Ted Kennedy held a press conference today filled with nothing but lies as usual. It would seem that Kennedy's only source of information is the extreme liberal wing of the media who feeds him garbage which he then feeds back to them. First he started out by calling President Bush a liar, saying he lied and misled the people about justification for invading Iraq (no WMD found), then went on to refer to military operations in Iraq as "the quagmire" and elaborated on what a lousy job our military is doing there and how "the quagmire" will get worse. He then accused President Bush of wanting to cut Social Security by 33% and said "we have to fight against this", referring to SS reform. That is in fact a gross misstatement, or better put, a bald faced lie! The fact is that the SS reform Pres. Bush is proposing is designed to prevent that from happening 50 years down the road and he certainly has no desire or intention of cutting one dime from SS. The Social Security Administration website actually states the following:

Question: I'm 25 years old. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?

Answer: "Unless changes are made, when you reach age 63 in 2042, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 33 percent from today's scheduled levels".

Is this where Bozo got his figures or did he just hear it on CNN or read it in the New York Times? He obviously didn't get it right, or just simply decided to tell another big fat lie against our president just as he has been doing ever since W was elected. No wonder liberals are so confused and living in an alternate reality these days with all this nonsense being fed to them. Somebody should tell Bozo that the election campaigns are over now, Bush won, he can stop with the dishonest and slanderous remarks.

That brings me to another obscene remark; have you heard Howard Dean's new campaign slogan as he campaigns for DNC Chairman? "Republicans don't know the first thing about money management. You can't trust the Republicans with your money". Coming from a liberal Democrat, does this sound as absurd to you as it does to me? Is Howard trying to tell us that we can now trust Democrats with our money? Want to hear more? Dean is also now claiming that the Democrat party is a strong supporter of our military and defense. Doesn't that sound a bit odd coming from an anti-war liberal? It seems that one Democrat strategy for 2008 is to appear more like Republicans instead of who they really are. Why vote for a bogus copy when you can have the real thing?

One more thing... It's become quite fashionable for liberals to accuse our president of lying about the justification for war in Iraq because no WMD were found. Putting the ridiculous accusation that he "lied" aside for the moment, I want to point out that WMD were never the justification for invading Iraq, they only represented one aspect of the evidence for the justification for the invasion. The real justification for invading Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had failed to live up to the cease fire agreement of 1991. Additionally, he failed to comply with 17 UN resolutions to disarm over a ten year period. The seventeenth resolution declared serious consequences for non-compliance. He did not comply and opted instead to accept the serious consequences. Saddam's non-compliance with these mandates from the world community was the justification for the invasion, not the mear belief that he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam refused to disarm as was proven by the vast stockpiles of weapons found by our troops, many forbidden by UN mandates. The fact that WMD were not among them makes the justification no less valid. The premise that we invaded Iraq simply because we believed WMD were there is simply not true, it's just more liberal spin on the facts.

Why were WMD that we believed to be there, not found? I see three possibilities:

1. Since the Clinton Administration fired all of our intelligence agents working as spies in the Middle East and severely restricted the flow of intelligence information, the CIA had no current information on the situation in Iraq and just assumed nothing had changed there since their last reports were received. They based their assessment report to the president and congress on obsolete information.

2. The intelligence information was in fact accurate and all WMD were moved to Syria during the run-up to the war by the Russian agents known to be there with a fleet of trucks at the time which was then observed traveling to Syria.

3. The WMD were destroyed during the nineties and the CIA knew it. The Clinton Democrat appointees and loyalists running the CIA withheld that information from President Bush and Congress and instead made the case for war with Iraq in an attempt to destroy the Bush Presidency when the WMD were not found. This belief was made public in an article by Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector with UNSCOM, in 1999 where Ritter insisted Iraq had no WMD during his inspections that ended in 1998. His surveillance equipment in Iraq was taken over by the CIA, and he was drummed out of the public eye but his article is probably still on the web somewhere. If Ritter was right, then why did the CIA continue to claim Saddam still had WMD? Were the Democrats preparing for a Bush win in 2000 with a backup plan? I consider this "conspiracy theory" to be a possibility, but it's only a theory... so far.