To Justify War, Administration Pushed Claims By Known “Fabricatorâ€
To Justify War, Administration Pushed Claims By Known “Fabricatorâ€
During Wednesday’s gaggle, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan explained why there is no need to investigate the manipulation of intelligence prior to the Iraq war:
[T]hey wanted to look at how the intelligence was used. The intelligence — how the intelligence was used was all part of the public record.
Actually, that’s not true. Editor and Publisher previews an article that will appear in tomorrow’s New York Times based on a newly declassified memo:
It shows that an al-Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to this Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002…
“The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility,†Jehl writes. “Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as ‘credible’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.”
Are there other memos floating around that will reveal more about how intelligence was used and abused to justify the Iraq war? That’s why we need a real investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
(HT: Atrios)
UPDATE: The full NYT article is now available.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It is true an investigation is needed. But what they are doing is just matching the PUBLIC statements to the FIXED intell details.
Results:
PUBLIC LIES match with FIXED intel. Means Bush’s administration lies match Bush’s FIXED intel lies. Not a problem for Bush, but a real problem for the American people and their sons and daughters that are dying and being wounded in Iraq.
Impeach the Senators behind this dog and pony show of support for BUSH.Yeah I know they can’t be impeached, but I would really be looking for some legal way to punish these people.
November 5th, 2005 at 5:57 pmIt was “a failure of intelligence”, it was the deliberate fabrication, distortion, and omission of intelligence that allowed this administration to get their PNAC war on to invade and transform the ME. Their ultimate plan, of course, will fail. But they are criminally liable for the deaths of 2000+ Americans and 10’s of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s. This is clearly war crimes territory.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:02 pmSorry, 1st sentence should read, “it wasn’t a “failure of intelligence”. Wish TP had an “edit” function….
November 5th, 2005 at 6:04 pmGee, what a surprise.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:07 pmI guess at least it is documented.
Another reason why ChimpCo was so
crazy to refute any contradictory
information.
I may live long enough to see all
the documentation of the treasonous
deceit revealed.
Jeez man, how about the Downing Street Memos?
November 5th, 2005 at 6:10 pmI mean, in a serious democracy you wouldn’t need much else to have an investigation. But then again, you don’t really have a democracy, do you?
We “outsourced” democracy.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:13 pmWith eight weeks left on the calendar for 2005, I don’t expect to see much happen this year in Congress on this subject. But a calculated approach by the left and the center should be more than able to exert enough pressure on the right to force some hearings on the subject of fabricated evidence and manipulated intelligence that lead up to the current war in Iraq, in the coming election year of 2006. It’s just unfortunate that many more American soldiers, our brothers, will die before the truth comes out, and the troops are brought home. A true American tragedy is playing out before our eyes.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:24 pmOMG this White House will spin anything.
November 5th, 2005 at 6:49 pm“I’m a man with a mission, a boy with a gun, I ware a cowboy hat It’s my business hat, I’m a big mess, I made a big mess a really big mess, big mess I’m really mixed up”
How far have these holes taken us into the gutter? F**king traitors to America and everything America stood for!
November 5th, 2005 at 6:51 pmI have a question:
November 5th, 2005 at 6:56 pmSeeing that the Bushkorps is getting desperate AND apparently planning on invading Syria, what do you think the chances are that the draft will be reinstated?
POI!!!!! there is just about 1(ONE!) year to go folks so stop pussyfooting. Every single legislator needs to be pounded on. Every single voter should be reached. NO DISREGUARDS this time. We shoud keep every state in play, that is correct, every single house and senate seat! It is time to show the world that there are still Americans that have had it with these liars and crooks! It is doable. Remember, we know the truth, now we have to make the voters know it as well.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:11 pmbilljpa@aol.com
Expat
I agree with you the “Bushkorps” would love to widen the conflict to Syria and Iran. However, it is logistically impossible with the current military. They have gutted our forces to the breaking point, and only a draft would allow such a course. But even with a draft (highly unlikely), it would take at least two years to train and equip the new crop of draftees.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:13 pm#11,
November 5th, 2005 at 7:16 pmI would be more frightened about the finger on the nuclear trigger. The founding fathers had no idea of what that meant. If they did, the option to wage war would have been shrouded in the same shield as a Constitutional amendment. This idiot believes that the rapture is an immediate event and that he is the answer.
WaltTheMan
Isn’t “nuk clear” weapons protected by the second amendment and rapture protected by the first amendment? Just asking, but I’m sure the new “end of days” supreme court will set everything right.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:27 pm“Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early ’90s–they can only say that if they’re illiterate. This is a slam dunk.” — James Woolsey, CIA director under President Bill Clinton, November 2003
“in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.” — John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
“There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home.” — John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
“If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.” — John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
“In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man [Saddam Hussein] should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.”
“I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, September 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995. In 1998, as the Prime Minister’s speech a few days ago made clear, even more were documented.” — Bill Clinton, October 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton, 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons” — Hillary Clinton, 2002
“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” Hillary Clinton told the Senate the day she announced her support for the war.
“There’s a very clear history and intention of not only building stockpiles and adding to what they already have of biological and chemical weaponry, but attempting to obtain nuclear capacity” — Hillary Clinton
November 5th, 2005 at 7:30 pmGlad the rotting corpses’ have their talking points in order, “the dems said the same thing as Bush”.
Problem is simple f**k, THE DEMS DID NOT GO TO WAR, IT WAS YOUR STUPID F**K THAT DID!
November 5th, 2005 at 7:34 pmCitizen80203, Hillary Clinton voted for the war. Kerry voted for the war. The Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act and bombed Iraq. You, in short, are a complete and total idiot. :()
But the invasion is a separate issue from whether Bush lied or not. So wipe the drool off your chin and explain how, given identical statements by Clinton and Bush about the threat posed by Iraq, one is lying, the other not.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:38 pmTrue, they work from the same intelligence but you must admit that intelligence will appear quite different when it has been filtered by an administration bent on war. Surely you would admit as much.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:46 pmProblem is fool, you have the GOP cock so far down your throat you are choking. The Clinton Administration thought the sanctions backed by the THREAT OF FORCE were working. Wipe your mouth off chicken hawk and swallow.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:49 pmCitizen80203, Hillary Clinton voted for the war. Kerry voted for the war. The Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act and bombed Iraq. You, in short, are a complete and total idiot. :()
But the invasion is a separate issue from whether Bush lied or not. So wipe the drool off your chin and explain how, given identical statements by Clinton and Bush about the threat posed by Iraq, one is lying, the other not.
Comment by wwallace
It must be rough having to troll for such bumbling idiots as the GOP and Bushco. This poor stupid slob will be breaking down in tears in a few months, maybe weeks. Kick him good and hard when he’s down. Don’t ever let him get back up. Make these “useful idiots” crawl to mexico.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:50 pmBoth parties tow the line for AIPAC and ISrahel
November 5th, 2005 at 7:51 pmProblem with obtuse Americans is that their asleep, is so many masked bandits operating in Washington,that have infiltrated all levels of government and newsmedia.They mask themselves as wasp or Caitholicks and set their web-all across america.
Why is Kerry pro war–he is JEWISH and shill for Israhell
Take off the mask from–I.Lewis Libby,you get Irving Lewis Lobowitz.Another is Madam Albright–she only found out she was Jewish in 1999 but her sisters are all Jewish and she was a freedom fighter for Israel creation–bomb planting. She never mentions her YID name.So many of these creeps have settled in Washington both parties,that you’d never clean house
#19 CC, You beat me to it. WW will never admit that it is his PARTY, his MAN and his LIES who took this nation to war. Kerry, Clinton and others who voted for it were basing their vote on what this White House was telling them. Their error is that they are unable to stand before the cameras and say, “I was misled, and my vote was wrong. I am terribly sorry, and I will do my best to extricate from this quagmire in which we find ourselves. I guarantee you that we will pressure this White House and this Congress, our peers, that we will learn exactly how this occurred and promise you that it will never happen again.”
November 5th, 2005 at 7:51 pmWW: Bush lied, the others believed him.
Apparently you did too.
Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, et al. and Bush filtered the intel on Iraq the exact same way. They all concluded that Iraq was a threat. Their responses to that conclusion were different, but their conclusions were identical. Therefore, they were either all lying or both telling the truth.
It is actually the Democrats who now claim Bush lied and Iraq was not a threat who are lying, putting partisan interest ahead of U.S national interest. Decent, loyal Americans of all parties will condemn that.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:52 pmA draft for national service with no exceptions, not even the well connected and rich, but for every American Citizen would right really helpful to create responsible citizens. The youth could be trained in citizenship before the Repub thug and GOP thug got their hands on them.
Every one or no one, we can not have the rich and powerful not service their (or is ours?) country.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:54 pmMarie, #25:”Clinton and others who voted for it were basing their vote on what this White House was telling them.”
That is a lie. The Senators had independent access to the intel. Bill Clinton had access to the same type of intel in the 1990s when he said Iraq was a threat to US national security. The ones lying about Iraq are the Democrats.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:55 pmF**k you traitor, I served when pussies like you watched. I’m tired of GOP traitors using my country, so go to eastern europe traitor and work for the ex communists.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:59 pmThe followup to the above post on national service is that we need to secure the borders and get the illegal aliens out of the country. If not the corporations will be using them to take our jobs and when the national service is done there would be few jobs available for American because the illegals have them.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:59 pmAlso, don’t ever trust any quotes from a winger. Look them up yourself. Congress was lied to by the Bush White House and WHIG. Everyone knows this. Congress has no access to the kind of intelligence the White House gets so any statements by members of Congress were a result of having been lied to.
Sparky left this out of one of Hillary’s quotes…
“though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.” I wonder why?
Run these pigs down and run them out.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:59 pmThat is a lie. The Senators had independent access to the intel.
That is the lie. Even a child can see that.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:00 pmA SHORT HISTORY OF THE ROAD TO WAR IN IRAQ.
“You think it’ll be easy Dick?”
November 5th, 2005 at 8:04 pm“Sure George they will greet us as liberators”
“How many troops you think we’ll get killed Dick?”
“Not many. They’re all from poor families anyway George. Don’t worry George, they’ll greet us with flowers. We’ll be in and out in a couple of months.”
“You sure Dick?”
“Have I ever lied to you before?”
“Well okay Dick. How would you like to be Vice President?”
“Okay George, if you think I’m the right man.”
“Your thinking is brilliant Dick. They’re going to love us in Iraq and America.”
#28, I am afraid you are quite mistaken. Clinton did say what he did in the late 90’s about Hussein, but he also believed sanctions were effective, as were the weapons inspectors. The Senators do not have the same intel as the president — it’s classified, remember?
November 5th, 2005 at 8:06 pmThey trusted him, and that was their mistake.
For a laugh, google those quotes he has lifted from wingnut bullshit sights like Free Republic, Front Page magazine and G. Gordon Giddy’s website. Why do they bother? All this stuff is bullshit. Everyone knows it now.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:07 pmwwallace,
You’re a liar. Enough said.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:09 pmAlways track down the full quotes for context and date. Remember you are dealing with psychophants, liars, bullshit artists, spin monkeys and fools.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:09 pmwacko,
Unfortunately the republican retards like wwallace don’t know it. They’re part of the ’short bus’ crowd…
November 5th, 2005 at 8:10 pmIf senators had the ’same access’ to intel, there wouldn’t need to be an investigation of bush’s crafting of the intel now would there? You know the investigation that republican senators are SITTING ON. It’s amazing how these partisan republican fools don’t seem capable to have even the most basic amount of rational thinking in their personalities. They’re truly whackos.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:11 pm“The ones lying about Iraq are the Democrats.”
The one’s lying about iraq have always been the neocons. Some were advisors to Clinton. Some may even be Democrats, but the ones lying now are the GOP to save Bush’s ass. It’s too late. He’s done. Impeacment, disgrace, prison, war crimes… all you GOP scum can put your heads between your legs and kiss your asses good-bye.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:14 pmkey phrase here is WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!
MEMBERS OF THE IC
Fifteen Federal government agencies, services, bureaus, or other organizations within the executive branch that play a role in the business of national intelligence
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Intelligence Elements
Central Intelligence Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Homeland Security
Energy Department
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
State Department
Treasury Department
United States Coast Guard
Is wallace just a stupid fvck, a liar, or both. I’d vote for both.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:19 pmFrankly, I don’t see how not having access to intel or the claim of being duped by the president are valid excuses for any senator who voted for the war. We all knew it was a sham from the start. It was never about WMDs, 9/11, democracy, etc. How could they not see that???
November 5th, 2005 at 8:20 pmI believe Bush is in the top ten.
Mao tse tung killed millions during his tenure in China.
Stalin was also in the millions.
Hitler was also up there.
These were all savage people wanting to rule huge kingdoms.
This asshole did it out of ignorance.
In that regard Maybe Bush is #1. Hooray asshole
November 5th, 2005 at 8:21 pmThe NeoCons are a group of Christian and Jewish zealots who are so focused on the interests of israel and what it means to the apocalypse, that they are truly insane and delusional freaks.
The NeoCon movement is an ‘american fascist’ movement, and their source was LeoStrauss an honest to badness German Nazi. He was a professor at the U of Chicago, and is the father of the NeoCon movement, and a direct inspiration of Gingrich and the ‘contract with america’. These are not sane people. These are not good people. These are not even completely people. They’re hate machines, and psychopaths. They’re incapable of existing as a compassionate and caring person anymore.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:21 pmrighthandlefty,
I largely agree with you. But remember that the books were so cooked to look like ‘dangerous wmds’ and an ‘immediate threat’, that many were swayed by the moment. It was definitely bad judgement on the part of the senators, but I can to some degree understand how it happened.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:22 pmFrankly, I don’t see how not having access to intel or the claim of being duped by the president are valid excuses for any senator who voted for the war. We all knew it was a sham from the start. It was never about WMDs, 9/11, democracy, etc. How could they not see that???
Comment by righthandedlefty
That’s because you are cross-eyed dumbass who won’t get off the fence cuz you like having a fence post up your ass when your head ain’t up there.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:27 pmLefty,
November 5th, 2005 at 8:29 pmI agree with your comments.
In defense of democrats they were fed horseshit and under a full court press through the media .
Secondly they authorized as a last resort.
But mostly they all lacked the courage because like you I could see this was all smokescreen and no substance.
Aloow me to relay a personal experience. Just prior to the war I was in a recertification class and the only one out of ten or so to oppose this war. The comments ranged from “Nuke em to lets get rid of that SOB. I’m sure many feel different today.
wacko from waco,
Methinks you have an anger management problem…
November 5th, 2005 at 8:31 pmNot exactly, Ryan. Neocons are classed as a part of the secular right.
Sectors of the US Right
Secular Right
Corporate Internationalists—Nations should control the flow of people across borders, but not the flow of goods, capital, and profit. Sometimes called the “Rockefeller Republicans.” Globalists.
Business Nationalists—Multinational corporations erode national sovereignty; nations should enforce borders for people, but also for goods, capital, and profit through trade restrictions. Enlists grassroots allies from Patriot Movement. Anti-Globalists. Generally protectionist and isolationist.
Economic Libertarians—The state disrupts the perfect harmony of the free market system. Modern democracy is essentially congruent with capitalism.
National Security Militarists—Support US military supremacy and unilateral use of force to protect perceived US national security interests around the world. A major component of Cold War anti-communism.
Neoconservatives—The egalitarian social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s undermined the national consensus. Intellectual oligarchies and political institutions preserve democracy from mob rule. The United States has the right to intervene in its perceived interests anywhere in the world.
Christian Right
Christian Nationalism (Soft Dominionists)—Biblically–defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. America’s greatness as God’s chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Includes some non–Christian cultural conservatives. Overlaps somewhat with Christian theocracy.
Christian Theocracy (Hard Dominionists)—Christian men are ordained by God to run society. Eurocentric version of Christianity based on early Calvinism. Intrinsically Christian ethnocentric, treating non-Christians as second-class citizens. Implicitly antisemitic. Includes Christian Reconstructionists.
Xenophobic Right
Patriot Movement (Regressive Populists)—Secret elites control the government and banks. The government plans repression to enforce elite rule or global collectivism. The armed militias are one submovement from this sector. Americanist. Often supports Business Nationalism due to its isolationist emphasis. Anti-Globalist, yet support unilateralist national security militarism. Repressive towards scapegoated targets below them on socio-economic ladder.
Paleoconservatives—Ultra-conservatives and reactionaries. Natural financial oligarchies preserve the republic against democratic mob rule. Usually nativist (White Nationalism), sometimes antisemitic or Christian nationalist. Elitist emphasis is similar to the intellectual conservative revolutionary wing of the European New Right. Often libertarian.
White Nationalism (White Racial Nationalists)—Alien cultures make democracy impossible. Cultural Supremacists argue different races can adopt the dominant (White) culture; Biological Racists argue the immutable integrity of culture, race, and nation. Segregationists want distinct enclaves, Separatists want distinct nations. Americanist. Tribalist emphasis is similar to the race-is-nation wing of the European New Right.
Extreme Right (Ultra Right)—Militant forms of revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism. Reject pluralist democracy for an organic oligarchy that unites the homogeneic nation. Conspiracist views of power that are overwhelmingly antisemitic. Home to overt neofascists, neonazis, Christian Identity, Creativity (Church of the Creator), National Alliance.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:31 pmI could care less what you think. I’m always left.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:32 pmDon’t be silly. There are still liberal hawks, neocons even in the Democratic party. Almost all neocons were liberal Democrats once.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:34 pmWACKO, ARE YOU TALKING TO YOURSELF?
November 5th, 2005 at 8:36 pmThe Neocons here are like New Labour in Britain. Those commies that McCarthy was worried about… guess where they are today?
‘New’ Labour’s DNA is woven from the blood of ex-Trots, ex-stalinists and hard-left leninist types
. One suspects that they’ve retained their suspiscion of ‘liberal’ reformist ideologies and retro-fitted it to the reigning ideology. Boiling it down it means many ‘New’ Labour types have no natural sympathy for liberal or libertarian ideas and this means that their natural reflex is to command and control. to democraticaly centralise is the natural impulse
wallace is one of thr “useful idiots”. Although Lenin never used that term. It was made up by the anti-communist conservative right in this country. They have always been psychopaths and pathological liars.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:42 pmWACKO, ARE YOU TALKING TO YOURSELF?
Comment by nowar
Why are you asking? Are you stupid or something?
November 5th, 2005 at 8:43 pmMarie, “Clinton did say what he did in the late 90’s about Hussein, but he also believed sanctions were effective, as were the weapons inspectors.
Whether Iraq was a threat, and how to respond to the threat, are two separate questions. Iraq was considered a threat throughout the 1990s. Therefore, Democrats who now claim Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq are liars.
“The Senators do not have the same intel as the president — it’s classified, remember?”
Untrue. Senators have access to classified material.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:45 pmRyan Neat, like Hitler before him, hates Christians and Jews. That’s all you really need to know about Ryan bin Ladin.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:46 pmwwallace,
Show us some proof that senators do indeed have access to classified material.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:47 pm#57, start with the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq, ignoramus. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 8:50 pmNowar, Lefty and Ryan, There WERE a few of us who saw that things were not quite adding up pre-war. We were reading lengthy accounts of those in opposition and we felt the war was being “sold” to us. Surely some Senators felt the same, maybe even more so, but the pressure from the press coupled wwith the emotional time in history allowed this deception from the White House to continue. I think they had the “perfect storm” for their long-laid plans.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:52 pmI hold it against Democrats, not so much that they surrendered to the pressure, but that now, nearly three years later, less than a handful have admitted they were duped and regret their vote. To those who yet qualify their vote to war, I urge them to grow a backbone. The public is willing to accept a sincere apology for an honest mistake.
Waco, it is tragic that the rotten neocons of today were once intelligent, far thinking Democrats. They sure strayed far from home.
Let me reframe the idiocy of wwallace,
Whether Iraq was a threat, or if that threat was contained or required invasion to solve is two separate questions. The problem that fascist republicans never ask is this pair of questions. Just because Saddam was a threat, does not mean that threat was sufficient to warrant a full scale war.
““The Senators do not have the same intel as the president — it’s classified, remember?â€
Untrue. Senators have access to classified material. ”
Untrue, You’re either a liar, a fool, or both.
” The committee soon was at odds with the CIA and the White House over questions of access to documents and information and the declassification of materials. Relations between the Agency and the Pike Committee became confrontational. CIA officials came to detest the committee and its efforts at investigation. Many observers maintained moreover, that Representative Pike was seeking to use the committee hearings to enhance his senatorial ambitions, and the committee staff, almost entirely young and anti-establishment, clashed with Agency and White House officials.”
November 5th, 2005 at 8:53 pmwwallace,
I was reviewing the senate report this morning. Not only did the CIA agent who reviewed Wilson’s finding give him a grade of ‘good’, it was given because the agent said his findings was consistent with what the CIA had expected.
So you’re wrong liar boy.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:55 pmWhat a pussy boy, get a talking point off free republic then go post it on TP. Look assboy, only the senators on the senate select intel committee had access to the intel that the bush had. Furthermore fish mouth, it is the chairman (Repug Pat Roberts) that reports to the full senate.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:59 pmNow go wipe your face, you have GOP spew on your lips.
Marie, I too cringe when I hear one defend a bad vote on the resolution authorizing the president to use force after all other options were pursued. The last one I heard was Schumer and I wish they would show the courage to admit a bad vote.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:01 pmThey probably should have known he was going to war at any cost.He is responsible for the deaths of many.
Anyone who at this point still thinks
November 5th, 2005 at 9:02 pmChimpCo was straight on ANY intel
on Iraq in the war run-up is wearing
blinders.
Discussing this point is like an
argument with flat-earthers.
Only 4 senators have access to intelligence, and generally this is restricted to briefing materials supplied by the CIA itself. The access is not complete, not universal, and typically it requires special requests for information not present in their briefings. In otherwords, it’s a perfect situation for the intelligence services to ’sex up’ intelligence at the request of the president. Something we now KNOW was done.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:03 pm#55 WW, There are many threats in the world. It was this threat on which Bush had set his sights long ago for his personal anf financial reasons. No one denies Saddam was a threat, but he was CONTAINED and unable to attack us. (Recall the many surveillance planes we flew over Iraq, in addition to the sanctions.) It was Bush’s lies of imminent danger, nuclear danger, false reports, cherry-picked intel, and his illegal, immoral, unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation which has led to the deaths of tens of thousands that we won’t forget. And we won’t let you forget. You were duped and you won’t open your eyes to see it much less admit it. Your leader lied to you too.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:04 pmDon’t listen to wallace. All kinds of material is classified, most of it has nothing to do with intelligence, otherwise we’d know about Cheney’s energy meetings, but we don’t. Of course some Senators have access to classified material. But we were talking about “intelligence” and now he’s talking about “classified material” and calling Ryan a Nazi and an anti-semite. he;s descended into blubbering gibberish. He’s been whacked. Ignore him. Intel is the purview of the executive branch. Congress has committees whose purview is intelligence so it can allocate funds. It is a widely known fact that they are lied to as a matter of course. pay him no mind. he’s an idiot.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:09 pmIt is hard to accept that Chimpy
November 5th, 2005 at 9:09 pmmis-led all of us on the war, but
it is far beyond dispute at this
point.
Chimpy is far worse than a zero,
he is destructive on a scale that
would have seemed impossible five
years ago, but the right-wing
will just have to accept this truth,
or go insane denying it.
#55, I also forgot to mention that the Chairman of the Intel committee is Pat Roberts, who is extremely partisan. He stonewalled his partner on the committee (ROckefeller) for nearly 2 years.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:09 pmWhen someone calls me antisemitic, it usually means they’re a freak zionist terrorist. The fact is terrorism exists in all groups, especially all religious groups. Personally to me a palestinian or israeli terrorist/murderer looks the same. That isn’t anti semitism, it’s fair and honest and compassionate for ALL life, israeli, arab, european, etc. Any fool who believes he’s being good because he only hates and wants to kill a specific group, is the worst kind of evil.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:13 pmMarie,
Exactly. The REPUBLICAN chair has virtually 100% control over what the committee actually asks for and sees. He can just as easily conspire to hide access through omission of information as anyone else in the cia/pentagon, etc.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:14 pmRyan bin Ladin says, “Just because Saddam was a threat, does not mean that threat was sufficient to warrant a full scale war.”
Thank you for admitting that all the Democrats who are now claiming Iraq was not a threat are in fact liars.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:15 pmWhackoWallace,
You sure have bad reading comprehension. He wasn’t a threat to america, he was a ‘potential’ threat to his own people and his neighbors. Not only did you propagandist parse words to present a case that was never said, and is indefensible, but you do so in the most childlike and foolish manner. You’re truly a retarded little boy.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:17 pmWhackoWallace,
It is YOU and your fascist retarded headmaster that are the world threat.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:18 pmThis troll is not up to the usual
November 5th, 2005 at 9:19 pmstandard. Does the “A-team” troll
have the day off?
Marie: “No one denies Saddam was a threat”
Howard Dean: “Is there a problem with the defense posture when we pick on dictators who are irrelevant to the United States and then leave nuclear powers like North Korea and Iran alone? Yes. We will look in the long term. We will look in the long term for the defense of the United States of America. And in the tradition of Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, we will fight the enemies that need to be fought, and we will use diplomacy with those who are not a threat to the United States of America.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:24 pmRyan bin Ladin: “He wasn’t a threat to america, he was a ‘potential’ threat to his own people and his neighbors.”
So you are saying Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and all the other Democrats who said Iraq was a threat to the US are liars. Fair enough. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:26 pmSee, that’s my point.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:27 pmThis troll is really weak.
He doesn’t see that:
“treat to the United States of America”
is not the same as generic “threat”
to someone.
Really, really sad troll.
Not up to our troll standard.
Go back to troll school.
Wallace,
November 5th, 2005 at 9:28 pmSo he was a threat.
So are many others and you contain threats. You don’t necessarily send your young men and women to shed blood.
Saddam is in prison but we are still there. More people in the world today view George W. Bush as the biggest threat to peace in the world.
And they sre right.
Marie: “No one denies Saddam was a threatâ€
Juan Cole, moonbat leftist history professor: “Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Period.”
November 5th, 2005 at 9:28 pmSilly, silly troll.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:29 pmNowar: “So he was a threat.”
Thank you too, for admitting that Democrats are lying about that.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:31 pmWaco, it is tragic that the rotten neocons of today were once intelligent, far thinking Democrats.
They weren’t necessarily. Today’s neocons are a diverse group. A person’s political views can change over time and are always colored and tempered by the political milieu they are immersed in. David Horowitz of Front Page Mag was a radical marxist. That pig will go where the money is. same with Michael “Weiner” Savage. He was a hippy herbalist that used to go skinny dipping with Alan Ginsberg
November 5th, 2005 at 9:32 pmWallace, Until I met you here, I thought Bush was the biggest fool. Let me compliment you. You can give him a run for his money.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:33 pmBack on topic.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:34 pmAll this documentation of
the deceit of ChimpyCo
and the crooked crony conservatives
will be spilling out as the cracks
in the Rovian dam get larger.
We will learn the terrible truth, bit
by bit.
I will not be surprized by any of it.
Will the right wing wackos be able to
handle the truth or will their heads explode?
Stay tuned as we will find out soon.
Iraq was no military threat to the U.S. Period. Did he threaten our strategic interests in the region? Not when he was at war with Iran. He was our ally. Go away wally. You are a ridiculous fvcktard. Go back to wallyworld or wal-mart. You are half-off.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:35 pmnowar, your juvenile insults will never change the facts I’ve presented. The fact is, seditious Democrats like Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and the paid propaganda pimps of ThinkProgress are lying about the war, putting partisan gain above loyalty to their own country.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:35 pmI think he just needs more right-wing
November 5th, 2005 at 9:36 pmtroll school. Then he will at least be
a competent spin parrot.
Let me say it clearly and again: Iraq was never any military threat to the U.S. and never in danger of becoming one.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:37 pmTo the aptly monikered “wacko from waco, “Iraq was no military threat to the U.S. Period.”
So then you also claim that Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and many other Democrats lied when they claimed Iraq was a threat. Fair enough.
Granted, Democrats are incessant liars. I just disagree they lied about Iraq.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:37 pm#86,
Thanks for stopping by.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:37 pmHave another Molson.
After reading these comments, I,ve decided NOT to defend your freedoms,reason? too much hate,confusion, and too much.(period). have fun drafting others. I,m from Canada,LOL.
Comment by blablabla
After reading your comment, we are glad.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:39 pm# 80 troll if you would look into Saddams history with the U.S. It might suprise you about Saddam and his feeling toward this country…Don’t go to faux news for the info……jus do a little digging..
bush/cheney/wolfwitz,pearl,card,rumsfeld and other in all total 9 neo cons decided to war against Iraq for its postion in the middle east,the oil of course plus ethe rest of its natural resources.
Israel needs oil and now its getting its oil from iraq (kinda kicker if you ask me)Israel also needs more room to expand so it wants Lebanon ,but Syria stands in teh way so bushco is now fighting and undeclare with Syria. Iran figures really big troll it has an abundance of Natural Gas as well as oil…
All the presidents men are into craving Iraq and taking the spoils….We have just seen Iraq carved up its called privatizing of the Iraqi’s Natural Resources ………..
These neo cons lie their way into pulling the biggest heist the world has ever seen……
I would call it Treason,hmmm………just my Thot’s
November 5th, 2005 at 9:40 pmGosh troll,
November 5th, 2005 at 9:40 pmYou do say the same stupid thing
over and over don’t you?
It was boring some time ago.
Why don’t you claim victory
and wander off to some other thread?
WhackoWallace,
Just because you repost the same discredited ‘opinion’ you have, doesn’t make it more legitimate, but it does show you’re utterly retarded…
November 5th, 2005 at 9:41 pmSo then you also claim that Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and many other Democrats lied when they claimed Iraq was a threat.
We have been all over this. Based on the false information they were given by this administration, that went out of its way to fix the intelligence to support an illegal invasion of Iraq, they were led to believe that Iraq MAY become a threat to our national security if we did not act pre-emptively. And you already know this so that makes you the liar here, just not very good at it.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:43 pm“Ryan bin Ladin: “He wasn’t a threat to america, he was a ‘potential’ threat to his own people and his neighbors.â€
So you are saying Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and all the other Democrats who said Iraq was a threat to the US are liars. Fair enough. :() ”
No, I’m saying YOU AND BUSH are liars. But then again, since you are a compulsive Liar, surely you already knew this.
You know restating what people say out of context is not only passive aggressive, it’s pathologically psychotic.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:43 pmRyan bin Ladin, I posted fact, not opinion. I posted actual quotes from the Clintons and others where they said Iraq was a threat. All your juvenile and bigoted name-calling will not change those facts.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:43 pmHave another Molson.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:43 pm#95,
November 5th, 2005 at 9:44 pmAll righty then. Thanks for sharing
the “cut and paste” thought for the day.
Whacko, “Based on the false information they were given by this administration”
The Clinton administration said Iraq was a threat in the 1990s. You’re saying they got that info from Bush? That’s funny. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:44 pmafterthought,
He repeats lies because he’s republican. They always repost the same lies after they’re debunked, it’s because they’re delusional. Paranoid/Borderline Personality Disorder is usually the case for someone like whacko wallace. It’s also related to his passive aggressive and dysfunctional argument style. Because he can’t win a legitimate debate, he doesn’t debate, he plays games. It’s similar to what OReilly and Limbaugh do. They’re so insecure about their own abilities, they attempt to distract people so they don’t see how inept they actually are.
The problem with this strategy is that smart people always see them..
November 5th, 2005 at 9:46 pmRyan bin Ladin – So you’re saying Iraq was not a threat, but Clinton told the truth when he said Iraq was a threat? Here on Earth, that makes no sense. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:46 pmRyan bin Ladin, “He repeats lies because he’s republican.”
November 5th, 2005 at 9:47 pmClinton is a Republican now? :()
I posted actual quotes from the Clintons and others where they said Iraq was a threat. All your juvenile and bigoted name-calling will not change those facts.
Those are quotes. Quotes are not facts. unless given in direct first person testimony they are not even admissible as evidence in a court of law under most circumstances. They are hearsay, meaningless, and certainly not facts. The facts are, there was no threat. The administration lied about the fact that there was no threat to justify a pre-emptive invasion and now they are busted. Those are facts, wally world.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:47 pm“The Clinton administration said Iraq was a threat in the 1990s. You’re saying they got that info from Bush? That’s funny. :()”
This is called a ’strawman’. Not only because your grammar is syntactically and grammatically incorrect for what you’re describing, but because it’s intentionally deceptive and deceitful. In otherwords, you’re just posting propaganda smears.
Clinton said Iraq was ‘contained’, and thereby was not a threat to america. So your premise is wrong. Your statement is wrong. Your language is wrong. And your conclusion is wrong. And why?
BECAUSE YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FOOL – A REPUBLICAN IN OTHERWORDS.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:48 pmwacko, it is a fact Bill Clinton said Iraq was a threat. If you want to call Bill Clinton a liar, that’s your prerogative. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:49 pmGeorge Bush lied and took us to war against Iraq when they were no threat to us, or anyone for that matter, and had no involvement in the attacks on us on 9/11. Those are facts, wally. deal.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:50 pmWhackoWallace,
Was Iraq a threat when Reagan sold him WMDs? Was Bin Laden a threat when Reagan and Bush trained him and the rest of AlQueda?
The real threat are the dangerous and lying republicans who keep propping up terrorist states and creating terrorist organizations.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:50 pm“wacko, it is a fact Bill Clinton said Iraq was a threat. “WhackoWallace
That’s a very ‘broad’ statement. A threat to who? Did Clinton say Iraq was a threat to the US?
November 5th, 2005 at 9:51 pmRyan bin Ladin, “Clinton said Iraq was ‘contained’, and thereby was not a threat to america.”
But you’re lying. Clinton said Iraq was a threat to America. Why do you think he signed the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998? :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:51 pmHey trolly,
November 5th, 2005 at 9:52 pmYou do know that Clinton is
not President anymore, right?
You seem pretty confused about
that.
Chimpy is the President (honestly or
not) and the article is about more
evidence of ChimpCo deceit.
Did you know that?
WhackoWallace,
Print the exact quote where Clinton said that.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:52 pmRyan bin Ladin, “Was Iraq a threat when Reagan sold him WMDs? Was Bin Laden a threat when Reagan and Bush trained him and the rest of AlQueda?”
That didn’t happen though.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:52 pmafterthought,
Clinton was the last ‘elected’ president, so technically he is still president – right?
November 5th, 2005 at 9:52 pmwacko, it is a fact Bill Clinton said Iraq was a threat. If you want to call Bill Clinton a liar, that’s your prerogative.
George Bush said he was going to Reform Social Security because it was in danger of going broke. It is a fact that he said it. Neither of those statements turned out to be true. I guess he got some bad intelligence, again.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:53 pmRyan bin Ladin, I already quoted Clinton earlier in this thread. Try to keep up.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:54 pmWhackoWallace,
Sure it did. AlQueda was trained by the CIA to fight the russians in afghanistan. Reagan allowed chemical and biological weapons to be sold to Iraq so they could defat iran. What rock do you live under. This is common knowledge.
I can supply a lot more evidence of this, than the rant you’re saying that’s completely eratic and hysterical. You really should get treated for your Clinton hatred.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:54 pmwacko, We can take your attempt to change the subject to Social Security as an admission of defeat. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:55 pmRyan #119,
November 5th, 2005 at 9:55 pmSo that is why the wack-jobs are
so Clinton obsessed.
I get it now.
At no time was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S. They didn’t have an air force to bomb us, a navy to transport troops to invade us, or long range missles to hit us with, and now we know they had no WMDs. Never a threat. Did they in the past have active programs that could have posed a future threat to us? Yes. After GWI and the UN inspections, nuh unh.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:56 pmwacko, We can take your attempt to change the subject to Social Security as an admission of defeat. :()
Comment by wwallace
STICK A PITCHFORK IN HIM AND TURN HIM OVER. HE’S DONE.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:57 pmRyan bin Ladin, your assertions about the US training al Qaeda are nonsense.
“Reagan allowed chemical and biological weapons to be sold to Iraq”
I thought you said Iraq didn’t have any WMD.
“You really should get treated for your Clinton hatred.”
You’re the one calling him a liar, not me. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:57 pm#124,
Now that you have declared victory
November 5th, 2005 at 9:57 pmyou can go away, right?
So the new troll slobber line is confirmed: “but Clinton did the same”, “but the democrats would have done the same thing”, and similar garbage. Who can ever fall for this BS?
November 5th, 2005 at 9:58 pmwacko, “At no time was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S”
So then why did Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998? Why did Clinton say Iraq was a threat? Why are you saying Clinton lied? :()
November 5th, 2005 at 9:59 pmWhackoWallace.
Oh those quotes. You just printed part of the paragraph, and left off the rest of the paragraph that in fact gives the OPPOSITE conclusion of what you said it does. I thought you were referring to an ACTUAL quote.
You’re such a lying propagandist. In fact what you say bill said is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he said. You’re SUCH A FOOL!
Here’s an excerpt, the full speech link is at:
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/BC021002.HTM
A few words about Iraq. I support the efforts of the Prime Minister and President Bush to get tougher with Saddam Hussein. I strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination if at all possible to act through the UN. We need a strong new resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. The restrictions imposed in 1998 are not acceptable and will not do the job. There should be a deadline and no lack of clarity about what Iraq must do. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995. In 1998, as the Prime Minister’s speech a few days ago made clear,. even more were documented. But I think it is also important to remember that Britain and the United States made real progress with our international allies through the UN with the inspection programme in the 1990s. The inspectors discovered and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction and constituent parts with the inspection programme than were destroyed in the Gulf War, far more, including 40,000 chemical weapons, 100,000 gallons of chemicals used to make weapons, 48 missiles, 30 armed warheads and a massive biological weapons facility equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons. In other words the inspections were working even when he was trying to thwart them.
November 5th, 2005 at 9:59 pmwacko, We can take your attempt to change the subject to Social Security as an admission of defeat. :()
Comment by wwallace
This, btw, is how Bush will end our involvement in Iraq. Declare victory after we fail in the mission and withdraw. Just like Nixon’s “Peace with Honor”. More bullshit.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:00 pmtwoplustwoisfive, The question is, if Clinton said “X is true” and Bush said the identical thing “X is true” how can one be lying and the other telling the truth?
November 5th, 2005 at 10:00 pmWhackoWallace.
Oh those quotes. You
Hey, wait a minute! I’m the wacko here and I’m on your team!
November 5th, 2005 at 10:01 pmTroll,
You really need to get over your Clinton
November 5th, 2005 at 10:01 pmobsession. It is clear you hated him, but
it is unhealthy for you to obsess like this.
Let it go man!
It is clearly driving you insane.
I proved you wrong WhackoWallace. The Clinton quote was not what you claimed.
YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FOOL!
November 5th, 2005 at 10:01 pmHere is Kerry’s operative paragraph in his 9/6/02 Senate Speech on IWR-
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
Entire speech posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5177000&mesg_id=5186881
Of course the Senate weren’t given intelligence…they were given audiences with officials from this administration, telling them distortions, lies, and deceits. How do we know that? Because there is no corroborating “evidence” that supports this administration’s contention.
I can understand the calculus of a Democratic Senator to support the Office of the Presidency to deal with a “gathering threat”. What Bush has done is destroy the trust between Congress and the Executive Branch. Think about the next President who is confronted with a real “gathering threat” to this country. Will Congress second-guess or distrust the word of that President? Perhaps….they now have a precedent created by this administration who lied to Congress in order to further their political agenda, at the expense of this country’s best interests. This is the real legacy of the Bush administration.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:02 pmRyan bin Ladin, in the quote you just posted, Clinton claimed Iraq was a threat. Was he lying or was he telling the truth? :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:02 pmtwoplustwoisfive, The question is, if Clinton said “X is true†and Bush said the identical thing “X is true†how can one be lying and the other telling the truth?
Oh please! Bush knew what he was selling was bullshit. People believed him. They did not know the truth, Bush did.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:02 pm#141 did not answer my question. I wonder why that is. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:04 pmWhackoWallace,
You also misrepresented the 1998 quote. It was related to the fact that continued weapons inspectors were capable of ‘containing’ the threat, and in fact they were. You fraudulently posted excerpts from larger speeches out of context. You’re just another FAUX News propagandist retard.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:04 pmWell the troll is lame, but
November 5th, 2005 at 10:04 pmvery persistent. Over and over
and over, like a “parking express”
announcement at the airport.
#139, “I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force”
November 5th, 2005 at 10:05 pmWhy would a multilateral attack on a country you claim was no threat be OK? :()
WhackoWallace,
You haven’t answered my questions. Why to republicans keep training terrorists and ship out WMDs to dictators?
November 5th, 2005 at 10:05 pmWhacko,
You’re official debunked. End Game. Move on retard.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:05 pmAnd at the time that Iraq had a vigorous and active WMD program, chimpy wasn’t preznit, GW I was. And Clinton was making sure the inspectors tracked it down and shut it down. Chimpy knew it was a bogus. It wasn’t bogus when Bill Clinton may have said it. Hillary was just repeating Bush’s lie. She took him at his word.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:06 pmRyan bin Ladin, “It was related to the fact that continued weapons inspectors were capable of ‘containing’ the threat,”
What threat??? You said there ws no threat, now you say there was? You can’t even keep your own story straight for five minutes. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:06 pmwacko, “And at the time that Iraq had a vigorous and active WMD program, chimpy wasn’t preznit, GW I was.”
Then what did Clinton bomb in 1998? :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:08 pm#139, “I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by forceâ€
Why would a multilateral attack on a country you claim was no threat be OK? :()
I would too, if it was proven that he had arms. Kerry wanted to let the inspectors do their job. Bush didn’t. Why? Because then there would have been no excuse to go to war. The inspectors would have found what Bush already knew. Nothing there.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:08 pmYou’ve been debunked Whacko, move on.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:09 pmClinton struck command and control facilities of their air defense you moron.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:09 pmwacko, Kerry said “I WILL support…” not “I WOULD support IF…”
You’re lying about what he in fact said.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:10 pmHe’s just getting off wanking now. It’s all he’s got left. He really shouldn’t be exposing his weaknesses like this but he just can’t quit.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:11 pmwacko, “Clinton struck command and control facilities of their air defense you moron.”
Why, since you claim Iraq was not threat, moron? :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:11 pmWhackoWallace is a standard propagandist slime. When you point out he’s made a mistake he just keeps making more of them. It’s a never ending process of lies and more lies…
He won’t learn because he’s stupid and his preconceptions and desire to ‘win’ the argument cloud his reason and what possible rational brain he has. People like him are lost causes because they aren’t really adult people. They’re psychopaths.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:11 pmRyan bin Ladin, you’ve been debunked, move on. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:11 pmwacko, Kerry said “I WILL support…†not “I WOULD support IF…â€
You’re lying about what he in fact said.
Comment by wwallace
See what I mean? Just masturbation.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:12 pmYou’ve been debunked WhackoWallace, move on.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:12 pmNight kids…
November 5th, 2005 at 10:12 pmWhackoWallace will lie until his last breath, it’s the only existence he knows – he’s a republican.
YOU’VE BEEN DEBUNKED, MOVE ON.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:13 pmWW likes to split hairs to make his point. Apparently I should have been more precise. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region and a potential threat to others. He was not the imminent threat that required Bush’s illegal invasion. He was a potential threat that could have been dealt with diplomatically and economically, cerainly not singlehandedly by a gunslinging, tough-talking, Hollywood-style cowboy wannabe..
November 5th, 2005 at 10:13 pmDo you think they assign a wacko
November 5th, 2005 at 10:15 pmto each thread, or use some other
method?
WhackoWallace splits hairs to spread propaganda. He also doesn’t apparently understand english grammar, as he consistently uses it, and it’s quite easy to debunk. But of course it would require him to not reprint things out of context, and a propagandist retard can never resist reframing others statements with their own lies. It’s what they do.
They’re retarded that way.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:15 pmMarie, there was nothing illegal about Bush’s liberation of 25 million Iraqis.
“He was a potential threat that could have been dealt with diplomatically and economically”
That’s a value judgment that has nothing to do with whether Clinton and Bush lied when they said Iraq was a threat. How to deal with a threat is a separate question.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:16 pmafterthought,
I think they have certain whackos with pet interests, although since Bush is the most unpopular 2nd term president in american history, they seem to have a particular fetish for the ever popular and ever successful clinton. Heck they even call Clinton a republican now because all of their republican presidents have been such a miserable failure.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:17 pmRyanb bin Ladin, calling me juvenile names won’t change the facts I’ve posted here tonight. You’ve been thoroughly debunked, move on. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:18 pmWhakcoWallace LIES AGAIN.
“The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter“
November 5th, 2005 at 10:18 pmFirst they create AlQueda, then republicans invade a country illegally. The one thing you can always count on a republican to do is to be a liar, a thief and a murderer. That’s why the BTK serial killer ended up being a republican – it’s their nature.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:19 pmI can understand the calculus of a Democratic Senator to support the Office of the Presidency to deal with a “gathering threatâ€. What Bush has done is destroy the trust between Congress and the Executive Branch. Think about the next President who is confronted with a real “gathering threat†to this country. Will Congress second-guess or distrust the word of that President? Perhaps….they now have a precedent created by this administration who lied to Congress in order to further their political agenda, at the expense of this country’s best interests. This is the real legacy of the Bush administration.
Comment by Innocent Bystander
So true, but it’s far worse than that. You have to include the manipulation and complicity of the broadcast media and the print media and because of that, the public and public opinion. Trust has broken down in many more places than that.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:19 pmRyan bin Ladin, Oil-for-Food crook Kofi Annan doesn’t decide what legal and illegal.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:20 pmHerr Himmler wwallace calling us juvenile names won’t change the facts we’ve posted here tonight. You’ve been thoroughly debunked, move on. :()
November 5th, 2005 at 10:21 pmHerr Himmler wwallace calling us juvenile names won’t change the facts we’ve posted here tonight. You’ve been thoroughly debunked, move on.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:21 pmHerr Himmler wwallace calling us juvenile names won’t change the facts we’ve posted here tonight. You’ve been thoroughly debunked, move on. Liar.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:21 pmBushboy chimpy blood for oil and money crook doesn’t decide what legal and illegal.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:23 pmThe morning talk shows could be interesting tomorrow.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:23 pmblood for oil and money crook Bushboy chimpy doesn’t decide what legal and illegal.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:23 pmKill all conservatives. Use rat poison. It works.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:24 pmFrom the WhackoWallace speech of 1998. Not only did Clinton DEAL with the threat, he largely ended it. Not only does this UNDERMINE the claim of WhackoWallace that Saddam was a ‘continuing’ threat, it shows he’s exactly the sort of propagandist fool I said. So you’re wrong AGAIN WhackoWallace. Not only did I ‘respond’ to your claims, I DISPROVED them.
” That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team — including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser — I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. ”
Not only did the 1998 attacks ENSURE that the full weapons program was dismantled, the IAEA and WMD inspection teams said that Clinton was successful.
Not only was clinton a better president, he effectively dealt with Saddam, which Bush weinered out. But republicans always weiner out. They have no stomach for real politics because they’re children.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:25 pmWhakcoWallace LIES AGAIN.
“The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter“
“Oil-for-Food crook Kofi Annan doesn’t decide what legal and illegal.”
Tell that the next time Bush or some other Fascist repubican says that “Iraq must comply with UN Resolution, blah, blah”. If the UN doesn’t decide international law issues, then clearly republicans like Bush who said Saddam had to comply with them was LYING.
Just like you LIE WHACKOWALLACE
November 5th, 2005 at 10:32 pmAnd I like to remind everyone of the point that these whackos don’t want to remind everyone of. And I want everyone to help me.
BUSH FABRICATED EVIDENCE TO ILLEGALLY FIGHT A WAR.
THAT IS REALITY.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:34 pm“The morning talk shows could be interesting tomorrow.”
Comment by Marie — November 5, 2005 @ 10:23 pm
If you’re a big fan of irony. Otherwise, get ready to bite the pillow again.
November 5th, 2005 at 10:43 pmwwallace is cherry picking: He doesn’t trust any “lefty” an/or “liberal” because they all lie –except when he can lift “liberal” quotes that support his point of view.
If liberals lie and are not to be trusted, one cannot use their words to prop up one’s case.
Again, it does not matter what Kerry et al said about Hussein’s WMDs before the invasion. What they said has no bearing to the central question of whether or not the Bush administration intentionally deceived the American public about said WMDs in order to attack Iraq, and whether or not the facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy.
That is the actual issue –not who said what and who agreed or disagreed. In that respect, there is more and more evidence that the Bush II administration rewarded the people who told them what they wanted to hear, and that they ignored, pushed aside all those who would not toe the line: They listened and rewarded Ahmed Chalabi, while chastising Joe Wilson.
Don’t let wwallace and others muddle the issue. The questions are: Did Bush intentionally deceive the American public in order to invade Iraq? Did they fabricate intelligence? Did they ignore evidence that Iraq had no WMDs? Did they “catapult the propaganda” when they said that the “smoking gun” would be a “nuclear cloud” on the US?
What Kerry, Clinton, and the others said or thought is irrelevant.
November 6th, 2005 at 12:49 amThe Bush administration played on all our fears. I mean, it was less than 2 years after 9/11 and the whole proposal for war seemed convincing and urgent.
What sickens me the most is how Bush could take us to war when this nation was still trying to pull itself together and when we had the whole world behind us. After that, it all went down hill.
How many of you feel used and betrayed? It’s a horrible feeling.
November 6th, 2005 at 1:54 amRyan- you’re off your meds again….Kofi Annan? Ya, let’s put the guy stuffing money in his pants (Sandy Berger-style)in charge of the decision to start a war with the guy who’s giving him the money….Ya…that’s logic only the French would love…..Viva la U.N.
November 6th, 2005 at 6:37 amNot only was clinton a better president, he effectively dealt with Saddam, which Bush weinered out. But republicans always weiner out. They have no stomach for real politics because they’re children.
Comment by Ryan Neat
It’s governance, diplomacy and statecraft the Goopers don’t do. They lack the capacity for nuance so essential in those endeavours. Politics and corruption they do just fine. That’s all they can do, as the whole world is now aware. Which brings me to another point. It’s Annan’s son who is a little corrupt. Compared to the GOP, the corruption at the U.N. is de minimus.
Kill Conservatism Off. Exterminate it once and for all. Use Rat Poison, it works.
November 6th, 2005 at 7:14 amThese neocon trolls try and give the impression that the democrats in the senate are given inntelligence briefings by the puke cohorts.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Everything is kept from the dems. Bush boasted that he consulted with 70 senators about Alito. Harry Reid said that he was notified until the morning Alito was nominated.
This is true of everything. Pat Roberts went on TV and said that he notified the dems on the intelligence committee last week that they would proceed with Phase 2 of the investigation. This was a bald face lie. The ranking democrat followed Roberts on TV and told the nation that he had not received any such notice.
You trolls are blind, dont have your facts straight, dont listen to anything except faux news and Limbaugh.
November 6th, 2005 at 10:16 amWhen you have put off calling someone you don’t want to talk to, and that person ends up calling you, do you say “Oh, hi, I was just going to call you.”
November 6th, 2005 at 11:26 amPat Roberts did that this week. “We were just planning our meeting.”
Same lie, different scene.
#196
Right on the nose Marie.
“Umm, we were gonna start Phase 2 tomorrow. Yeah, that’s it.”
November 6th, 2005 at 3:39 pm… Ah , the neoconnies are squealing and screeching in fear – the knee-jerk yelps of ” Clinton ” being a repug version of Tourettes , brought on by large doses of TRUTH ! That’s the BEST part of this , bebes – watching the lil’ connies wriggle ! … ;)
November 6th, 2005 at 8:01 pmWhy don’t you just title the article for what it is?
“To Justify War, Bush LIED. The Administration LIED. And they continue lying to this day.
See! It’s really simple…now you try it.
November 6th, 2005 at 9:20 pmCould it be that His Fraudulency’s real intention in using an obviously-misleading memo to justify a misguided “Holy War” may have been pure, unadulterated greed and/or profit, howbeit selfish and egocentrist?
November 7th, 2005 at 9:36 amWhy don’t you “progressives” who are cheering for the enemy (afterall, you seem to be for anything that makes Bush look bad), just don a towel and join the “insurgents” – you’re so anti American that you might as well dress the part!!
November 7th, 2005 at 6:24 pmBetter yet, Miss Mighty, why don’t you enlist, pick up a gun, and support your pResident? Instead of being a Yellow Elephant who cheerleads young kids to their death, why not lead by example? Your pitiful life is spent, anyway. I, for one, will cheer you on…
November 7th, 2005 at 7:05 pmMightyLiar,
Why don’t you FASCISTS WHO RECRUITED, FUNDED AND TRAINED THE EMEMY GIVE YOURSELVES OVER FOR CHARGES OF TREASON. Republicans are all personally responsible for AlQueda. Republicans are all personally responsible for LYING ABOUT IRAQ.
Republicans are all personally responsible for the 3+ fold increase in terrorism because of your ineptitude.
If there’s a world threat from terrorists, it’s because Republicans are terrorists themselves who created the problem! You’re such a retarded fool, clearly the money for your private education was wasted.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:18 pmThe Bible Sez:
(Mat 5:29) And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
(Mat 5:30) And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
The “right†is an offense to God. Pluck it out! Cut it off! And cast it into Hell!
November 8th, 2005 at 5:17 amTo Hell with this sow:
Why don’t you “progressives†who are cheering for the enemy (afterall, you seem to be for anything that makes Bush look bad), just don a towel and join the “insurgents†– you’re so anti American that you might as well dress the part!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — November 7, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
Pluck it out, slice it off and cast it back into Hell!
The Bible Sez:
(Mat 5:29) And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
(Mat 5:30) And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
The “right†is an offense to God. Pluck it out! Cut it off! And cast it into Hell!
November 8th, 2005 at 5:20 am[...] Virtually none of that was true. (Bush’s assertion that Iraq provided chemical and biological weapons training, for example, was based on the statements of a known fabricator.) The administration’s hand picked weapons inspector, David Kay, concluded “We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.†But to pretend that President Bush never made an effort to link Saddam and al-Qaeda is incredibly irresponsible, even for Fox. [...]
November 27th, 2005 at 11:06 amDenimbo
great idea!
December 18th, 2005 at 7:12 pmBrad Pitt
Bred Pitt
December 20th, 2005 at 7:13 pmjennifer lopez
jennifer lopez
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:51 amfree nextel ringtones
free nextel ringtones
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:42 amDragonball
Dragonball
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:10 amcell phones
cell phones
December 25th, 2005 at 6:11 amcheap web hosting
cheap web hosting
December 25th, 2005 at 6:20 amfree song lyrics
free song lyrics
December 25th, 2005 at 10:43 amcheap webhosting
cheap webhosting
December 25th, 2005 at 12:02 pmjohn spencer
john spencer
December 27th, 2005 at 5:18 pmxbox 360 games
xbox 360 games
December 28th, 2005 at 4:05 pmringtone
free ringtone
December 31st, 2005 at 12:10 amsports tickets
sports tickets
December 31st, 2005 at 12:45 amjewelry
Jewelry
January 1st, 2006 at 6:05 pmFree Texas Hold Um…
Free Texas Hold Um – on fire……
January 8th, 2006 at 2:54 pmRingtone Composer…
Ringtone Composer…
January 18th, 2006 at 12:15 pm