< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Senior Democrat Spied For Al Qaeda


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Senior Democrat Spied For Al Qaeda

What many people have suspected for a long time. Rockerfeller has blown the whistle. The more the Dopey Donks shoot off at the mouth they more they drop themselves in it. They haven't learnt that the more lies you tell and the more dirty tricks you get up to, the more likely it is for it all to blow up in your face.
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. (Goddamit. Ah shouldna said that!)

Only trouble is, he was directly and deliberately undermining his own country. Can you imagine the ruckus if an American politician had slipped across to neutral Portugal in May 1944 and let it be known to a few carefully chosen ambassadors there that in his opinion Eisenhower was going to invade France in Early June at Normandy?

He would have faced a firing squad.

Now I look forward to Ackers1's next lesson on propaganda.
· Linked Article

Posted by Adolf Fiinkensein | 11/16/2005 12:38:00 pm


Blogger Chris said...

We all know that W didn't make that decision right after/before 9/11. A noble and valiant President would never do such a thing!

11/16/2005 01:01:00 pm  
Blogger darren said...

Theres' some good stuff in The National Review.
Must bookmark it somehow.

11/16/2005 01:10:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger, again you evade the point. Even if it was made, why transmit it to the enemy?

11/16/2005 01:20:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Because after a century of leftist activism designed to undermine the capitalist system in the USA and strengthen domestic support for communist and other far-left economic systems, "patriotism" is now considered a dirty word and you are not considered "open-minded" and "liberal" unless you first question the motives of your own country before daring to judge the actions of another.

For our freedom-hating lefties, it's all about controlling the language so your political enemy can't use words to criticise socialism, multiculturalism, and various other -isms.

11/16/2005 01:42:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

Patriotism is not considered a dirty word. How can you say that, AL? It is rammed down Americans' throats to the point where if they disagree with the current administration they are "un-Patriotic", and if outside the country they are "anti-American".

That is a phenomenom created by the Republican Party, in order to make it difficult for people to publicly question the capabilities or motives of the Bush administration. And it works, unfortunately.

There is nothing wrong with healthy public debate. To discourage it is on the slippery slope to dictatorship.

11/16/2005 06:47:00 pm  
Blogger Wanderlust said...

roger, your analogy of "healthy public debate", in this case, is akin to a bunch of research scientists working for Procter & Gamble arguing publicly over the necessity of changing the formula and packaging of Pringles or Pantene brands, prior to rolling those changes out to the market.

In the case of my example above, each marque is a "billion dollar brand", with a lot of share market investor funds supporting them.

If you were a P&G shareholder, how happy would you be, if the P&G research scientists decided that they had a "right" to engage in public debate over those planned changes, prior to the changes going to market? What do you suppose, say, Unilever would do? Or any of P&G's other competitors in chips or shampoo?

Your defence of "healthy public debate", obstensibly at any cost, without any thought or concern of possible consequence, seems to be typical of the Left's attitude regarding Opinion triumphing over Responsibility - especially when said Opinion suits their own political ends.

Case in point: Newsweek's failure to properly investigate the "flushed Koran" allegations at Gitmo resulted in scores of deaths in the Middle East, when fundamentalist Muslims took offence at the claims.

Another case in point: the Left screams like a proverbial stuck pig over Valerie Plame's alleged "outing", on the basis that it somehow damaged US national security and endangered Ms. Plame personally - when all the evidence (much of it in the Press) points to the fact that she was known to be working for the CIA long before the "yellowcake" incident. Yet when the New York Times "outs" an alleged CIA project involving detention of prisoners in European countries, not a single person suggests that "outing" this project might have put CIA employees, and officials of European countries, at risk of their very lives. And not a soul on the Left complained about anyone "breaking the law" in this instance, like they complained about Karl Rove allegedly "breaking the law" with regards to Ms. Plame. Not a word.

If you are so inclined, I or other posters here could easily cite many, many similar examples of my point here.

To answer Adolf's rhetorical question, the hypothetical 1944 American politician would have been shot. And I would have pulled the trigger myself, if I were legally authorised to do so. Regardless of Senator Rockefeller's Opinion to the contrary (regarding W's policy and strategic intent towards Iraq), his actions during his self-appointed Middle East World Tour in 2002 were tantamount to Treason. He endangered the lives of US and Coalition soldiers, and he contravened his country's official foreign policy.

roger, you and others like you seem to want Rights without the Responsibility that comes with the privilege of having said Rights. What will you do, when finally, someone close to you gets hurt, or perhaps even killed, because you "simply shared your Opinion" about something?

Or does anyone understand what the famous WWII saying, "loose lips sink ships" means anymore?

11/16/2005 08:55:00 pm  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

No need to Adolf, you come up with the goods every time. Or rather you come up with the party line, fall in line with the party line, whatever.

What's the party line this week. Let's see, Bush is in serious trouble domestically so time to fight back and accuse the Democrats of rewriting history on the Iraq War. Lets take it just 1 step further and accuse them of being war criminals whatever.

Josh Marshall, more eloquent than me sums it up well.

""What a sorry, sorry, unfortunate president -- caught in his lies, his half-truths, his reckless disregard ... caught with, well ... caught with time. Time has finally caught up to him. And now he doesn't have the popularity to beat back all the people trying to call him to account. He could; but now he can't. So he's caught. And his best play is to accuse his critics of rewriting history, of playing fast and loose with the truth -- a sad, pathetic man.

In the president's new angle that his critics are trying to 'rewrite history', those critics might want to point out that his charge would be more timely after he stopped putting so much effort into obstructing any independent inquiry that could allow an accurate first draft of the history to be written. In any case, he must sense now that he's blowing into a fierce wind. The judgement of history hangs over this guy like a sharp, heavy knife. His desperation betrays him. He knows it too."

It's his blogger allies who don't."

I might add that this line of attack takes the American people for fools incapable of arriving at judgements of their own. But they can, they do, and they have. They have turned against this war and slowly come to the conclusion that they were deliberately misled. Questioning the patriotism of the war's critics isn't going to work because a majority of Americans now share that criticism and don't think of themselves as unpatriotic.

11/17/2005 10:01:00 am  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Ackers1. As usual, ten thousand words with no substance. Don't let a few hard facts trip you up.

11/17/2005 10:39:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Actually Ackers, I think Bush's low popularity has more to do with domestic issues such as bloated spending and a bad first nominee for the Supreme Court. Conservatives think they're being screwed by a party starting to resemble the Dems of the 1990s: comfortable spending tax dollars rather than achieving anything.

Iraq doesn't appear to be the dominating issue at the moment in the USA.

11/17/2005 10:58:00 am  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Iraq is up there. It's going to be a cold winter.

11/17/2005 11:18:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home