carbon footprint or something.

Bingo!

Libs becoming lemmings is the environmenally friendly thing to do.

Popov wrote:

iluvfreebeer wrote:Brain dead libs should be taken to Kavorkian.
It's the humane thing to do with such creatures.

nice

where do you come up with this stuff ?

Like everything else . . . google.

It's just like libs to do the" do as I say, not as I do" bs. That is why I hate libs with an passion. The world is better off, not just Iraq, without Maddas and his evil regime. When I was in the Navy , I took care of Foregin Generals at Bethesda ,MD NNMC ( I was a Corpsman) and they wanted USA to get involved over there.

mmalloy wrote:Southern Soldier 75, you should be ashamed of yourself! You slave owning bastard!

Go repent whitey!!!

**********Totally Inappropriate Content**********************

Mods, how can you allow such white trash in your forum?

What the Hell is that BS about? It certainly can not be in response to SS75's last post in this thread.

Mike Malloy went on a spamming spree.

POPOV, since you're almost never around, why not give me admin powers to get rid of trolls like malloy?
Meanwhile, I'm deleting malloys spam troll posts.