| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Sen. Cornyn Exposes Dems on Senate Floor |
| 2005-11-09 |
| Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) took to the Senate floor Monday to dispel allegations made by Senate Democrats and film maker Michael Moore that the White House "manufactured and manipulated evidence in order to sell the war in Iraq." In the process, Cornyn exposed inconsistent and suddenly inconvenient statements by Democrats regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the necessity of removing Saddam from power. "Do the critics need to be reminded," Cornyn asked his colleagues, "that it was a few years ago when Democrats joined Republicans in a bipartisan acknowledgement that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the world?" He cited the Web site of Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), architect of last week's political stunt to hold a closed session of the Senate to discuss alleged manipulation of intelligence. "What is my position on Iraq?" Reid asks on his own Web site. "Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator," he answers, "who presents a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction." Cornyn noted the statement was still up on Reid's Web site as of Monday, November 7. Cornyn agrees with Reid's statement, but laments that Reid has changed his tune. "Today," Cornyn pointed out, "we are told by the same Democratic leader that somehow this administration was responsible for manipulating intelligence to authorize the war in Iraq when, in fact, he took the same position at the time that force was used." Cornyn also cited President Clinton. "The hard fact," Clinton warned in 1998, "is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live at peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond," Clinton continued, "we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war against his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." Cornyn defends those statements. "No one," Cornyn said, "attempted to manipulate intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq – not President Clinton, not Members of the Senate, not his administration, all of whom, based upon the same intelligence, concluded that Saddam represented an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. Instead, we found that while some of our intelligence was wrong on Hussein, it was obvious, and is obvious today, that he was a threat to the civilized world." "Giving Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt would have been a crazy and irresponsible thing to do. Of course, the 78 Senators who voted for the use of force against Saddam in October 2002 weren't buying that Saddam was some harmless individual then. So why now?" Perhaps Cornyn answered his own question earlier in his speech, when he alleged, "The latest accusation ... is nothing more than an effort to use the war in Iraq for political gain." Sen. Reid's office has yet to respond to Newsmax inquiries regarding this article. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #25 Ptah, Not to be snarky but it wasn't a senator/senator fight, it was a Representative, Preston Brooks, who came into the Senate chamber and beat the crap out of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner. In a speech on the Senate floor Sumner had directly insulted Brooks' cousin, Sen. Andrew Butler and roundly abused the South as a whole. He would have been challenged to a duel by numerous Southerners for his remarks but Sumner, coward that he was off the Senate floor, was known to be certain to refuse such a challenge. Besides, the Southerners thought that a bitching dog like Sumner didn't deserve to be considered as the social equal that dueling would admit him to be. Brooks decided he would teach Sumner about the costs of insulting his betters. When came upon Sumner seated in the Senate chamber, he battered Sumner into insensibility, hitting him more than 30 times with a gold-headed cane. It took most of the next four years for Sumner to recover. Brooks was fined $300 and censured by the House. He resigned, went home to South Carolina, and was vindicated by being overwhelmingly reelected. He received hundreds of canes from admirers all over the South, many of them with engraved plaques attached bearing mottoes like "Hit Him Again" and "Use Knock-Down Arguments." Two things come to mind from this: first, Massachusetts has a tradition of having loud-mouthed scumbags as Senators, and, second, seeing somebody pull a Brooks on Leahy, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer or Reid wouldn't bother me in the least. They've long since had it coming. I'd probably send whoever did it a cane too. |
| Posted by: mac 2005-11-09 20:24 |
| #24 Unions are bankrupt? No more political ammo? Hell, that's what dues are for, fellas. |
| Posted by: ArmChair in Sin 2005-11-09 16:14 |
| #23 The stuff on the ballot here in California didn't have a chance in hell of passing to begin with. A look at the map shows what was up with most of them. Red, Blue map split on the real meat shows California needs to be 2 or 3 states. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-11-09 15:40 |
| #22 Actually, there's an unwritten rule that Senators more directly represent the people than the President, so everyone in the Executive branch treads carefully, including Judicial nominees. Remember the row between VP Cheny and Reid (??), in which Cheney told Reid (??) to f*ck himself when the latter gratuitously insulted him with a Halliburton conspiracy slur. Big whoop-ass screaming until someone noted that the VP is a semi-senator because he casts tie-breaker votes. Naturally, Democraps don't play by the rules while breaking the ones that inconvenience them. Thus, the Senator Cornyn HAS to do it, because only a Senator has the "right" to verbally bitch-slap an offending Senator. That, and the Senator's constituents. Hell, I believe it took place before the Civil War, but a Slave State senator used his cane to beat a Free State abolitionist senator senseless, then claimed that nothing in the Senate rules FORBADE a senator beating the shit out of another senator. That loophole got patched, but that senator got off scot free. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-11-09 15:16 |
| #21 I keep telling you he need to get a borderline bitch sounding female press secretary that is gentle on the eyes. She should edgy enough that the press would want to cover her comments if only for entertainment purposes. Laced in between tirades she would sow the seeds that portray the Democrats as the fools they are. Ann Coulter would be my first choice, but I am sure there are other that would do just as good a job. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-09 14:46 |
| #20 So, if the unions are out of money, shouldn't those damaged by them sui now ? Would that not tie up all their funds and eventually destroy them ? It worked that way on the KKK, why not unions ? You don't have to sui the union, just the leaders. They will have no funds to fall back on, and no time to fight. Pile on. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2005-11-09 14:30 |
| #19 I wonder which country would conquer them first? Oakland? They could just send their high school students. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-11-09 14:19 |
| #18 CS Re: your PS. That's been Bush's problem all along. People, here and elsewhere, yell that he is not getting the message out. Unfortunately he can't really control that. The only thing that will get out is the MSM spun version, if that. Sure Rush and Sean and Rantburg help, but, given the incessant drumbeat of negativity from the MSM only those who really look for it will find out Bush's side of any story. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-09 14:06 |
| #17 It's not Arnie's fault. He put up the good fight, and I wouldn't blame him if he threw up his hands and didn't run for re-election. If I were Arnold I sure as hell wouldn't. If the majority in this state can't/won't make the hard choices necessary to get itself on an even footing, then they deserve whatever problems come their way. My only hope is that I'm out of here by then. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-11-09 14:05 |
| #16 Damn Steve, That sounds encouraging! What is the employment situation there like? :)) I'm in the Peoples Republic of Washington (state). It rains so much here I have webbed feet..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-11-09 14:00 |
| #15 Glad to be off topic here! Since San Francisco passed measure to restrict guns and military recruiters can we now just announce that the U.S. will no longer protect SF from any foreign enemies? Also include their passage of the ban on personal guns in the county/city. I wonder which country would conquer them first? France perhaps? P.S. Sen Cornyn did a good job but was ignored by the MSM. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-09 13:41 |
| #14 Frank G - Yes, the uniongoons mortgaged their asses off, I'd love to see another crack at this stuff PARTICULARLY 75! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-11-09 13:18 |
| #13 Who is doin' the fightin' in Eyerack? Red states heroes that's who. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-11-09 13:06 |
| #12 "Don't mess with Texas" -- Steve |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-11-09 13:05 |
| #11 Careful, I really do not want to see a graphic of donks exposed. Won't be prudent. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-11-09 13:03 |
| #10 We Texans pased a amendment to our constitution spelling out that marrige is to be only between 1 man and 1 woman by a margin of 3 to 1. Course, that's just because we're a bunch of homophobes.. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-11-09 12:49 |
| #9 If you accept the LLL meme that BushRove and the Diebold Corporation have conspired to rig all elections, then the results yesterday must mean that BushRove wanted them to happen, for sinister reasons probably having something to do with Halliburton. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-11-09 12:08 |
| #8 BigEd - time to get those back on the '06 ballot. The teachers' unions and public employee's unions (which I am required to join (agency shop), but pay no political dues) are broke - they mortgaged their property and took advances on dues to kill Arnold's measures. They have no resources. Step on their necks. They also have little to donate to their Democrat slaves in races next year. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-09 12:05 |
| #7 We lost two governor's races and ALL of Arnie's referenda. A bug or a feature? Both of those governor's seats were held by Democrats. Woulda been nice to pick them up, but it's no gain for the Donks. While Arnold's referenda lost in CA, Soros' referenda lost in OH. Had Soros won, the Donk fraud machine would have cranked into high gear, Republican House Reps would have been gerrymandered out of office, and out-of-state union cash would have flooded the state -- while other sources were limited or banned -- in '06 and '08 to ensure Donk victories. CA went for the Donk in '00 and '04. A loss of OH would have meant a definite loss of the White House. Yesterday wasn't great, but it wasn't the rout the left wants you to think it was. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 11:58 |
| #6 Seafarious - As a California resident, who voted with Arnie I am sickened. The fact that through lies, duping the typical voter in California, who has the brainpower of radish or turnip, uniongoons like this Barbara Kerr, head of the Teacher's Mafia were able to protect their defacto Totalitarian hold on California. By producing big-lie ads, and snookering so-called voters on Proposition 75. This Kerr, and evil old broad was also, guess what? When the presidential electors met she was one of the Kerry gang, and was elected as the "chairman" of the electors. For anyone out here who has to endure her sandpaper-Tony Soprano like intonations promoting her issues, we are well aware Arnie was up against a battle royal, in retrospect he couldn't win. I pity the poor 5-year-olds who have to endure this old witch in Riverside who have to listen her in her Kindergarten classroom. Fortunately, because her gadfly galavanting around the state, they probably have the blessing of a substitute half of the time. As to the reapportionment issue. The commercials featured Judge Wapner. Yes, I'm not a judge (anymore) but I play one on TV, so vote against Proposition 77. We are screwed bigtime in California. It's not Arnie's fault. He put up the good fight, and I wouldn't blame him if he threw up his hands and didn't run for re-election. Suprisingly, as bad as his poll numbers are, at this point he would still probably win, because such midgets as "Moe" Angelides the treasurer, or "Curly Joe" Lockyear, the atty general, are among the leading Dems to run for Gov... (Warren Beatty isn't running). |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-11-09 11:54 |
| #5 The dems and their media supporters have been very successful in getting huge numbers of people to believe that the Bush admin manipulated the intel. However, this was only possible because the intel was wrong and the Bush admin didn't anticipate the dishonesty (the latter I suppose is another form of bad intel) |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-11-09 11:51 |
| #4 The Dems managed to get the red state chattering classes prattling away for months about Plamegate and we spent no time discussing local politix and this off-year election. We lost two governor's races and ALL of Arnie's referenda. A bug or a feature? You decide. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-11-09 11:37 |
| #3 Gosh. The people elected the Republicans as a majority, and they are finally standing up and speaking. What took so long? |
| Posted by: RG 2005-11-09 11:28 |
| #2 Good. If GWB isn't going to do this then somebody in Washington has to. I guess Cheney is damaged goods right now, and Rice and Rumsfeld are busy. Might as well do it in the Senate. If I were Frist (first, I'd be more competent), I'd have a different Republican offer this up every single day. I'd make sure it was on C-SPAN. I'd work to get it into the press. And I'd make sure I ratcheted up the obnoxiousness level, in calibrated steps, until I got the Dems to respond. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-11-09 11:27 |
| #1 No way - the DemocRATS are using bogus facts about the war for political gain? I'm shocked!! |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-11-09 11:27 |