What Bush Knew: More Evidence That He Deliberately Misled
What Bush Knew: More Evidence That He Deliberately Misled
Murray Waas, writing in the National Journal, breaks new information regarding the level of knowledge President Bush had prior to the Iraq war about the supposed Iraq/al Qaeda link:
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The information, which was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the “President’s Daily Brief,†corresponds with the accounts of two former White House counterterrorism advisers:
“One week after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, White House counterterrorism director Paul Kurtz wrote in a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that no ‘compelling case’ existed for Iraq’s involvement in the attacks and that links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government were weak.†[Washington Post, 7/23/04]
According to the 9/11 Commission report, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Richard Clarke’s office sent a memo to the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, at the President’s direction, concluding that “only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda…Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime.†[9-11 Commission Report, p.334]
This information did not prevent Bush and Cheney from presenting the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda as an undisputed fact.
BUSH: “And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror.†[10/14/02]
CHENEY: “There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror.†[12/2/02]
Despite the risk of being labeled “dishonest and reprehensible,” this appears to be strong evidence that Bush and Cheney misled us.
For a more thorough debunking of the Bush administration’s pre-war statements, see this memo recently authored by former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham and American Progress President and CEO John Podesta.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Always on top of the facts ThinkProgress.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:34 pmWow, you guys do have a ton of info and make a convincing case. But, the president wouldn’t lie to little old me, would he?
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:42 pmThink Pessimism might gain some credibility when Faiz ackwnowledges Saddams’ payments to suicide bombers. It must have been a sad day when they found that gutter snipe Saddam filthy in a hole in the ground.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:43 pmI-RIGHT-I and MIGHTY APHRODITE are KKKers. Check out Post No. 188 here: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/22/schmidt-marine/
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:56 pmDear Mighty Norma Desmond,
There was no claim here that there were not ties between Saddam Hussien and terrorism, just that these claims were WEAK, which describes your argument.
Now, I’m busy, so good night.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:59 pmAphrodite, how it is? Its Joe here. Hope I didn’t catch you with your pants down (naw, I really hope I did! heh heh). I agree with you about acknowledging the payments Saddam paid to suicide bombers and I felt bad for the Israeli families who got nothing but grief.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but was Saddam behind those attacks, too, or just one big one against us on 9-11? I mean, its getting to where you can’t belive a shitting thing coming out of the WH these days, you know?
Hey, that gutter snipe take was a kick. Speaking of gutter snipe, what’s your action on Jean Schmidt? Is she a skank or what?
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:03 pmI Guess Bush dosn,t read the Bible afterall!
He Knows Not that his Knowledge is gonna kill us , along with himself!
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:09 pm17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Of course he knew Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He was the one responsible for 9/11. (along with his partners @ Carlyle aka Saudi Arabia)
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:15 pm“Think Pessimism might gain some credibility when Faiz ackwnowledges Saddams’ payments to suicide bombers.”
Proof, link, proof, link, proof, link, proof, link.
BTW: There are other terrorist organization besides Al Qaida.
So, prove a connection between Saddam and Osama, not Iraq and some terrorists.
Very simple. You say you know this, prove it, because nobody else has, including people that actually were paid to find the link. Let’s see how might you are aphrodite. Because, if you can prove ties between Saddam and Osama, I want to be your manager, because there is a lot of money to be made.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:19 pmTommy,
Did you see Dr. Steven Jones discuss bldg 7 on Tucker Carlson?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:26 pmMan, I hope you guys have some relatives in Siberia or Togo.
Karl’s gonna be pissed with all this truth coming out.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:28 pmAnd the reason he was given this PDB information was because HE ASKED FOR IT!!
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:29 pmBush was looking for a reason, any excuse, to attack Iraq, as soon as 9/21/01. This was first noted by Paul O’Neill. But as is their m.o. the Bushies, Fox, and the MSM simply discounted anyone who told these kinds of stories as being “sour grapes.”
This was truly a war of selfish choice.
oh, they presented the information as fact, all right… from the same article…
*”You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror,” President Bush said on September 25, 2002.
The next day, Rumsfeld said, “We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.”*
lies, lies, and more lies on top of lies… let’s see them try to spin their way out of this (and you know they will try)… when does the weight of this burden of lies come to the point where the administration simply can’t operate any more…? i’m waiting…
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/11/bush-knew-on-21-september-2001-there.html
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:30 pmThat’s why the office of special plans was put together. They gotta act on the PNAC masterplan.
“…if the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 bookend a major shift in international politics,
then this is a period not just of grave danger, but of enormous opportunity. Before the clay
is dry again, America and our friends and our allies must move decisively to take advantage of these new opportunities”
Rice
“Further, the process of transformation,
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:37 pmeven if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor” RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf PNAC document
Hey Hermaphodite,
That’s your best link of Saddam to Al-Queda? What about US/CIA ties to terrorist groups such as Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles? Don’t remember him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles
By your standards, we deserve to be invaded for supporting and harboring terrorists, right?
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:41 pmDang! Aphrodite must have went to bed. I wanted to read another quote to her I found today. This one from George Bush: “We’ve climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it’s a valley of peace.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he was refering to the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:50 pmWhy do the minions of ThinkTreason want to deny the fact Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism?
They obviously don’t love their own country.
The Connection
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 pmAdd this to Paul O’Neill’s book when he said they were talking about taking out Saddam the first time the cabinet met, and I’d say we just about have the hat-trick.
Dubya had himself an agenda and he jumped on the first chance to see it through. And since he wasn’t smart enough to create his own agenda was borrowed one from the neocons. Seems like even his dad is pissed over that one.
New on EWM: “Schmidt calls Bush Coward after President Pardons Turkeyâ€
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:10 pm16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:22 pm17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
!!!!!TOO LATE!!!!!
Muse,
Add the “neocons” in the Clinton administration too. You’ll recall Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. :()
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:24 pm#17
First off, your link goes to The Weekly Standard, which makes it suspect to start with, but this is the second, third and fourth sentences.
“Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein’s much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common.”
I don’t care if I was on a left wing, centrist or right wing site. The truth of the story goes out the window with “The name was not spelled exactly…” It is no longer credible. The “but discrepencies are common” arguement would have worked 20 years ago. This “science professor” was working with CIA documents. It is not likely that this is true.
Also, if I was to take this as being fact, since it is from a science professor, then you would have to take the BYU physics professor story as being true that the WTC buildings may have be brought down with explosives.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:28 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
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed”
— Madeline Albright, Sec. of State under President Bill Clinton, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″
— Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.”
— Senator John Kerry, December 16, 2001
“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.”
— Senator 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.”
— Senator 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.”
— Senator 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.”
— Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”
— Senator John Edwards, Oct 10, 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.”
— Former Vice President 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.”
— Former President 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.”
— President 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”
— Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 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”
— Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:30 pm— Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002
On the BBC’s Newsnight programme tonight, there was a news report on George W. Bush wanting to stop the Al-Jazeera news network from broadcasting, by any means necessary. The reasoning behind Bush’s evil plan is that Al-Jazeera are seen to be propagandists by Bush and his government, and are seen as a threat to American lives.
Does this mean that if the Fox News Network, don’t do their masters bidding. Then Bush and the GOP, for not towing the party line, will bomb Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and their cohorts.
Even by Bush’s own standards, this is reprehensible. Is this news story even playing over there in America?
The Daily Mirror reported that Bush spoke of targeting Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar, when he met Blair at the White House on April 16, 2004. The Bush administration has regularly accused Al-Jazeera of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-American sentiments.
Al-Jazeera offices in Iraq and Afghanistan have been hit by U.S. bombs or missiles, but each time the U.S. military said they were not intentionally targeting the broadcaster.
In April 2003, an Al-Jazeera journalist was killed when its Baghdad office was struck during a U.S. bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake.
In November 2002, Al-Jazeera’s office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a U.S. missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. U.S. officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Al-Jazeera’s office.
Web Link: NB: You must have Broadband to watch BBC Newsnight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4679459
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:34 pmWWallace, you’ve articulated quite clearly why members of Congress act at their own peril from now on in trusting the information that comes out of this administration.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:37 pm#22
I will post it caps, since you can’t seem to read.
SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS TIES TO TERRORISM. THAT DOESN’T TIE HIM TO AL QAIDA. YOU KNOW THE GUYS WHO FLEW PLANES INTO THE WTC. AL QAIDA IS NOT THE ONLY TERRORIST GROUP IN THE WORLD.
Now, post some proof of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. You r talking points don’t work on me.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:43 pm16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Too Late for wwallace!
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:44 pm#26
freedom is not free!,
That might work if wwallace had knowledge. He only has rhetoric, spin and talking points. He doesn’t have an original thought, which I would argue is knowledge.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:46 pmNow I understand.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:49 pmthanks spudge.
Ho about this one? This is the one that the NeoCons think they are goin gto bring about.
Revelation 6
1 I watched while the Lamb ripped off the first of the seven seals. I heard one of the Animals roar, “Come out!”
2 I looked–I saw a white horse. Its rider carried a bow and was given a victory garland. He rode off victorious, conquering right and left.
3 When the Lamb ripped off the second seal, I heard the second Animal cry, “Come out!”
4 Another horse appeared, this one red. Its rider was off to take peace from the earth, setting people at each other’s throats, killing one another. He was given a huge sword.
5 When he ripped off the third seal, I heard the third Animal cry, “Come out!” I looked. A black horse this time. Its rider carried a set of scales in his hand.
6 I heard a message (it seemed to issue from the Four Animals): “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, or three quarts of barley, but all the oil and wine you want.”
7 When he ripped off the fourth seal, I heard the fourth Animal cry, “Come out!”
8 I looked. A colorless horse, sickly pale. Its rider was Death, and Hell was close on its heels. They were given power to destroy a fourth of the earth by war, famine, disease, and wild beasts.
9 When he ripped off the fifth seal, I saw the souls of those killed because they had held firm in their witness to the Word of God. They were gathered under the Altar,
10 and cried out in loud prayers, “How long, Strong God, Holy and True? How long before you step in and avenge our murders?”
11 Then each martyr was given a white robe and told to sit back and wait until the full number of martyrs was filled from among their servant companions and friends in the faith.
12 I watched while he ripped off the sixth seal: a bone-jarring earthquake, sun turned black as ink, moon all bloody,
13 stars falling out of the sky like figs shaken from a tree in a high wind,
14 sky snapped shut like a book, islands and mountains sliding this way and that.
15 And then pandemonium, everyone and his dog running for cover–kings, princes, generals, rich and strong, along with every commoner, slave or free. They hid in mountain caves and rocky dens,
16 calling out to mountains and rocks, “Refuge! Hide us from the One Seated on the Throne and the wrath of the Lamb!
17 The great Day of their wrath has come–who can stand it?”
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:52 pmDeliberately MISLED?
Webster’s defines the word “mislead” as: to deceive.
To deceive: Webster’s defines “deceive” as: to cause to believe what is false or to disbelieve what is true; to insnare; to delude; to cheat.
When a President knowingly cause the nation to believe what is false; cheats; deceives, wouldn’t we construe that as an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?
What’s wrong with the word LIE? Is there some sort of fine distinction you’re trying to establish here? The entire administration LIED and kept on LYING for months, knowing FULL WELL that their claims were FALSE.
They KNOWINGLY LIED to force the nation into a WAR OF AGGRESSION – illegal in the world theater, illegal according to the Geneva Convention. They DELIBEERAELY LIED in order to invade a sovreign nation.
Does it get any simpler than that?
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:01 pmwwallace, aka benedict arnold
Excellent list of need-to-be-verified quotes.
NOTE: 9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s Islamic Republic, not Clinton’s
Where’s your outage?
Is Bush’s fathering of an Islamic theocracy the right reponse to the horric attacks of 9/11?
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:03 pmtomz,
For some reason TP doesn’t like to use the word LIE, even though it is appropriate in this instance and many others.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:04 pm9/11 + Iraq = Bush’s Islamic Republic
Where’s the outrage?
Nearly 3000 are murdered and billions of dollars in damage were incurred on 9/11.
What does Bush do?
He fathers an Islamic republic with extremely close ties to Iran.
FROG-MARCH Boy George NOW
The Iranian nightmare
By Michael Schwartz
In 1998, neo-conservative theorist Robert Kagan enunciated what would become a foundational belief of Bush administration policy. He asserted, “A successful intervention in Iraq would revolutionize the strategic situation in the Middle East, in ways both tangible and intangible, and all to the benefit of American interests.”
Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan’s prediction appears to have been fulfilled – in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the “axis of evil” and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, “By destroying a united Iraq under [Saddam] Hussein … the US removed the main barrier to Iran’s eventual triumph.”
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:06 pmCan Democracy Stop Terrorism?
F. Gregory Gause III
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005
Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:08 pmPresident Bush has decided to defend himself by offering the American people four falsehoods regarding the path to war. “Same intelligence”, “no manipulation”, “no pressure” and “rewriting history”- are fitting lies for a President now viewed by a majority of Americans as dishonest and unethical.
For the full story, see:
“Bush Rewrites History”
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:12 pmFor more on what Bush and Cheney have actually said on Iraq, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, see:
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:14 pm- “Bush on Iraq: Then and Now”
- “DC Dick and Baghdad Bob”
Spudge, Its more like this.
16 And he gathered them together into a place called America.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:19 pm17 ¶ And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Rewrite.
16 And he gathered them together into a place called America.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:21 pm17 ¶ And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
18 And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
19 And the great NATION was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nation fell: and great America came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Yup, everything is just Hunkadory.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:32 pmsee ya in the afterlife, Maybe.
Maybe NOT!
wwallace:
Who funds the madrassas? Who funds al-Qaeda?
Ooops. That would be our pals the Saudis.
Who made nuclear bomb technology available to every thug on earth with the price of admission?
Ruh-roh. That would be our asshole buddy Pakistan.
But, no. We invaded a country where there was a guy who had a name kind of like another guy who once handled valet parking for an al-Qaeda meeting in a DIFFERENT country.
GREAT strategy. America is the scourge of tangentially-involved, thrice-removed evildoers everywhere!
Not to mention the fact that there ain’t no such thing as al-Qaeda.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:49 pmRunningDogLackey. The Greater Question is,
Who made nuclear bomb technology?
America?
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 pmKeerist, what’s the point of giving this bozo a PDB if he ignores these things?
Ignored the 8/6/01 PDB and we lost 3000 people on 9/11.
Ignored the findings of the 9/21/01 PDB and 2100 more Americans have died.
What’s the threshold for Presidential incomptence these days? I know the threshold for impeachment is lying about oral sex with a consenting adult, but does impechment for incompetence kick in when 10,000 Americans lose their lives?
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:04 amWhat worries me most is the loss of innocence. Four year old Grand-daughter asks every time she calls how a tree frog – she named Ribbet is doing. So far, we have been truthful in stating that Ribbet and his/her parents are still in the lamp post.
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:11 am#22 Funny that none of the people you qouted ordered American troops to invade Iraq. Only your master Dubya did that.
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:28 amWWallace, in case you hadn’t heard yet, Clinton hasn’t been President for almost 5 years now. Bush is responsible for the Quagmire we are in so buck up and quit blaming others for your Dear Leader’s lies. If this was Clinton, you guys would have had him impeached within a month of the ivasion being over.
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:45 amwwallace,
You are beginning to sound like a broken record pasting the same old tired quotes over and over again. I already explained to you Woolsey is no Democrat but a member of the PNAC, and co-author of a 1998 letter to Pres. Clinton (along with Rumsfeld, Kristol, Wolfowitz, among others) urging him to find a way to depose Saddam Hussein. Read the letter here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
And about the article in The Weekly Standard, it was published before the 9/11 Commission made their findings public. As you might recall, it was a bi-partisan commission signed into existence by Pres. Bush himself, and whose responsibility was to review all available information on the events that lead up to the WTC attacks.
The Commission’s findings bluntly contradict the central claim in the article, namely that AlQaeda and Iraq “may have worked together on September 11th”. Let’s not forget the Commission members had access to a lot more information than the magazine staff:
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Here is the link to the 9/11 Commission’s web site. Find the PDF version of the report under, well, “Report”:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
As a final note, reading through the report you may finding cute little tidbits like this one:
[National Security Advisor Sandy] Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but [National Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard] Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[ista'ns] intel[ligence service] is in bed” with Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign. (p. 134)
Excuse me? Bin Laden in bed with Pakistan’s intelligence service? It wouldn’t be the same Pakistan Pres. Bush has called “an ally in the war on terrorism”, would it?
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:01 am#41
“RunningDogLackey. The Greater Question is,
Who made nuclear bomb technology?
America?”
Well, here is an interesting twist on who invented. the nuclear bomb. I wouldn’t say who invented it as much as I would say who has the real deal first.
BBC
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:10 amHitler ‘tested small atom bomb’
March 14, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4348497.stm
And then there is this other general.
CNN
November 22, 2005
U.S. general: Iraqi army can’t be rushed
Iraqi troops not yet ready to take over defense of country
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/22/robertson.iraq/index.html
He must not be talking with these generals:
CNN
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:28 amNovember 18, 2005
Defense official: Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan
Plan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections
Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:28 amMarie, Re: #12 post
Dumbya was talking to a reporter in 1998 and said:
“…when I get the chance to invade Iraq, um IF I get the chance to invade Iraq….”
This little ditty got into one or two of the books about the smirking chimp.
Sounds like the little lying bastard had this planned and was willing to invent any and I do mean any excuse to do so.
Thanks Halliburton, and sorry about all your kids.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:53 am#15 and mity dykie too,
Luis Posada Carriles was recruited by the CIA and on their payroll as a terrorist. That is why they were so reluctant to prosecute him.
Go figure, USA recruiting, training and paying terrorists. Say it ain’t so.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:56 amHas anyone ever asked why the Bush administration was so quick to offer each of the 9-11 victims families over $1.6 million each for the loss of their loved
one(s)? Can anyone remember another instance of this type of restitution from our government? So quickly, so neatly wrapped? Or was it hush money? You know, sort of like, enjoy your new found wealth and be quiet. Don’t ask questions. Take some time off and grieve with a new car or house. Don’t ask questions. Take the kids to Disneyworld and buy a t-shirt. Don’t ask questions.
Osama bin Laden was once an operative for the CIA at the behest of our government and my guess is that before 9-11 some neocons needed him for another mission. Why do you think he hasn’t been caught yet?
Supposedly the entire Pakistani army is looking for him. Any success? We, with all of our manpower, our technology, our seemingly endless supply of money cannot locate one man? One man on foot! Walking in the mountains with several other, mostly older, men!
Another guess is that Osama has too many stories to tell. He gets what he wants… money, recognition, power and most importantly to him, Saddam’s secular government out of Iraq. Our neocons get instant sympathy to rampage through our constitution and bill of rights to implement their grander plan… The Project for the New American Century. #14 K obviously has been to their website and read those chilling words he quoted earlier in this thread and so have I. Doesn’t it strike any of you as one big convenient coincidence for them, 9-11? How about when Bush was first notified during the all important My Pet Goat reading that he just sat there with sort a smirk on his face? Almost as if he was expecting it. Staying the course in Iraq has nothing to do with winning the war or courage or any of that fodder for the rest of us to patriotically believe. It’s just the beginning of the PNAC agenda for the middle east and the rest of the world. Does anyone really wonder why someone as imminently qualified in terrorism as Richard Clarke was basically ignored by everyone in the Bush administration?
Don’t waste your time quibbling with the likes of Mighty Aphrodummy, U-Wrong-U, Northeast Dildomama and the rest of the braindead, zombie automatons of the new right fascists who believe an unquestioned, omnipotent leader is just what we need. They prefer fantasy over truth. They only post here to pick a fight and agitate you. But when you disturb their little fantasy bubble with the plain truth, they cut and run… so to speak.
The founding fathers of this nation did the best they could, though not perfect, to form what they thought could be the greatest nation on the planet leading by example. An example that they believed most other nations would grow eventually to emulate. It’s amazing the vision they had given what they had to work with. It’s even more amazing that after 229 years we’ve progressed to the point where we have an administration run by a president that couldn’t operate a compass from a box of Crackerjacks!
Keep asking questions. Keep wanting more and better for our country. Keep demanding that a better example be set. Never turn your back on the truth.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:56 am#53 wwallace: Let me take a stab and assume you’re white. I already know you’re dumb. That’s why you denigrate others to feel good about yourself. It’s called an inferiority complex. Or is that too complex for you? Your only accomplishment in life is the simple fact that your parents were white.
By the way dipshit, in this country you are free and clear to worship your god pretty much any way you see fit, anytime you feel like it. But when it conflicts with my life, I’m allowed to become God!
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:18 amWhat Bush Knew: More Evidence He Deliberately Misled
At this rate, it’d be much easier just to list the (nonexistent) evidence that Bush didn’t lie to start a war with Iraq…
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:26 amI think wwallace just outted himself.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:38 am[10] Roxie,
I had not seen the Tucker Carlson piece, so thanks.
While I’m anything but a conspiracy theorist in any regard, I do think that there is somewhere, a Bush/Saudi connection.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:17 amKeeping posting wwallace….everytime you share your thoughts with us, another fencesitter is convinced to take a stand against the assorted nutbars who remain in what was once a real political party.
Sadly, the Party of Eisenhower has morphed into the Republican Syndicate – a criminal enterprise run by bigtime war profiteers and looters, pandering to a dwindling peanut gallery of faux-christian bigots, ignorant rascists, and easily manipulated dimbulbs.
We appreciate your contribution in helping to convince the sane center that the GOP is headed for self-extinction.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:26 amIt’s because of this duplicity they can’t even answer a very simple question of whether it was a mistake to compare Murtha to Moore.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:33 amAnd I got news for you. The Dems who still support being in Iraq are still doing it out of fear for their jobs.
Mighty Aphrodite Doesn’t wanna Admit that the financed and trained “Freedom Fighters” of Reagan are now the ‘Terrorists’ of Bush. WMDS sent to Saddam, Helicopters Sold, a Neo-Kook Debacle from Beginning to End.
Curveball Was Debunked BEFORE the War.
The Aluminum Tubes was BS,
The Yellow Cake forgeries,..on and on and on.
Scare Tactics, The Faux Kristol/Murdoch/Rendon
Taxpayer propaganda Network…..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:09 amOne of these Days the Mighty Ol WindBag will run out of Hot Air. –Aj
Great post Mr. Evil.
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:10 amI totally believe that World Trade Center came down by explosives. They were planned in the WTC. The Bush admin. wanted an excuse to go into Iraq. The Professor that was on Tucker’s show was right. We need to reopen the investigation on 911.
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:33 amImpeach Bush and his gang! They’re evil. How much proof do you need? They ‘re playing with you Americans, they think you don’t have the guts to temove them. He thinks he’s untouchable. He is sucking your country dry, within a few months, the value of the dollar will drop to the lowest ever. Be clever, inmpeach the bastard!It’s your country, not his!
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:03 amwawawawallace is a bedwetting republican. Ignore the candyass pansy.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:11 am[...] It’s not so much that you cherry picked the intelligence against Saddam that pisses us off Mr. Cheney. It’s that you tried to tie Iraq to the attacks on 9/11 in the first place, to justify the war you already wanted to start that really pisses us off. Taking advantage of us at our weakest and most trusting. [...]
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:24 am#24, bingo.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:24 am#52, I’ve had similar thoughts and questions. Yours are well stated.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:50 amThe hate-filled and irrational postings by wwallace, I-Right-I, and Mighty Aphrodite indicate either serious disturbances of brain development, or brainwashing by leaders of the KKK and Nazi organizations. I am inclined to believe the latter, although they are not mutually exclusive.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:53 amThis wwallace is insane. He has so much hatred. We are all Americans and if we don’t agree with this admin. too bad.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:13 amI really don’t understand this never-ending quest on the left to prove “Bush lied”.
There is only one group of people in the Federal Government that can authorize war — the U.S. Congress. They and they alone authorized the president to use forces against Saddam.
So if you want to point the finger at someone — point it at John Kerry and the others now claiming they were duped by the president (how can someone who is so stupid fool so many smart Democrats?). The intelligence committee had access to the same intelligence as the WH and they reached the same conclusion as the WH. Just read wwallace’s post #22 for proof of that.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 amCongress give Old Bushie permission to go into war as the last resort. Bush admin. claimed they knew where the WMD was. They would not let the inspectors do their job. This was planned way before Old Bushie got in office.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:36 amYou will never understand this never-ending quest for the truth. That much is clear.
I like your new line, that it’s all John Kerry’s fault. He should have known better than to trust the President. Run on that in ‘06.
Bush directed intelligence activities, not Congress. We need to know what character of man he is, whether he pursued an honest search for truth, or whether he sought only to reinforce pre-conceived ideas.
With any luck, someone will sue Bush and depose him under oath. That should appeal to your Republican values ;-)
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:38 am#73, apparently you don’t read the news or listen to anyone except the extremist propagandists. Numerous members of congress, including those on the intelligence committee, have admitted that the president and his inner circle are privy to intel that NO ONE else has. The info that Congress received was censored, filtered and edited of “critical” data that contradicted the message that was desired.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:40 amAnd as for taking wwallace’s comments for any kind of “proof” of anything is ridiculous on its face.
So when Bush told Congress he needed the resolution to get inspectors back in, then he got the inspectors back in, then he invaded anyway, whose fault is that?
I suppose in the future, you would argue Congress should never authorize force unless also accompanied by a declaration of war? Or Congress should assume such authorization will be used in the most reckless manner possible?
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:42 amIt’s common knowledge now. They lied, mislead, decieved, whatever term you want to use, in order to sell this invasion. Blair is going down because of it, Junior should be as well. I’m beginning to think the shit is getting so deep, the repubs will have to impeach their own.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:42 am#76 He didn’t get the memo. But the Administration apparently only realized that recently. He’s merely behind on his talking points.
Even Rumsfeld now says he didn’t advocate invasion.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:43 am#74, Mary Poppin, you correctly recall how adamant they were about finding the WMD — Rummy said “we know where they are.” Well, that must have been before the shipment of WMDs that were going to be planted in Iraq was halted by Brewster-Jennings, Plame’s CIA front company, investigating weapons proliferation.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:45 amBush is the one who told the inspectors to leave because they weren’t finding WMD and the doubts were growing, so he ordered them out because the bombs were on the way.
#76 — can you tell me what this contradictory intel was that the WH hid from Congress? I’m willing to listen.
BTW, the wwallace post I referenced was just a series of quotes by Dems about Iraq and the threat. Most of wwallace’s posts I would not bother to reference…
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:49 amI’ll ask again: what information was hidden from Congress that would have changed their decision to authorize war?
See, I don’t think it was a case of Congress being mislead. I think they saw enough evidence and there was enough popular support for war that it was the politically expedient thing to do.
Now, with sentiment turning against the war the same people are once again following the political winds and are advocating rapid withdrawal. They are playing politics with war.
If rapid withdrawal happens and Iraq becomes a disaster (like Vietnam after we left), there will be three primary groups we can blame. The politicians who won’t take a courageous stand, the press who constantly provides negative messages about Iraq (which has lead to erosion of support), and weak-willed American people –who no longer have the stomach to see things through.
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:07 am#80 If you like this war so much why don’t you go and sign up today?
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:13 am#81 — I don’t like any war, but sometimes it is necessary. And once we are in one, we need to finish it properly.
As for signing up — this is the “chickenhawk” argument. “You can’t legitimately support the war unless you enlist.”
This is a ridiculous argument. It’s like saying you can’t be pro-choice unless you are directly involved in providing abortions.
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:20 amwwallace,
The definition of patriotism is not “love your country” under any or all circumstances, as many would like you to believe. Patriotism is the mask used to cover the slime underneath.
If the people of this nation were always patriotic, then this country would never have existed in the first place. The “founding fathers” (what about the mothers?) would never have left their home lands.
Patriotism is in the eye of the beholder. It is up to each of us to define. What you find as patriotic others find as being brainwashed, and it is right for both parties to feel this way.
“Loving your country” is not what is needed. What we need are clear ideas that benefit all of man/woman. If this means political dissention, so be it. It is then healthy and right to dissent from “common thought” or “common understanding” or “current political views.”
This is why there is free speech. So that everyone can think and speak their ideas. In this country, much to the chagrin of the FCC and others, you do not have the right to NOT be offended. In fact it is the other way around. It is the right of the offenders to offend.
If that offends you, good.
“States are not moral agents.” -Chomsky
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:23 amCan we now get on with impeaching these lying thieving greedy b****ds?
Or can we have them bundled into the back of a plane and shipped to the Hague?
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:38 am#82 – Finish what? Finish how? There were no WMD’s. Sadaam’s gone. Isn’t that what your boys said we went there for in the first place? All we’ve done is created a haven for terrorists and now Iraq is now on the brink of a civil war. Woo hoo – Go America!
Sigh. We’ve known All Along that this war was based on lies. Why is this treated as “news”? Oh I forgot, it’s politics, stupid. Now the political winds have shifted and suddenly we’re hearing the L word from people who supported the war, and supported it knowing that it was all a bunch of BS from the get-go. Shame on them. But a bigger, uglier shame on those of you who continue to spew the vile lies of this criminal administration.
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:46 am#9 “Think Pessimism might gain some credibility when Faiz ackwnowledges Saddams’ payments to suicide bombers.†– Spongey
****I know Google is complicated – let me assist you. (I guess IndyMedia didn’t run with this story.)
CBS News, “Salaries for Suicide Bombers”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
From the Sydney Morning Herald, “Saddam Stokes War with Suicide Bomber Cash”
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:56 amhttp://www.smh.comau/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
Aphrodite, now we went to war for Israel? Seems like if he was funding suicide bombers against Israel, maybe they should have put their lives and capital on the line.
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:04 pm#69 – Marie, I’ve heard you’ll believe anything! HA!
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:05 pmYou see, thats your Problem Windbag, while you are able to GOOGLE, somewhat, you didnt READ the whole Enchilada;
I guess 512 pages is a But much for someone thats just learned how to ‘GOOGLE’ –Aj
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm
such as the CIA’s misleading of Secretary of State Colin Powell for his February 2003 United Nations speech (pages 253-257) and the CIA’s misleading the public in its October 2002 white paper that left out the caveats, hedged language, and dissents in the underlying intelligence (pages 295-297) – are currently under declassification review by CIA. The Committee itself withheld these sections from the CIA’s review until release of the report so as not to be scooped or spun.
Muuhhahaaahahaa!!
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:09 pmhttp://www.factcheck.org/article358.html
anybody want to see the facts on this?
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm#69 – Marie, I’ve heard you’ll believe anything! HA!
#9 Spongey – You seem to prove that spoiled children constantly move the line or change the rules. You would make a very poor pick pocket as your sleight of hand is pathetically obvious. I’ll prove the ties between Saddam and Osama when you prove the ties between Osama and (whatever conservative President you hate at the time). As widely read as you appear not to be, I am certain you never heard of the old adage “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm#90 — Ray, thanks for the link! That was as clear a summary of this issue as I have seen. I would encourage everyone to take a look at it and then see if you still think Bush lied or mislead to get us into war.
Or is factcheck.org just another media group in bed with Bushco?
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:55 pmDo You Believe in “GOD�
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:39 pmor “FREEDOM�
orâ€BOTHâ€?
SILICONE IMPLANT
It is evident from reading your comments that you did not even read the posting.
This has been known for at least two years, Woodward wrote of it. Bushboy did not like hearing the fact that Al Qaeda was not involved, per the intelligence, so he told his people to make the connection, no matter what.
It was made, and Chainsaw has been pushing this ever since.
Read egghead, read. Learn something before you post with that silicone implant you call a brain.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:52 pmAnswer the question MA, is the latest reason for the Iraq war, protecting Israel from suicide bombers or not? I thought it was WMD, oh no, 9-11, oh no, the creation of a utopian democracy, oh no, what is it this week?
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:57 pmSiliconeBoob,
Clearly you didn’t read the entire article from factcheck.
“On all key points, of course, that National Intelligence Estimate turned out to be wrong. ”
The NIE was a summary, and congress didn’t have evidence used to come up with the NIE charges.
And further in the factcheck.org article is the following gem.
“Neither the Senate Intelligence Committee nor the Silberman-Robb commission considered how Bush and his top aides used the intelligence that was given to them, or whether they misled the public. The Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to take that up in “phase two” of its investigation – and there’s plenty to investigate.”
In otherwords, until a FULL investigation occurs, republicans who claim that the intelligence wasn’t manipulated are speculating. Based on how EVERY finding of the NIE was wrong, it is only reasonable that a LEGITIMATE government which had not pressured intelligence would want a thorough ‘phase 2′ investigation to determine this fact. It hasn’t happened, which leaves ‘reasonable’ people to conclude that once again republicans are LYING!
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:08 pmMightyHermaphrodite,
Republicans and CONservatives like you seem to have no problems paying AlQueda to kill, attack and execute acts of terrorism against russians. Are you saying that paying palestinian families for their losses is somehow more criminal than republicans paying AlQueda for theirs? Do you believe the lives of jews are worth more than those who are islamic? Your ‘hysterical’ and lopsided views seem very Hitleresque. You seem to have no problems killing Arabs, but anyone killing a jew is seen by you as a terrorist.
Clearly your ‘irrational’ defense of Israel is what’s made you insane. From where I sit, terrorism by Reagan/Bush, or Terrorism by Israel, or Terrorism by Osama are all wrong. But clearly your morals are more flexible to allow terrorism as long as it’s ‘your side’. It explains why you and your fellow republicans are such Nazis.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:11 pmMA, I hear that you and I-R-I don’t see eye-to-eye on the Jewish Question? Is that true?
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:12 pm[...] Think Progress � What Bush Knew: More Evidence That He Deliberately Misled Comments » [...]
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:14 pmCHECK THIS OUT. IT IS THE GOP SCANDAL SCORECARD BY STATE. AMAZING!! A COPY OF THIS SHOUULD BE DISTRIBUTED AT CHURCHES THIS SUNDAY.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.htm
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:20 pmI find it funny that MightyAphrodite slanders liberals, but her very lifestyle is completely dependent on it.
1) You aren’t wearing a head dress because of liberal ideas – assuming you’re not hasidic?
2) You’re allowed to study the Talmud because of liberal ideas – rent Yentl sometime.
3) You’re allowed to speak in public and speak to men because of liberal ideas.
4) You were allowed to join the military because of liberal ideas.
5) You are allowed to vote because of liberal ideas.
6) You are allowed to work outside of your home because of liberal ideas.
7) You were allowed to attend a university because of liberal ideas.
8) You were allowed access to birth control so you don’t have a dozen kids because of liberal ideas.
And these are but a tip of the iceburg of the ‘liberal’ contributions that MAKE your daily life. The fact that you’re too retarded to recognize or acknowledge your very existence and lifestyle on liberalism is both psychotic and pathetic. People like you, in your ignorance and arrogance are really disappointments to the entire human race. Until we can solve whatever mental illnesses make you this stupid, this insane, and this hateful to the very people who’ve MADE YOUR LIFE, the world has little hope for peace, prosperity or stable civilization.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:23 pm#91
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:28 pmAphro, the “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” notion may work well in the short term. Many civs have risen and fallen using this approach to foreign policy. But, as usual, you fail to consider the long-term consequences of such a strategy. In the case of the Middle East (where the US has been using this strategy since the end of WW2), we’re seeing the inevitable blow-back that follows in the wake of such a short sighted political strategy.
LOL, MaD is still under the Illusion that Bushco is Conservative…Where in the Hell have you been the Last Month MaD? Damn, you ARE SLOW.
Neo-Cons, the Bushco, the Lie-o-cons, are Radical lefties and Righties, The Trotski-cons.
The same old Bourgeoise, Marxists, Leo Straussian, Irving Kristolites, aka: Neo-Cons, that you claim to be against, you are actually promoting.
MaD (Mighty Aphrodite)
your Enemy Enemy Friend theory is
WHAT I have been saying, for a Month,
CHICKEN,EGG, SHELL.
Same old Marxist, Skull and Bone, Scroll and Key, Hook and Claw Bull-_-T.
No wonder ya little freepers are rabid ankle biters, you hate anything that you cannot comprehend.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:39 pmThere ya have it. The majority of American’s say that if Bushie is proven to have mislead us into war they would support impeachment.
The evidence is piled to the sky.
Impeach Bush and Cheney. Contact your Senators and Representatives and demand impeachment hearings.
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:58 pm#4 Busted, these freaks are sicker than I thought.
Couldn’t they be charged with a hate crime?
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:59 pmSince taking office in 2001, the Bush Administration has consistently discredited their critics. Murray Waas claims serve to continue charges that have been brought forward for several years.
Paul O’Neill, former Treasury Secretary and a first term White House insider, told us in his book the Price of Loyalty. He said the Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush’s inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. He produced documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam’s downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq’s oil.
O’Neill, was chairman and CEO of Alcoa from 1987 to 1999, and president of International Paper Company from 1985 to 1987, where he was vice president from 1977 to 1985. O’Neill had a mastery over the federal budget stemming from his tenure at the US Office of Management and Budget. He joined OMB in 1967, and was deputy director of OMB from 1974 to 1977. He was an advisor to four different Presidents including George Bush Sr.
O’Neill was a competent guy to say the least. Bush fired him for having the nerve to disagree with him on tax cut plans. After O’Neills book was published, the White House media blitz painted O’Neill as jaded liar who was bitter, incompetent, and near senile.
Then there was Richard Clarke. From his book, and also his interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes:
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
“Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq,” Clarke said to Stahl. “And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq.
“Initially, when he said, ‘There aren’t enough targets in– in Afghanistan,’ I thought he was joking.
Clarke told of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
“The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ The entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
“I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’
“He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer.”
Clarke continued, “It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer. … Do it again.’
Clarke was trashed publically for his revelations.
But they still want to stifle the dialogue. The President says he wants thoughtful discourse on the war in Iraq so that he can play the part of being reasonable. Squelch the anger, quiet the noise. Get the other side to appear to have nothing of urgency to debate because of their timid mild tones.
At the same time, the VP is calling war critics dishonest and reprehensible. Rumsfield is saying that we just don’t understand what’s going on, or are purposely trying to confuse people. Discredit your critics.
This has been the cookie cutter mold used by the Bush Administration. Get the other side to shut-up. Gain the upper hand by using 2-3 word sound bites that less thoughtful citizens/voters will remember. Cut and run, flip flop, tax and spend, dishonest and reprehensible. Get everyone in the Republican party and in the conservative media to repeat these sound bites ad-naseum until they become entrenched in the “toughtful discourse”. Discredit your critics. Position the President and the administration as the only ones who understand all of the nuances of the topic at hand.
Last week, John Murtha was in the cross hairs. However, the American Public has awakened to the tactics employed by this administration. The White House realized quickly that the smearing of Murtha wasn’t going to work, and reversed themselves. You know what? They are right. We don’t buy their spin anymore. Not on Murtha and not on other matters.
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:00 pmNice job Scott.
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:10 pmBumper Stickers Galore!
Barack Obama, Phil Bredesen, Mark Warner, Jack Carter, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold and many more!
Every single penny of profit will get donated to Harry Reid’s Searchlight Leadership Fund!
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:34 pm… Thanksgiving snark : Bush pardoned two turkeys , then looked in the mirror and cried : ” Hey ! There’s a really BIG TURKEY – do I pardon him , too ? ” … ;)
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:26 pmI don’t care who knew what or when. I knew Iraq had WMD’s. And I knew they had nuclear weapons. And I knew they were associated with Osama via Atta. I knew this because my top leaders told me.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:40 pmThe republicans have nothing to offer humanity. Their only reason for existence is to try to manipulate other governments into becoming a puppet for their greed. Or maybe to support factions within certain countries to overthrow those governments that won’t play ball with them. That’s all they care to do. Powermad they are.
The only reason we are mired in Iraq now is because it is the launching pad for the PNAC agenda. Global domination with our military as the police force. It’s been tried throughout history hundreds of times and failed each and every time as this effort will also. And we will be bankrupted because of it. Powermad they are.
You just better hope China and the rest of the world that we owe don’t suddenly call in our notes. We don’t have the money!
#101 Ryan Neat acknowledged some of the accomplishments of liberalism in this country. How many times have republicans written legislation or proposed ammendments to the bill of rights that promote acknowledging women as full-fledged human beings and that they deserve the same rights as men? It’s because republicans view women as subserviant and at best they should be like June Cleavor (of Leave It To Beaver ’50’s TV show fame)… stay at home and always where a dress and look pretty. In other words, be quiet and be an ornament. To all republican women posting here, is that what you want?
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:30 pmJust letting you know of a good article. Short and to the point on how to get out of Iraq. http://observer.com/politics_joeconason.asp
November 24th, 2005 at 1:27 amI suppose all those who are insistent that Iraq was behind 9/11 will no doubt want to incarcerate the entire 9/11 Commission, which categorically found no evidence linking the two; are you really suggesting that the Commission members are supporting terrorism by discrediting the bogus claims of the administration?
November 24th, 2005 at 12:54 pmSet up a strawman, and knock it down.
THAT WAS FUN! YEAY!
November 25th, 2005 at 1:17 amHey Seixon, that was fun last night. Who was that other guy we had sex with? Let’s hook up again tonight and bring your friend too.
I just got a new box of ‘d’ cells, so bring the toys too.
November 25th, 2005 at 7:48 amThey KNOWINGLY LIED to force the nation into a WAR OF AGGRESSION – illegal in the world theater, illegal according to the Geneva Convention. They DELIBEERAELY LIED in order to invade a sovreign nation.
Does it get any simpler than that?
Comment by tomz
A simpleton doesn’t really need to know anything else do they?
November 25th, 2005 at 9:52 am#115
“They KNOWINGLY LIED to force the nation into a WAR OF AGGRESSION – illegal in the world theater, illegal according to the Geneva Convention. They DELIBEERAELY LIED in order to invade a sovreign nation.
Does it get any simpler than that?”
tomz
“A simpleton doesn’t really need to know anything else do they?”
I-RIGHT-I
Actually, no, they don’t neew to know much more than what tomz said. Every person smart or dumb only needs to know what tomz said.
November 26th, 2005 at 12:29 pmJessica Simpson
Jessica Simpson
December 18th, 2005 at 7:16 pmCameron Diaz
Cameron Diaz
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:08 pmjennifer lopez
jennifer lopez
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:02 amDragonball
Dragonball
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:02 amjohn spencer
john spencer
December 27th, 2005 at 4:28 pmxbox 360 games
xbox 360 games
December 28th, 2005 at 3:07 pmringtone
free ringtone
December 30th, 2005 at 11:22 pminternationl cell phone
office http://www.freewebs.com/electros/office-phone-system/ office phone system http://www.freewebs.com/electros/cellular-phone-plan/ cellular phone plan http://www.freewebs.com/electros/cellular-phone-ringtone/ cellular phone ringtone
December 31st, 2005 at 7:30 pmjewelry
Jewelry
January 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pmjewellery
jewellery
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 am[...] I fear that Bush is misleading us all. [...]
October 1st, 2006 at 2:05 pm[...] While the media pre-Iraq invasion/post-911 bent over backwards to prove they indeed were patriotic (as if ignoring the truth is consistent with American values?) by allowing Bush’s lies to go unchallenged, they no longer can ignore the facts. Bush’s lies have been exposed, albeit too late. Among those lies are: [...]
October 30th, 2006 at 9:33 am