Comments on: 2:45PM Today: Reporters Should Ask Hadley About His Involvement In Leak Scandal

By: The William Holmes Blog » Why Bush’s Case For Iraq Was Different (And False)

Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:08:55 +0000

[...] FALSE CLAIM — NUCLEAR THREAT: Bush argued in his 2003 State of the Union that Iraq was close to developing a nuclear weapon. He offered two pieces of evidence: 1) “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” and 2) Iraq “has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” On the first count, it has been well documented that the administration was warned at least three times not to claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The administrationÂ was also warned that its reliance on a Niger document was misplaced and that it should notÂ rely on British intelligence. On the second count, Condoleezza Rice claimed the aluminum tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs” despite the fact that she had previously been informed that “the government’s foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.” The day before Bush’s 2003 State of the Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded the tubes “would not be suitable” for a nuclear program. The Department of Energy also published a dissenting view of the use of the aluminum tubes in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. [...]

By: Think Progress » Why Bush’s Case On Iraq Was Different From Clinton’s

Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:25:07 +0000

[...] What They Knew: The administration was warned at least three times not to make the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. Also, the CIA said the â€œBrits have exaggerated this issue.â€ [Guardian, 7/10/04] [...]

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:19:34 +0000

Did you notice that cracker dumbya and his boyfriend-killing wife didnâ€™t even speak at Rosaâ€™s funeral?

Cracker Mo.Fo.

I hate that lying bastard!

He sends poor kids off to be killed and his cracker ass daughters live the life of a princess.

Impeach they lying bastard

By: Mark Marco

Mark Marco — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 07:11:41 +0000

Bush sucks, impeach now.

Cheeeney is a lying asshole, he needs to go fu*****khimself.

Hotel gitmo for them

Hey hey, jr. and chey, how many kids did you kill today?

do you feel a DRAFT?

By: I-RIGHT-I

I-RIGHT-I — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:40:52 +0000

I have been too!

I am truly sorry I was such a flake, asshole idiot.

By: wwallace

wwallace — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:39:59 +0000

I have been a total asshole idiot.

I am truly sorry.

By: AckSyn JAckSyn

AckSyn JAckSyn — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:03:02 +0000

I think Wwallace has Finally Seen the Light.
If so, Kudos and Welcome Aboard.

By: AckSyn JAckSyn

AckSyn JAckSyn — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 01:01:13 +0000

No one said Bush was Behind the Attacks, I believe however that He knew of them, and the Plan was to let it Continue, like Peral Harbor they Fomented the Attack. Its not so hard to See.

I have Been a Licensed Aircraft Mechanic since 1987 on
Large Jets Dc-8 ,Dc-9, 737, Md-80, 757, 767, 727 series Aircraft.

“TRIPOD”
http://www.legitgov.org/9_1_1_oddities.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of pertinence to “Scooter’s” case and the pack of lies he was concealing is Strauss’s idea that a “philosopher elite” (i.e., Straussians) must rule. Moreover they must do so covertly. As someone remarked before last Friday, “Who ever heard of I. Lewis Libby?” a man who shunned the spotlight and operated behind the scenes. The reason for such covert rule, or cabal, is that the “vulgar” herd, as Strauss liked to call the rest of us, cannot appreciate “higher truths” such as the inevitability and necessity of wars in relations between states and even the utility of wars in governing a state. So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are “above” religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like man’s mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is “far more important politically” than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary “to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies.” (AR, p. 148). Any religion will do Â except perhaps Islam, which is more or less verboten, given the affinity of all leading neocons for Israel. Hence the neocons readily embrace the ideology and leadership of Christian fundamentalism which can keep the crowd under control and get them to march off to war and death. The neocons are mainly interested in foreign policy, as was Strauss, but in exchange for the support of the religious Right in foreign affairs, the neocons line up behind the domestic program of the fundamentalists.

By: turk fowler

turk fowler — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:27:19 +0000

hey daniel, you’re my brother… you are full of crap.

We were lied into this war so that the carlyle group could make the bush family rich beyond their wildest evilest dreams.

come on, step away from the dark side.

By: daniel

daniel — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:14:12 +0000

I want to know why President GW Bush has ceded control of our involvement in the iraq war to the terrorists and insurgents. He basically says we gotta stay ’til they say ‘UNCLE’…but what if they never do? He won’t set a timeline for withdrawal b/c that would either encourage them or convince them to wait us out…(how about saying we’ll stay ’til 2025 in the hopes the baddies just decide to hunker down and wait us out?) He has called for us staying the course until victory is achieved…while victory has never been defined (even if it were possible which it may not be according to our president) we are basically told that our mission is to provide security and that as the Iraqis stand up we will sit down–I mean stand down. We can’t leave now because that would dishonor our dead…not that our administration which lied, bullied, misled and scared us into a pre-emptive war, in order to disarm that crazy destabalizing dictator that denied having those missing WMDs could possibly know anything of honor! But we are also told (by the generals) that this war cannot be won militarily (who said mission accomplished?). We are told by Rummy that these guys are dead enders and desperate individuals…and yet…and yet…they appear to be kicking our butt over there. Has anyone else noticed that the world’s sole superpower is gettin its clock cleaned? and our wallet emptied?

Opps I forgot, freedom is on the March (where? don’t ask…) Free societies are peaceful societies…which is why we are at war with poverty, drugs, terrorism, pornography, iraq, and did i mention the global struggle with radical islamic jihadis. The enemy is trying to shake our will… We’re making progress in iraq…don’t worry be happy.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:05:42 +0000

I checked this all out, and now I know that 9/11 was planned by the Bush administration.

Impeach Immediately.

By: WC

WC — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:55:40 +0000

Ok, my bad, I am an idiot.

I really don’t believe all this. I am paid to try to disrupt your board.

By: turk fowler

turk fowler — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:54:04 +0000

Wasn’t it Clinton that was drunk and fell down and bumped his head and claimed it was a pretzel he choked on?

No, that was Bush too.

By: mighty aphrodity

mighty aphrodity — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:53:02 +0000

Wasn’t it Hillary Clinton that murdered her highschool boyfriend and has lied about it ever since?

Nope, that was Laura Bush.

By: turk fowler

turk fowler — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:52:00 +0000

Wasn’t it Clinton that is the king of vacations?

Nope, Bush again.

By: mighty aphrodity

mighty aphrodity — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:50:12 +0000

Wasn’t it Clinton that was drunk on his bike and ran over a security guard, sending him to the hospital at the G8 summit?

No, that was Bush.

By: wwallace

wwallace — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:49:02 +0000

Wasn’t it Clinton that barfed on a China VIP?

No, that was Bush Sr.

By: wwallace

wwallace — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:48:18 +0000

Wasn’t it Clinton that set up illegal torture centers?

No, that was Bush/Cheeney/Rove/Libby too.

By: REVOLTED REPUBLICAN

REVOLTED REPUBLICAN — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:47:17 +0000

This administration is way too corrupt to remain in power.

Frist, isn’t he in trouble for corruption and insider trading?

I just can’t keep all the GOP Criminals straight without my notes.

Now wasn’t it Clinton that lied us into war?

Oh, no that was BUSH.

By: WC

WC — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:14:09 +0000

Randy…a few quotes from the PNAC Web site for you to ponder.

From the letter to Pres. Clinton (1998):

The policy of â€œcontainmentâ€ of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.

and…

Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqâ€™s chemical and biological weapons production.

and…

As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Really? I thought that Colin Powell and Condi Rice both told us a few years ago (wasn’t it in Spring 2001?) that the containment of Saddam was working and that he did not pose a threat…?

Oh, and this thought. Nowhere in the letter to Pres. Clinton does it say that we need to remove Saddam because he has been mean to his own people. Wasn’t that reason #5 or #6 from the G.W. Bush & Co. playbook?