Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.

The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

RealClearPolitics.com

Joe Biden in 2002: “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”  RealClearPolitics.com

“Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran’s nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary” – March 2, 2009, 4:16pm, en.rian.ru

We should remember this day when Europe, the United States or elsewhere is hit by a missile that could have been stopped by an anti-missle shield.  Never in the course of history has a madman (or madwoman) been stopped by appeasement and backing down from self-defense.  

Let us hope we do not come to rue this day any time soon.

“The person on the other side is not evil — they just have a different perspective.” – Chris Mathews, NBC ‘journalist’ (Speech to political science students at the University of Toronto, November 20, 2005)

For anyone who believes that Chris Mathews ever had any credibility his statement Monday should disabused them of that belief. Purposefully killing innocent civilians is evil. It is not a “perspective.”

Let us ask Chris Mathews a question: If President Bush decided to use nuclear weapons on terrorist training camps, that would be just “a different perspective”? Right? Of course not – Republicans can’t have “a different perspective” only liberals, socialists and communists. The left would condemn it in a second. What Mathews is saying is, “Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, unless they are a Republican. There are no facts, just perspectives.”

People who consistently fight for everyone’s freedom are derided while those who fight to control others are lauded? The principles must be clearly stated: there are differences, but they are NOT “perspectives” they are absolutes – freedom or slavery. Life or death.

See:http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/11/21/1315976-sun.html

The facts missing from the article are quite illustrative of the bias of Olbermann and mediamatters.org. For example, the article does NOT note that the filibuster has NEVER been used against nominees to the appellate bench (a Congressional Research Service paper shows this). It is quite convenient to attempt to muddy the waters by mixing filibustering of “presidential nominees,” by lumping in judges with other nominees, but disingenuous never-the-less for someone who is claiming to report “the facts.”

In fact, many newspapers reported that the nominees would have won confirmation if they had not been denied up-or-down votes that EVERY appellate court justice who has EVER served has had.

The same people who argue for a “living document” in the Constitution – which means the Constitution has no meaning and that the amendment provisions are meaningless (who needs them if it is ‘living’ after-all) – are the ones arguing that “advice and consent” now (after 200+ years) means a super-majority requirement for judges. That is the beauty of a “living document,” it means whatever you want, whenever you want. And if you can have dishonest people in the media (like Olbermann) who will spin whatever you say without bothering to even look at facts, then you can create enough confusion that people will tire of the discussion and tune out.

Other parts conveniently ignored are the fact that the filibuster wasn’t “discovered” until the 1830s then used (and later abused) until its peak in 1917 when the first “cloture” rule was passed. Since 1917 it has been modified many times and only in recent years has it been used to require everything except the budget to need 60 votes.

Of course he ignores the biggest issue – once the Constitutional limits are ignored and you have a government that is large enough to get into everyone’s business with oppressive taxes and regulation, every nomination and election becomes a life or death issue with someone always wanting to use force to control someone else. That’s the root of the problem – politicians fear the loss of power over your life and mine.

Christian H F Riley, Esq.