Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): ‘Nobody With Brains’ Denies That Hussein ‘Was Supporting al-Qaeda’
By on Feb 21st, 2006 at 10:48 am
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): ‘Nobody With Brains’ Denies That Hussein ‘Was Supporting al-Qaeda’
What Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said about Saddam Hussein’s relationship with al-Qaeda on Saturday:
Nobody denies that [Saddam Hussein] was supporting al-Qaeda…Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.
What the bi-partisan 9-11 commission said about Saddam Hussein’s relationship with al-Qaeda:
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Hatch made his remarks at an invitation-only luncheon. They’ve only been reported in a small Utah paper, The St. George Daily Spectrum.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bayh
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Supreme Court
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
More of “Keep repeating the lie as if it’s true”
Saddam Hussein is a Monster and should be Punished, BUT his list of Crimes did not include 9/11 despite what the Radical Right want everyone to believe…
February 21st, 2006 at 10:50 amGuess he’s gonna show us his brains….
Dude, please don’t pull down your pants. We aren’t your cellmate and don’t want to see up your ass.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:51 amThe last time Hatch had brains was with his scrambled eggs.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:52 amThey’ve only been reported in a small Utah paper
Not for long.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:53 amnobody with brains would vote for Hatch… you hear that, Utah?
February 21st, 2006 at 10:55 amIraq was the only country which publicly praised 9/11.
Saddam did support al-Qaida. There’s no doubt about it. He supported their mission to destroy America.
Just because some commission claimed that he didn’t have links doesn’t mean that Saddam diddn’t support al-Qaida.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:57 amThere seem to b a lot of “nobodies with brains” out there. Isn’t Orin Hatch nearly senile with age by now? I decided a long long time ago that I couldn’t be a Republican because I didn’t want to be in the same party as Orin Hatch and Strum Thurmond.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:57 amOrrin Hatch just had his “Strom Thurmond birthday” moment.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:57 amOrrin Hatch has his head so far up Bushiva and L’il Dick’s nether regions…
…that whatever he says STINKS…
He’s a traitor of the highest order and should be treated as such…
..just like Scary “Gary” Pookbutt…
Many of the decent Americans on this forum have neighbors, family members and friends who are al Crackers…
…if America is to be saved…
…you must shun them…
February 21st, 2006 at 11:01 amGary;
Do you have any reference to “Saddam supported Al-Qaida”? Not public praise but money or supplies.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:06 amYou’re defining “supported” very narrowly, because you know Saddam supported and praised al-Qaida.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:07 amMormon Snatch, truly one of the most brain dead politicians and a lifer of a politician too.
Hey Snatch, go look for some buried gold plates in New York you whacky cultist.
-GSD
February 21st, 2006 at 11:09 amRuppert, get back to Trafalgar Square and you corner of the bus station where you give out blow-jobs to neo-Nazi skinheads.
Please find some new place to haunt with your faith based facts.
-GSD
February 21st, 2006 at 11:11 amHow come you aren’t posting on the UAE/port thread Gary?
Stick in your craw a little? Drink more of the KoolAide, that always has helped you in the past. It is certainly helping you on this thread.
Chug!
February 21st, 2006 at 11:11 am#6 – “Just because some commission claimed that he didn’t have links doesn’t mean that Saddam diddn’t support al-Qaida.” – - Yep, the 9/11 Commission just sat around having deli food and b.s.ing and out of the blue, Slade Gorton announces, “Hey, let’s just say that Saddam had no connection to Al-Qaida. It’ll save us a lot of exhaustive research and interviewing hundreds of people. After all, it’s a 50/50 chance we’ll be correct!” Gary, your idiocy is boundless.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:11 amGary;
February 21st, 2006 at 11:11 amActually I don’t know that Saddam praised Al-Qaida. Its just I am looking for actions that would justify a war. I believe in free speech for myself, my friends, my opponents and my enemies.
Mr. Ruppert,
You’re back. So nice to hear from you again. You haven’t bothered to respond to my earlier post on the Eisler thread:
My apologies for misspelling your name, but I do await a response.
And now you are saying:
Again, back up your statements with facts, original sources, quantitative analysis, peer-reviewed journal articles, etc. or shut up.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:15 amWelcome to life “Behind the Zion Curtain,” as we say it here. I’ve written Orrin numerous letters and emails and always get back a letter that reveals the fantasy Bush-land he wallows in. I wrote him when the 911 commission said there was no connection and his reply was classic Rove talking points: Saddam bad, best friends with Osama, had to invade, yadda yadda yadda. Utah is the reddest of the red states, and Orrin is the result. If you think he’s bad, you should see the state legislature. It’s our cross to bear.
Rdale in Utah
February 21st, 2006 at 11:16 amok hatch, NOW PROVE IT.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:16 amJust because Gary Ruppert says that Saddam was a islamic radical doesnt mean it is so.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:17 amIt appears that Orrin Hatch is someone without brains.
Gods! Are fears and lies the only things ReichWingNuts can pander to a nation?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:17 amEven Bush said there was no connection between Al Quida and Saddam in a press interview. I heard him. Perhaps Hatch needs to clean out his ears.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:17 amSaddam was a secular leader. He saw Al-Qaida and Islamists as a threat to his power. He would have never trusted or supported them. Orrin Hatch is misleading and misinforming the people of Utah.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:20 amThat brainless 9/11 Commission…
February 21st, 2006 at 11:21 amJust because some commission claimed that he didn’t have links doesn’t mean that Saddam diddn’t support al-Qaida.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 10:57 am
Dude, you should read your comments sometimes. Were you on the OJ jury by any chance?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:22 amOrrin Hatch is such a fool a real honest to god fool.
Just watching his squench up little face face of lying through his teeth ,he is such a suck up.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:23 amOur public discourse has been so warped by people like this Gary Ruppert troll who won’t admit it when they’re wrong. Simply stunning. Instead of admitting plain fact create an alternate reality or indulge in lawyer-like redefinitions of plain terms. It reminds me of the pre-Civil War state of discourse in American history.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:25 amYou’re defining “supported†very narrowly, because you know Saddam supported and praised al-Qaida.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 11:07 am
I found a definition here:
sup·port (sÉ™-pôrt’, -pÅrt’)
tr.v., -port·ed, -port·ing, -ports.
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw’d heart . . . too weak the conflict to support†(Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
8. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
9. To endure; tolerate: “At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult†(Samuel Johnson).
10. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).
n.
1. The act of supporting.
2. The state of being supported.
3. One that supports.
4. Maintenance, as of a family, with the necessities of life.
Which of these means “make statements congratulating”?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:26 amOrrin Hatch (Liar-UT)…
How trustworthy of a Senator are you when you will lie to your supporters face…
February 21st, 2006 at 11:27 amIs nobody going to reference that Osama himself suggested he hated Saddam in his recently vetted tape? Or is the idea that you can not believe anything Osama says because he is toying with the American electorate? Maybe Dumbya should be more concerned about him running around loose. After all when you have zero credibility relying on the charge that the bad guys are liars trying to manipulate public opinion is sort of the kettle calling the pot black. We have become the enemy.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:27 amGary:
So, because he made public statements saying that he approved of the attacks and there is no evidence of financial or logistical support, we get to invade his country?
So, any country that makes public statements against the US is painting a target on their face, according to Gary. And we’d absolutely justified at invading them, too.
Hmmm…. is it me or does that sound absolutely ridiculous?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:28 amHatch says that nobody with brains denies that Saddam was supporting al-Qaeda. I’d say, nobody with proof claims he was.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:29 amBush allowed the Taliban to visit the Whitehouse. Therefore Bush supported the Taliban and supported Al Qaeda.
Hey, I like playing the “Illogical Rightwing Troll Game”.
-GSD
February 21st, 2006 at 11:29 amThis is a deliberate GOP strategy being used to revive the old Saddam=Osama lie in time for the November mid-terms.
In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, lie-filled TV ads by Bush buddies in the “Progress for America Voter Fund” are being road-tested prior to retooling for a nationwide audience. The ads are so bad that one local TV station refuses to air them: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/252903.html
February 21st, 2006 at 11:30 amRuppert=Faith based facts. Logic need not apply. There is no point in arguing with logic, it gets you nowhere.
-GSD
February 21st, 2006 at 11:31 amI think Mr. Ruppert left the room. We haven’t heard from him since the challenge in #17.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:33 amJust because some commission claimed that he didn’t have links doesn’t mean that Saddam diddn’t support al-Qaida.
The Esteemed Gary Ruppert, Doctor of ‘I made it up’
I read this and thought to myself: “Just because a fact is staring me in the face, doesn’t mean I have to believe it if I don’t want to.”
That’s what it comes down to, folks. If a FACT is presented that a conservative doesn’t like, he ignores it.
Kinda like that whole evolution is a myth thing, you know.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:33 amNow if only I could do the same with the current Administration!
February 21st, 2006 at 11:33 amTell them what they want to hear huh Orrin?
The Saddam Tapes (verified as authentic by the US) have Saddam saying that He wouldnt be the One to Attack the United States that it would be other Countries. Husseins Brother in Law Karmael (sp?) also Stated the WMD was destroyed some time ago.
Gary have you seen people arrested in the UK and the US for supporting Terrorists by buying missiles etc? DID Bush or Blair
tell those people to Support Terrorists? No.
So what makes you think Gary, that their were no such groups inside IRAQ that were unknown to the Government?
Did or did not, Gary, the Saudi Cells manage to somehow Hide in this Country? And whos responsible for that? Bush? Clinton?
If I follow Garys logic then Bush supported Al qaeda by not knowing they were in the Country.
Alas Gary, ask yourself this. If Saddam was Guilty of the Attacks on the WTC, Why didnt Bush hold Saddam here in the States and Charge him with that Crime? He never Did? Why?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:34 amI think Mr. Ruppert left the room. We haven’t heard from him since the challenge in #17.
Same thing happened on an earlier thread. I challenged him, and “POOF!” he disappeared.
Kinda like those WMDs.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:34 amSenator Orrin Hatch is brainless and severely mentally deranged! Only certified idiots claim that Saddam and Osama were pals > even the CIA knows no ties ever existed between them! Sen. Hatch has proved that he is unfit to remain in the Senate and must resign immediately in disgrace!
February 21st, 2006 at 11:34 amI’m so glad we live in a free country and we can write to our government officials and discuss their comments candidly.
I suppose Hatch was saying, [He] doesn’t have any brains or else he is a nobody.
Either way he’s confirming what the rest of us dumb schmoes suspected all along.
PS. We all–even “Gary Ruppert,” apparently–knew that 9/11 Commission was full of poop.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:34 amI love trolling the trolls…a google search for Gary Ruppert shows him on all kinds of Blogs repeating the same non factual ‘Facts’ =)
February 21st, 2006 at 11:36 amJust because some commission claimed that he didn’t have links doesn’t mean that Saddam diddn’t support al-Qaida.
The Esteemed Gary Ruppert, Doctor of ‘I made it up’
Lets play word games
Just because some Gary claimed that Bush didnt have links doesnt mean that Cheney didnt support Al-qaeda
February 21st, 2006 at 11:38 amIn the article they spelled it with an I not an e. The group with the e didn’t have any connections with saddam. The group that spells it with an i was actually grilled lamb to go outfit that catered Saddams parties.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:39 amHow embarrasing for the great state of Utah.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:51 amI think he was misquoted, I’m sure he meant -
‘Nobody With Shit for Brains’ Denies That Hussein ‘Was Supporting al-Qaeda’
February 21st, 2006 at 11:52 amGary probably thinks he’s “supporting” the troops with his made-in-China yellow magnetic ribbon on his car, too. After all, that’s the same level of “support” that Hussein gave Al-Qaida.
Of course, Gary never found an excuse for occupying any country that he didn’t instantly leap to defend. As long as it doesn’t involve him enlisting or otherwise putting his worthless ass in danger in any way.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:57 am#33, Ronald Raygun, Donald Rumsfeld, Poppy Bush and Cheney supported Saddam, Saddam supports AlQaeda – therefore….
February 21st, 2006 at 11:59 amCan anyone get ‘Kevin Bacon supports AlQaeda’ in here somewhere…?
February 21st, 2006 at 12:01 pmhttp://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996
…and according to U.S. officials there are hundreds of hours of additional audio and that a cautious approach should be taken, before any conclusions are made. Time will tell after more tapes are analyzed…but in more important news VP Cheney was involved in a hunting accident….
BTW I don’t think that Sadamm was involved with 9/11, but these tapes are pretty interesting in revealing the Sadamm’s WMD ambitions we very much alive and kicking.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:01 pmGood one Terry
February 21st, 2006 at 12:01 pmWe can call it ‘Six Degrees of Supporting Al Qaeda’. I’ll start:
1. Saddam supports Al Qaeda
2. Rumsfeld supports Saddam
3. Sam Bodman and Rumsfeld are both in the Administation
4. I’ve met Sam Bodman
5. (So by that twisted logic you could say that)I support Al Qaeda
Anyone beat 5?
February 21st, 2006 at 12:03 pmTracy
Of course he wanted WMDs, but he did not have the resources or access to the base ingredients. He was under wraps regardless of the second guessing on the intel.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:05 pmHow’s this Terry
1) I support Dems
February 21st, 2006 at 12:08 pm2) Some Dems speak Arabic
3) Some Arabic speakers support Al Qeada
4) Therefore I support terrorism
No-brains includes Peter Wehner,director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives:
February 21st, 2006 at 12:16 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901030.html
“Saudi Arabia — a repressive society which is the home of Osama bin Laden and most of the terrorists who executed the worst attack on the American homeland in our history”
Terry ..why dont you on the right ever read the article you link? Why just read the headlines? The story shows Saddam tried to warn America about terrorists and WMDs … The more you guys link and the more I read those links the more you on the right look like complete out of control nut cases.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:21 pmIts a GUT thing doncha ya know?
February 21st, 2006 at 12:21 pmFie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy President:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A Senator moved is like a fountain troubled,
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy President is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks and true obedience;
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Why, there’s a wench! Come on, and kiss me, Hatch.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:22 pmBTW I don’t think that Sadamm was involved with 9/11, but these tapes are pretty interesting in revealing the Sadamm’s WMD ambitions we very much alive and kicking.
Comment by Tracy #51
Trashy traitor,
Of course Saddam wanted WMD…
…what responsible leader of any sovereign nation on the globe today doesn’t?
…Judging from what’s happened to his country and regime…
…he was right to want them…
…given the ascension to power of the murderous, thieving, terrorist criminal Bushite regime…
…now the friggin “nuclear genie” is not only out of the proverbial bottle it’s going to choke you ignorant, treasonous, al Cracker Bushite sombiches…
…as Venezuela, and other (resource rich) anti-Bushite countries seek WMD in the coming years…
…ATTACK, ATTACK!!!!
February 21st, 2006 at 12:23 pmuff da
When it comes time to collect his pension from the deep coffers of the US Senate Retirement Fund, he’ll be denied his. “You were hatched,” they’ll say.
Anybody with any brains whatsoever knows that O. Hatch is a brainless twit.
All is fair in love and war. You can lie about it all of the time. It makes no difference.
Back to the Articles of Confederation. The US government is a fraudulent mess.
It is better to lie than it is to tell the truth, and that’s the truth.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:26 pm#33- Bush allowed the Taliban to visit the Whitehouse. Therefore Bush supported the Taliban and supported Al Qaeda.
This good. Real good. And to the point.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:41 pmsounds like hatch was getting a little jealous of all the attention that frist and roberts were getting for being clueless idiots. congrats orrin! you’re the man now, dog!
February 21st, 2006 at 12:45 pmI’m sure Gary would agree that Saddam was the WMD. Why, a kilo of Saddam, processed and hooked to a baseball sized detonator, could take out ten square city blocks.
Just think about all those Pakastani warehouses filled with enriched Saddam. Osama could even have had his own Saddam Bombs by now, and obliterate us all in an instant.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:49 pmThe man himself has no Brains…wow you Americans can pick your leaders …its a joke
February 21st, 2006 at 12:49 pmHey Orrin! Didn’t you give $5 BILLION to al-qaeda when they were called “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan? Yep, you did.
Orrin helped in the creation of al-qaeda. He’s such a Dick Cheney like critter. For more information on the whole timeline, go to http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/fisking-war-on-terror-once-upon-time.html
February 21st, 2006 at 12:52 pmThis is why I always call Orrin Hatch > Oral Hatched > lol.
I feel sorry for Utah, since Hatch denotes Mormon weirdness!
February 21st, 2006 at 12:52 pmThe man himself has no Brains…wow you Americans can pick your leaders …its a joke
Comment by More ham head — February 21, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Uh, we’re the people who didn’t vote for these folks. Try http://www.redstate.org to complain. Those people voted for these geniuses.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:54 pmOrrin Hatch is the Jack Morman Senator from Utah who has a very bad drinking problem. He buys Jack Daniels by the case.
BTW, under the radar, the Bush plan for declaring Martial Law is proceeding nicely and should be in place by the time of the November elections.
Please recall, and check this out if you dont believe it, Bushlandia uses the secret service to patrol his out of town get togethers where he spews his dis-information. It has been reported in Raw Story, and elsewhere, that Bushlandia is in the process of quadrupling the size of the SS, yes, the SS that you will recall from the Hitler days.
At the present time Bush has the largest SS contingent ever.He has them stationed all over the country. They are well paid and under the direct supervision of Karl Rove. They are awaiting their marching orders.
Bob Woodward knows about this but is keeping it quiet until something happens.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:57 pmGary,
Iraq was the only country that got press time praising 9/11.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:58 pmOrin Hatch screams about the sanctity of marriage, while there is rampant polygamy going on in his state that he ignores.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:00 pmAl Qaeda’s ties to the UAE and DWP are 10,000 times stronger than to Saddam Insane and they open their arms to the UAE and do business.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pmDon’t forget Hatch believes Joseph Smith had a heart to heart with GOD.
Just because some commission claimed that he didn’t have links doesn’t mean that Saddam diddn’t support al-Qaida.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 10:57 am
Gary finally admits the 9/11 commission report is not to be believed.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pmI decided a long long time ago that I couldn’t be a Republican because I didn’t want to be in the same party as Orin Hatch
Comment by Skeptic — February 21, 2006 @ 10:57 am
why, are you homophobic?
February 21st, 2006 at 1:06 pmDeploy the Illinois National Guard to Utah, not Iraq.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:11 pmI think Hatch’s holy undergarments may be a bit too tight.
His, “Garments of Holy Priesthood”(long-johns to you and me), are very similar to those worn by freemasons. They have a backward “L” and a square sewn into the right breast(similar looking to a buttonhole),a compass and a “V” sewn to the left breast and a button-hole sewn to the knee and abdomen.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:14 pmMy kid has a pair of these also and they are called “Superman Underoos”.
Same thing happened on an earlier thread. I challenged him, and “POOF!†he disappeared.
Kinda like those WMDs.
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 21, 2006 @ 11:34 am
—
Logic does that to him…
reminds me of the argument between God and man in The Hitchhiker’s guide.
God: “Oh! I hadn’t thought of that.”
and promptly disappears in a puff of logic
*poof!*
:-)
February 21st, 2006 at 1:18 pm[...] Senator Orrin Hatch: “Nobody denies that [Saddam Hussein] was supporting al-Qaeda…Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.” [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 1:22 pmPost 76 if Hatch wears that under garmet all the time, then no wonder his brain malfunctions? He probably tries to pee out the button hole at his knee > lol.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:27 pmWhere’s a “booby hatch” when we need one?
February 21st, 2006 at 1:37 pmSpeaking of the Theater, thank you #59!
I imagine the folks at that invitation only lunch dismiss the 9-11 commission as being partisan, or they just don’t care about facts. Because they see what they want to see.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:54 pmYou would think that even the Mormons would through this moron out on his ass and elbows.
Not only has this been disproven. It is like saying that Churchill and Hitler were in cahoots against the Russians.
They were bitter enemies. Perhpas less so now that the Bush administration has congealed together the various entities that had issues with our foreign policy and now truly hate us for all sound reasons.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:57 pmHatch is such a great judge of reality…
from Liberals Like Christ
from Washington City Paper
February 21st, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Washington Times, a vehicle that he said has been a benefit to the nation’s capital.
‘Cause sometimes, when you gotta go, the roll is empty. Of course, that would be ironically redundant.
February 21st, 2006 at 2:22 pm#53 and #55 (and gary rupert)
How about three degrees for us all according to Sen. Oriface Hatch’s rules
1. John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla are Americans
2. John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla support Al Quaeda
3. Americans(including Gary Rupert) support Al Quaeda
February 21st, 2006 at 2:40 pmOrrin Hatch is the one without a brain. I hope the good people of Utah vote him out!
February 21st, 2006 at 2:53 pmIf there’s one guy whose an authority on “brainlessness” it’s Bill Frist (according to Bill Frist.)
But if there’s TWO guys, it’s Frist and Orrin “Booby” Hatch.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:07 pm#60
So we just should have kept sanctions in place untill the end of Sadamm’s rule and continued on for another few more decades while his son(s) rules Iraq? Just turn it into another Cuba?
February 21st, 2006 at 3:09 pmWhy doesn’t someone besides Think Progress and Daily Kos call Orrin Hatch on his lies?
February 21st, 2006 at 3:09 pmOrrin Hatch’s brain is suffering from stress: his boy in the White House is a fool; the administration is full of liars and incompetents; and Orrin is out there trying to defend the indefensible.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:11 pmHe needs some warm milk, a blanket and a brain transplant.
So we just should have kept sanctions in place …?
As opposed to spending billions of dollars and countless lives on one party’s vanity war to enrich the few and allow Bush to prance around on an aircraft carrier calling himself a “war-time president,” while ignoring the people who actually have attacked the US? Now, that would be a “no brainer.”
February 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pmIf you don’t like Mr. Hatch, feel free to help out Pete Ashdown, the Democratic candidate for US Senate. Pete is the founder of Utah’s first ISP, XMission, and a strong supporter of Internet rights. Visit peteashdown.org; if you can’t vote in Utah, vote with your wallet. Also, unlike Senator Hatch, none of his events are “invitation-only.”
February 21st, 2006 at 3:49 pmjust finishing up some chomsky. and that gary ruppert’s comments highlight the american head in the sand mentality that are basically one enabling factor to our long history of worldwide dominance via military threat/might. i’m surprised that the 9.11 commission was allowed. furthermore, i’m surprised it’s ‘results of obvious discordance with the neo-conservative/liberal agenda’ were even in the mainstream press-unlike SO many other things that were immediately squelched. is it just me, or is the USA in for a very long ride down the slope of dominance and hegemony? venezuela wants to boycott the US in terms of its oil shipments OH MY…better yet, what if they convert into the petro-euro? i guess perhaps they don’t want another coup like they experience in 02 when they announced the ‘idea’ of converting to the petro-euro…hmm…blast it
February 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pm“Saddam did support al-Qaida. There’s no doubt about it. He supported their mission to destroy America.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 10:57 am”
Al-Quaeda had a mission to destroy America? When? Where? How?
I know they hijacked four planes blew up a couple of buildings. Is that what you mean?
My God, if you hyperventilate like that over what was really a fairly insignificant attack, no wonder you’re ready for Bush to undermine the Constitution. You must think the world is about ready to end.
Jesus. What a loon.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:59 pmSad thign is, he’s on the Senate Intelligence Committee…
You would think he should be on top of the ball on this one.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:03 pmHow dumb do you have to be to support Bush and the Republican Syndicate? Gary Ruppert provides us that insight.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:17 pmI will say it again, Orrin is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Scary as hell don’t you think?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pm[...] I think Republican Senator Orrin Hatch has been watching too much FAUX “news”. Somebody send him a FOX Blocker. [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pm“Saddam did support al-Qaida. There’s no doubt about it. He supported their mission to destroy America.
Gary Ruppert
Al-Quaeda had a mission to destroy America? When? Where? How?
Bassplayer, your first lesson begins with recalling OBL’s fatwa in 1996.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
You’re one of those libs that don’t understand the connection between our war activities during the 90’s in Iraq and al Qida, which led Iraq to support al Qida’s fatwa covertly. But the Clinton administration found the relationship at al Shifa, then bombed Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not cooperative operational ties to attacks on US soil (9/11)? Sure 911 commission found that. But they also found the same connections that the Clinton administration found at al Shifa.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pm#89 Tracy:
“So we just should have kept sanctions in place untill the end of Sadamm’s rule and continued on for another few more decades while his son(s) rules Iraq? Just turn it into another Cuba?”
Are you really so short sighted that’s the only other solution you can see to the situation?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:56 pm#102 Losing faith when Tracy’s head is shoved that far up his/her rectum he/she can’t really see very far.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:04 pm#92
“As opposed to spending billions of dollars and countless lives on one party’s vanity war to enrich the few…”
If you believe that garbage, then oh well…. BTW how many billions of dollars were stolen by Sadamm and how many have died under his regime?
“…while ignoring the people who actually have attacked the US?”
Ignoring Al Qaeda? Last time I looked 80% of Al Qaeda’s leaders are dead or in jail.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:05 pm#101
Suggest a solution that could have worked?
February 21st, 2006 at 5:11 pm#102
How about your suggestion little tripe?
February 21st, 2006 at 5:15 pmtracy – cite where you get your 80% figure. It’s bullshit.
George W Bush has done more to help Al Queda as a recruiter and to further their cause with his unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq than ANYTHING Osama has done.
Guess that means you and your political homies are the unpatriotic ones here.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:23 pmGary you fucking pile of simmering shit.
Saddam was our best ally against religious whacko motherfuckers like Bin Laden.
He hated the Muslim fundies you jackass.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:24 pmHas Ruppert gone away yet?
Sheesh what a dope.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:27 pmTract first suggestion begins with grabbing your head with both hands and pulling very hard till you hear a big POP and see the light around you. Then I’d take a shower to help with the smell, but you can do as you please…….
February 21st, 2006 at 5:27 pmTracy,….. first suggestion begins with grabbing your head with both hands …..and pulling very hard till you hear a big….. POP …and see the light around you.
Then I’d take a shower to help with the smell, but you can do as you please…….
February 21st, 2006 at 5:28 pmSo we just should have kept sanctions in place untill the end of Sadamm’s rule and continued on for another few more decades while his son(s) rules Iraq? Just turn it into another Cuba?
Comment by Tracy #89
Trashy traitor,
Willful ignorance is no virtue…
…Saddam was under containment…
…you know this…
…you’re not interested in Saddam’s WMD (that could never be given the sanctions, inspections, and UN surveillance)…
…you only care about making your gods Bushiva and L’il Dick look justified in their illegal actions…
…which will in turn justify your stupid votes in support of them…
You’re a traitor now,and there’s no turning back for you…
…At this point you realize what you’ve done…
…and more importantly what your gods have done…
…betrayed your country…
February 21st, 2006 at 5:46 pmIgnoring Al Qaeda? Last time I looked 80% of Al Qaeda’s leaders are dead or in jail.
Comment by Tracy #103
Trashy traitor,
…pray tell…
…where did you “look” ?
February 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pmCondo Rice said said 75% of Al Qaeda — but when they don’t know how many, who they are, where they are, how can they measure a percentage? She was asked that at a Senate hearing and she could not reply.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:57 pmIt’s a lot like OBL’s #2, how many are there?
Or are they tracking his daily dump in the toilet?
Why are right wing pro-war Republicans so often illiterate? Misspelling “Saddam” (Tracy), capitalizing “history”, (Ruppert), etc.
My theory is they’re trying hard to sound well informed, but their grammar gives them away.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:17 pmSad thign is, he’s on the Senate Intelligence Committee…
You would think he should be on top of the ball on this one.
Look whose name is right above Hatch’s at the end of that link. And as far as being on top of the ball, who’s to say he isn’t? Not on top of the facts, mind you, but he and the chairman are on top of something. Namely, keeping the lid on any meaningful investigation (remember those things? Particularly useful when Democrats are in the Oval Office.) of the use and origin of pre-war intel.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:53 pmBTW how many billions of dollars were stolen by Sadamm and how many have died under his regime?
Which, of course, were never the reasons given by the administration. At least not until the reasons stated turned out to be bullshit. Is that the best you can do? Diversion and obfuscation? How about a comparison? Who killed more Iraqis- Hussein or Bush?
At least the “garbage” I believe has some basis in fact, rather than whatever “garbage” Limbaugh/Hannity/Bush/Rove/Shotgun is pushing that particular day.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:03 pmthis is the same orrin hatch that in 1996 challenged parts of clinton’s anti-terrorism measures, calling it a “phony issue”.
interestingly, he also said at the time that he had “problems with the president’s proposals to expand wiretapping”.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
orrin hatch also is for the “sanctity of marriage” (i.e. he hates gays) … even though polygamy is widely practiced in his own state, and he won’t say a thing about that.
so basically, he’s a hypocrite. i mean republican.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:04 pm#114
“Misspelling “Saddam†(Tracy), capitalizing “historyâ€, (Ruppert), etc.”
That is a complete sentence?
February 21st, 2006 at 7:08 pmOrrin Hatch is an idiot…
Said the senator Saturday:”And, more importantly, we’ve stopped a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida.” In a clear attack on Democrats, Hatch added, “Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.”So …
February 21st, 2006 at 7:19 pm#118 Tracy keep pulling,… harder, you’ll get it out someday soon hopefully,
February 21st, 2006 at 7:22 pm#112
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=191
February 21st, 2006 at 7:38 pm#109
Again, you litte tripee, what would have be your suggestion instead of continuing sanctions?
February 21st, 2006 at 7:41 pm#111
“Saddam was under containment”
You were alright with containment? We tried to contain the North Koreans from getting nukes during the 1990s and during the last 6 years, but it didn’t work. The U.N. is trying to contain Iran, but I don’t think that will last much longer.
“…At this point you realize what you’ve done…
…and more importantly what your gods have done…
…betrayed your country…”
It’s not your country, therefore none of your business.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:47 pmWell since i was in the Desert in 1991 and saw the true capabilities of the Iraqi military, they were in a bit of a box there. I would also note the sanctions were working because even the US military and the CIA could not find the WMD’s even after they had free run of Iraq, I’d say the sanctions were working. Now about the Oil contracts that Saddam had written with France Russia and Germany selling the Oil for Euros not Dollars, I would admit the sanctions did not prevent this.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:50 pmWho said this?
“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq’s capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”
February 21st, 2006 at 7:54 pmFrance, Russia and China were against sanctions. Because of this it was likely sanctions would have been lifted. They were not working. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqii children were dying while Saddam built his weapons and palaces in the 90’s.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:58 pm“Again, you litte tripee, what would have be your suggestion instead of continuing sanctions?”
What was wrong with sanctions? We’d have saved a trillion dollars, 2250+ American lives, 100,000+ innocent Iraqi lives, and had our international reputation intact. We’d still have a key secular state in the ME to keep radical RW Islam in check, too. Saddam was a defanged leader who was so well contained, he couldn’t fart without the UN knowing it.
Of course, if you’re pResident of Big Oil, you invade to keep the Iraqi oil off the market, so your friends in Saudi Arabia can maximize their product value.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:58 pmSheesh. I don’t get how someone can still utter the Osama and Saddam were all but lovers thing.
Anyone read the following quote by Paul Pillar, the former CIA national intelligence officer for the Middle East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005?
“The issue of possible ties between Saddam and al Qaeda was especially prone to the selective use of raw intelligence to make a public case for war. In the shadowy world of international terrorism, almost anyone can be “linked” to almost anyone else if enough effort is made to find evidence of casual contacts, the mentioning of names in the same breath, or indications of common travels or experiences. Even the most minimal and circumstantial data can be adduced as evidence of a “relationship,” ignoring the important question of whether a given regime actually supports a given terrorist group and the fact that relationships can be competitive or distrustful rather than cooperative.
The intelligence community never offered any analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda. Yet it was drawn into a public effort to support that notion. To be fair, Secretary Powell’s presentation at the UN never explicitly asserted that there was a cooperative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. But the presentation was clearly meant to create the impression that one existed. To the extent that the intelligence community was a party to such efforts, it crossed the line into policy advocacy – and did so in a way that fostered public misconceptions contrary to the intelligence community’s own judgments.
…Feeding the administration’s voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-Al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention at multiple levels, from rank-and-file counterterrorism analysts to the most senior intelligence officials. It is fair to ask how much other counterterrorism work was left undone as a result.”
February 21st, 2006 at 8:02 pm#125 using that logic this country is the only country to use nuclear weapons also so should this country have to submit to UN inspections and sanctions until we meet all the UN IAEA requirements? Just wondering, given your logic.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:04 pmIn other words, Orin: Put the Kool-aid down.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:05 pmClemsey,
February 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pmEven Paul Pillar believed that Iraq was connected to al Shifa.
“[I]ntelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”
February 21st, 2006 at 8:37 pmEmail from Richard Clarke to Sandy Berger, November 4, 1998
pyoub… is that pronounced “pube”? and is that supposed to be karly or curly?
just curious.
just figured i’d throw another red herring out there since this is now specious argument central for the trolls.
look, it’s easy to figure out:
clinton = hated by right wing…
hatred of clinton by right wing = the instrument with which the right gained power via largely baseless partisan attacks and fear-mongering…
largely baseless partisan attacks and fear-mongering = the rise of the ugly partisan and polarized culture we live in today…
the ugly partisan culture we live in today = smokescreen under which republican majority operates to advance their agenda…
their agenda = riddled with flawed (and purposely divisive) ideology, crippled by cronyism, ineptitude and failure…
ineptitude and failure = another opportunity to blame clinton!
every time you wingnuts even bring up clinton, you’re paying him homage. without him you’d be lost.
but let’s check the score now…
bush = hated by the left wing, and an increasing majority of everyone else except the right wing…
can anybody guess where this goes next?
February 21st, 2006 at 8:44 pmthe Iraqi nerve gas experts …….Is this the same gas sold to Iraq while they were invading Iran in the 80’s with the assistance of Ronald Reagan and George Bush41, with Donald Rumsfeld as special envoy (Arms merchant) to Babhdad for Reagan? Is that the one you reference?
February 21st, 2006 at 8:46 pmAt least Hatch got something for his brainfart, he’s Oldermann’s worst person in the world tonight, But he probably thinks that it is a popularity contest with all the talking head wingnuts that win.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:55 pmHmmm. Last I looked “al Shifa” was not “al Qaeda”. C’mon Pyoub. Enough of the “Well, if that’s not true, then, then, well THIS is.”
You can put the Kool-aid down too.
Sheesh.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:04 pmHatch is one of the weirdest GOP Senators who ever lived! He calls Gays too depraved to get hitched in civil unions, but it’s all right for his Mormons to wed many wives, so he is a creepy hypocrite! He always looks constipated to me >lol.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:08 pm#137 Jay you’d be constipated if you kept your head in the way of the proper functioning of your bowels.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:17 pmNo, Tracy, it’s not a complete sentence.
Anything else I can help you with? Maybe a civics lesson?
February 21st, 2006 at 9:33 pmOr an elementary course in logic?
Yes post 138 clif > ORAL HATCHED needs to keep his bowels unblocked > lol. I have to laugh about that damn fool Senator from Utah > he is a certified idiot on Viagra!
February 21st, 2006 at 10:04 pmWell at least we know what he washes down with his kool-aid
February 21st, 2006 at 11:14 pmOrrin Hatch needs to step down immediately.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 amSure, why not… Anybody worried about Castro invading his neighbors? Or using WMD?
Or do you think killing 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and inspiring a generation of young people across the Middle East and around the world to want to kill Americans is a better plan?
Oh, sorry… I guess I’m not greeting you as my liberator… no flowers for you. Only blood on your hands… the kind that doesn’t wash off.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:44 amRuppert is the classic troll; they don’t stick around to read responses, they travel fast and light(no facts required) around the liberal blogs posting ignorant guff lke this because they know it will become a talking point in their absence. For future reference, they only need one response; ‘You’re an assbat,’ and then you can go about some sensible conversation.
I believe the White House are drawing up a strategy for the invasion of Iran, because they are hiding Osama’s stockpile of BOCW’s; Big Ol’ Cans of Whupass. The basis for this assumption is a camouflaged warehouse full of can openers found on the border. Anyone with brains knows that’s what they’re used for. Axis of EVIL! Freedom! Turr-ist killers! Stay the course!
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:02 amHell, the guy lives in Utah. What do you expect? There’s something in the water there.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:39 amHe is only one tiny part of the right wingnut machine that has given the USA some much credibility around the world. I cringe at being lumped into the American Citizen group when these morons open thier mouths.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:53 am#147 I just call it a bowel movement through their mind.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:07 amSaddam did to have connections to Al-Queda. They had a camp in the Kurdish area from which they were actively trying to overthrow Saddam. I seem to remember that some Guy named Zarquawi was Al-Queda’s man on the ground attacking Saddam.
I think that was among the many “excuses” Bush gave for invasion, that they had an AlQueda camp on Iraqi soil.
But where AlQueda had one camp attacking Saddam, now they have proliferated like McDonalds.
Part of our great historic success in Iraq
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:26 am#116
“Which, of course, were never the reasons given by the administration”
If you and others couldn’t figure those implied reasons out without Bush having to enunciate, it’s no wonder Kerry lost in 2004.
“Who killed more Iraqis- Hussein or Bush?”
Hussien by far INTENTIONALLY killed more civilians over his thirty year reign. Mass graves keep turning up that no one knew were there. Since Sadamm didn’t really keep track of the number of the people he has had murdered, it’s hard to tell. In the Iran-Iraq war alone upward of 500,000 Iraqis lost their lives.
“Since then, Mr. Hussein’s has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein’s, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:38 am#124
“I would also note the sanctions were working because even the US military and the CIA could not find the WMD’s even after they had free run of Iraq”
Exactly how far into Iraq did the U.S. coalition push in 1991? From what the history books say the U.S. never pushed to Baghdad area which is where most of the WMD facilities were located.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:50 am#127
“What was wrong with sanctions?”
Is that a serious question?! Do you know how many Iraqi’s died because of sanctions alone, not to mention the fact the Sadamm continued to murder his own internal opposition after 1991?
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:54 am#129
Then why didn’t BJ Clinton submit to those inspections considering #125 was quoting him?
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:01 am“Anything else I can help you with? Maybe a civics lesson?
Or an elementary course in logic?”
From you? No thanks…I will pass.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:05 amDidn’t Pat Robertson claim that 9/11 was God’s way of declaring his dissatisfaction over gay and libertine lifestyles? That means by Hatch’s reasoning we should have decared war on God. or at least Robertson.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:35 amHatch is a brainless idiot – a repug hack!
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:04 amMany of the decent Americans on this forum have neighbors, family members and friends who are al Crackers…
…if America is to be saved…
…you must shun them…
Comment by big papa — February 21, 2006 @ 11:01 am
I agree with ya Big Papa! If they’re that damn dumb no sense talkin’ to tha the stupid basterds anyways!
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 amGary Ruppert supports al-Qaida. There’s no doubt about it. He supported their mission to destroy America.
There’s as much evidence to support my claim as tehre is to support Gary’s claim.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:37 amOrin Hatch obviously doesn’t have a brain, but that shouldn’t matter as Senators are not expected to have one. What an ignorant, immoral piece of human excrement.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:53 amTracy #149
” “Which, of course, were never the reasons given by the administrationâ€
If you and others couldn’t figure those implied reasons out without Bush having to enunciate, it’s no wonder Kerry lost in 2004.”
Bush clearly and unequivocally imlpied that we would NOT invade if Saddam gave up his WMDs. How many times did Bush say “Saddam must disarm”. How many times did Bush use “defend America” as a euphamism for invading Iraq? The American people (let alone the international community) did not debate the merits or legality of invading Iraq in order to liberate the people from Saddam. Bush simply insisted that we had every right to pre-emptively attack in self-defense, and that he had every right to order the attack as commander-in-chief.
Saddam let the inspectors back in! The Senate resolution authorizing the use of force was in the event that he wouldn’t. If we freeze this moment in time, it would be considered a major success for Bush’s “resolute” foreign policy, and Kerry and the other Dems would be entitled to their own small slice of the credit. But Bush’s subsequent actions prove that the whole thing was a sham and that he had intended to invade Iraq regardless.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pmHatch has now somewhat “retracted” his statements:
But that’s OBVIOUSLY not true by his original quote:
Hatch CLEARLY SAID that Hussein was supporting al-Qaida. He can’t back out of this one…! And this guy is on the INTELLIGENCE committee?
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:33 pmAs a resident of Utah, I assure averyone here that no amount of logic, reasoning or name-calling is going to stop Orrin Hatch, or the general Mormon populace, from engaging in pro-Bush propaganda. Utah leads the Nation in percentage of Bush supporters and also leads the Nation in percentage of youths who are NOT enlisted in our Armed Forces. This statistic pretty much sums up Mormon hypocrisy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:41 pmThe amusing aspect of their support lies in the fact that the Mormons fled to Utah in an attempt to escape religious persecution. But if they are successful in their struggle to control our government, the right-wing religious zealots, of which the Mormons are currently supportive, will eventually condemn the Mormon religion as fervently and as violently as they now condemn Islam. (And the Mormons would do likewise, given the opportunity.)
It’s just like what Hilter tried doing to Stalin before Stalin could do it to him. Et Tu Brute?
#93. If only….
This goes to the underlying problem. Hatch is by far one of the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts, yet has one of the strongest constituencies in the U.S. Senate. The voters of Utah strongly support his positions.
Most voting Americans today would still choose Bush over Kerry, and will continue to vote ReThuglican in the ‘06 and ‘08 elections. These war criminals control the media (along with the electronic voting machines – Diebold in CA?) and will tout/spin “The New Outlook for America ReThuglicans” in the coming months leading up to the election. The kool-aid drinking, Xian fundie, American Idol-loving fear filled public will buy it hook, line and sinker. If it doesn’t look solid, then we will see another terrorist attack to seal the deal.
We have entered new times. It will be decades, if ever, before we recover from this Fascist takeover. The best we can hope for is that the people held in the caged Free Speech Zones at least get a clean bed when relocated to one of the Halliburton forced labor detenion centers.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:26 pmComments about linking Saddaam and Stalin are easily made, but the truth is easily read.
1) Sadaam was our ally during the Iran/Iraq war. We supplied him with helicopters that had “crop dusting” accessories to spray the poisons, which we also supplied (i.e gas gangrene), for him to use against Iranians, Iraqis, and Kurds. Not ony did we give Sadaam weapons, we were partners with both sides in this war, how evil is that?
2) Mass graves are not popping up in places we didn’t know about. Far fewer mass graves and bodies (the last accurate count was less than 20,000 bodies) have been found than the hundred of thousands initially claimed. Our government is responsible for the deaths of far more innocent Iraqis (estimates currently range from 100k, from a 2004 Lancet study, to 250k) than have been found in mass graves.
3)WMD’s in Baghdad? Where are they? The sanctions imposed on Iraq stopped any development of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weaponry. This is a fact, verified by our own government investigations.
4) Sadaam’s link to al Qaeda because there was a terrorist base in Iraq? Yes, there was an al-Qaeda terrorist camp in Iraq. But, it was in an area controlled by the 1991 Iraqi war coalition. It was located in an area that was a no-fly zone for Iraqis, the US protected the airspace over this camp. WE allowed this camp to exist in Kurdistani Iraq, not Sadaam.
5) What has the our attack on a soverign nation (Iraq)accomplished? The repression of women’s rights. Recently Condoleeza Rice visited with al-Jaafari (Iraq’s Prime Minister) and he refused to shake her hand, because she is a woman. An environmental disaster, the depleted uranium ammunition (a UN declared WMD)we use will leave much more of a deadly legacy on the people of Iraq than Saddam has. Increases in worldwide terrorism attacks that are the highest since records began to be collected in 1984, so high that our own State Department has discontinued it’s annual report. In 2003, North Korea stated that “preemptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S.”. Poverty in Iraq has risen 20%, childhood malnutrition has doubled, the “brain-drain” of professionals leaving Iraq threatens its’ future, unemployment is 60%, inflation is skyrocketing, and the budget for Iraqi reconstruction has dried up. And we are told that things are getting better…Right.
The facts are all there, we have not made the world a safer place, but the reverse. Our administration and their neo-con cohorts have made our country a pariah in the eyes of the world, and the sooner we, as citizens, realize this, and vote out the Republican stranglehold of Congress and the Senate, the better off the world will be. In 2009, Bush will leave a record for the world to see, a failed, corrupt, arrogant, free-spending, war-mongering, ignorant legacy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm#159
“The American people (let alone the international community) did not debate the merits or legality of invading Iraq in order to liberate the people from Saddam.”
You are kidding with that statement…tell me you are! The international community including countries like France and Germany, not to mention many here in this forum, were NEVER in favor of liberating the Iraqi people in order to get them out from under Sadamm’s control. They all said the the U.S. had no right to do such a thing because the thought that the invasion and ousting had nothing to do with U.S. self defense.
“The Senate resolution authorizing the use of force was in the event that he wouldn’t.”
U.N. R1441 specifically called for unfettered access to any and all of Iraq’s suspected or former WMD sites….Sadamm DID NOT comply with this demand.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 pmWe oughta nuke Utah. WHAT A PATHETIC PLACE!
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:24 pmThat’s where the American Taliban is headquartered!
Hatch is sooooo VILE! Yuk!
Dan
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:24 pmSadaam did comply with UN Resolution 1441. The inspectors found NOTHING, just as the US found NOTHING. There was NOTHING there, despite what the Bush Adminsitration told us, over and over and over. Isreal ignores UN resolutions and the US acquiesces, over and over. What is the difference here????
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm[...] Yesterday we highlighted a claim by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — reported only in a small Utah newspaper — that “nobody with brains” denies that Saddam Hussein “was supporting al Qaeda.” [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm#167
Please read UN R1441 and then news articles and Mr. Blix pointing out his non compliance.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:44 pmOnly someone as brainless as Orrin Hatch…would try to
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:49 pmconvince the more literate public…that Saddam had ties
to Alqueda…and was s threat to this country.
How do these people get into office?
Hatch is a Mormon who believes that in 1823 the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, received from an angel, golden plates containing God’s word that Mr. Smith translated and formed the Mormon religion. Mr. Smith, of course, returned the plates and no one has seen them since. Nobody denies this story. Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:50 pm#165 and 166 Hi Dan, While I agree that Hatch is vile and that Utah is the most fundamental of States, I must say that your comment to “NUKE UTAH” sounds like something I’d expect from Hannity or O’Reilly. If you’ve ever experienced Utah’s beauty, I doubt if you would call it “pathetic.” If your only redress is to “nuke the oppressors” then you need to include Pennsylvania (Santorum), Florida (JBush), Texas (Delay), Connecticut (Leiberman), California (Shwartznegger), Arizona (McClain), NY (Clinton)and every other State that has Republican or Democratic supporters of the Bush atrocities. Leave the hysterics to the right wing fundies.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:03 pmKeith Olberman named Hatch “WORST PERSON in the WORLD” on his Feb. 21st show.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pm#164
“You are kidding with that statement…tell me you are! The international community including countries like France and Germany, not to mention many here in this forum, were NEVER in favor of liberating the Iraqi people in order to get them out from under Sadamm’s control. They all said the the U.S. had no right to do such a thing because the thought that the invasion and ousting had nothing to do with U.S. self defense.”
Firt off, you’ll notice I said “let alone…” and put it in parentheses, my primary point–which you ignored–was that the American People–and Congress–did not debate liberation, only pre-emption. And yet you appear to agree with me! We weren’t acting out of self-defense, and yet we lied and said we were.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:53 pmAnd no one with brains would be looking in Iraq for Osama ben ladin, if he called you from Afganistan, lives in Afganistan and regularly sends you news updates from Afganistan.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:46 pm“…which you ignored–was that the American People–and Congress–did not debate liberation, only pre-emption”
The liberals in the U.S. were never going to be in favor of liberation even if Sadamm was found to have WMDs by the inspectors. It was never and was never going to be on their agenda or mandate.
“We weren’t acting out of self-defense, and yet we lied and said we were.”
The intelligence was just plain wrong…and even the 9/11 commission stated the there wasn’t an covert or overt attempt by the Bush administration to lie about the intelligence. And no I don’t agree with you, because I do think that promoting political change in that part of the world, starting with Iraq, in order to squash the facist Islamic fundementalists movement which produced the 9/11 attacks, was the thrust of getting rid of Sadamm, not WMDs, but American citizens wouldn’t have been able to accept such a long range objective as a sole reason for invading. I don’t think that Sadamm was a threat directly to the U.S. at the time before the invasion…his removal was just a catalyst to get at the real problem, i.e. radical islam.
To preempt you, invading Saudia Arabia was not even an option….Mecca is in Saudia Arabia you know. It was rough enough for the Saudi Royal family to allow a U.S. airbase on Saudi soil back in 1991 and you now notice that the U.S. moved operations out to other surrounding states.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:21 pm#176
“The liberals in the U.S. were never going to be in favor of liberation…”
you do understand that the word ‘liberal’ and ‘liberation’ have the same word root, don’t you? or is it that you’ve purposely and forever etched the word ‘liberal’ in your mind as the equivalent to ‘traitor’ or ‘un-american’?
you enter these discussions with an irrational prejudice, tracy. you can’t discount a significant portion of the u.s. population out-of-hand…to do so is, pardon the phrase, un-american.
so, just a suggestion: why not approach liberals as people you need to accept and respect as fellow citizens rather than people you want to purge from the face of the planet?
oh, and fyi- saddam was a secular leader. arguing that “his removal was just a catalyst to get at the real problem, i.e. radical islam” is flat out wrong. overthrowing saddam has opened iraq to an influx of the one internal (and external) threat that saddam feared would weaken his power: radical islam. that was one thing he clearly had in check prior to the u.s. invasion; a problem that is now clearly out of control.
you obviously have no understanding of iraq before we turned it into a terrorist breeding ground if you believe we went there to eradicate islamic fundamentalists. there was not a radical islamist problem in iraq — saddam made very certain of that. there was never, in the history of iraq, a suicide bombing there until after the u.s. took up occupation.
please, if you’re going to argue here, get your facts in order.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:28 pmWas he at a luncheon in his state where some of those men demand that little girls marry their own uncles, etc., If so, then they’d believe his bs.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:38 pmYou show me a man who is guided in in his life by an organized religion, whether it be Christianity, Judiaism, Islam, or any other cult, and I’ll show you a fuck’n idiot.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:51 am“The liberals in the U.S. were never going to be in favor of liberation even if Sadamm was found to have WMDs by the inspectors. It was never and was never going to be on their agenda or mandate.”
That’s kind of a sweeping statement, isn’t it?
“The intelligence was just plain wrong…and even the 9/11 commission stated the there wasn’t an covert or overt attempt by the Bush administration to lie about the intelligence.”
No. The 9/11 commission was a political sop, and internal memos have since confirmed that ‘the intelligence was fixed around the policy.’ (direct quote from the infamous Downing Street memo.)As well as various ex-Admin officials stating that there was heavy influence to skew the intelligence to point towards Iraq. If they didn’t flat out lie, they certainly stretched the truth. The ‘45 minutes’ claim is a good example of that.
“And no I don’t agree with you, because I do think that promoting political change in that part of the world, starting with Iraq, in order to squash the facist Islamic fundementalists movement which produced the 9/11 attacks, was the thrust of getting rid of Sadamm, not WMDs,”
Once again, that isn’t the rationale that was given. If you remember the coverage before the war, a raft of excuses were trotted out. They failed to prove links to Al-Qaida, they failed to prove Hussein was complicit in 9/11, and so they came up with WMD’s, a clear threat to the American people. By the way, you’re right, there were weapons in Iraq before the occupation; the ones sold to Iraq by the US which the UN were in the process of dismantling. After the UN inspectors were thrown out by the US, the sites were systematically looted. Witness the several hundred tons of HEX that the occupying force “lost track of.” Another blow struck for the War On Terror.
“but American citizens wouldn’t have been able to accept such a long range objective as a sole reason for invading.”
So, they DID lie to Americans over WMD’s, but only because people are idiots? You have a point; something like that could really cut into recruitment figures.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:09 amIraq did support al-qaeda with his words. But the US supported the muhajadeen and Bin – Ladin in the 80s in the muhajadeen insurgency against the soviets in afghanistan.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:17 am#177
“you do understand that the word ‘liberal’ and ‘liberation’ have the same word root, don’t you?”
But my how they have the definition of “liberal”, which so many have attempted to decieve everyone by calling it “progressive”, has evolved into something totally opposite of it’s original meaning…at least in the political and social reality sense. A prime example is Hugo Chazez and the absolute mess he has made of Venezuela.
“…or is it that you’ve purposely and forever etched the word ‘liberal’ in your mind as the equivalent to ‘traitor’ or ‘un-american’?”
Those on the FAR left are not un-american any more that I am un-american, and I have NEVER said that those on the far left are un-american. I may disagree with them on almost every political and social issue, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think they have every right to be heard ;however, they also have every right to have their views reemed and scoffed at by those who disagree….the same goes for my views…this is what make the U.S. great. We can disagree and debate till the cows come home and at the end of day we both had our say and no one was silenced.
“you can’t discount a significant portion of the u.s. population…”
I disagree with them and I certainly don’t discount them but I do have every right to tell them that they are full of crap.
“…why not approach liberals as people you need to accept and respect as fellow citizens rather than people you want to purge from the face of the planet?”
I don’t want to purge them from the planet…their views keep me vigilant when it comes to expressing my views. BTW I tolerate liberals, but I sure don’t have to accept their views…there is a big difference. I have respect for their views to the degree that any American is entitled.
“arguing that “his removal was just a catalyst to get at the real problem, i.e. radical islam†is flat out wrong.”
It’s not wrong and a catalyst by definition:
“2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences”
…is something that Sadamm and Iraq provided with an opportunity in order to provide a staging ground for the needed political change in the Middle East.
“you obviously have no understanding of iraq before we turned it into a terrorist breeding ground if you believe we went there to eradicate islamic fundamentalists”
I don’t believe we went into Iraq to eradicate the islamic fundamentalists. That would be impossible. You need to read AGAIN, what I wrote earlier about using Iraq for a starting point for needed political change in the Middle East. Please carefully read want I write so you don’t get confused about what I ment. BTW do you have any evidence that Al Qaeda is using Iraq for a training base for terrorists in order to send them to other countries to carry out suicide missions? It seems rather “local” to me.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:52 amGobbells had nothing on these people. They screem and say anything and their followers march in lock step;
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:57 amhiel heil Hatch
In the end, we all go to our grave with nothing but our integrity, all the money, power, possessions fall away. Some of these people, I think, will go with nothing. Think about it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:15 pm#180
“That’s kind of a sweeping statement, isn’t it?”
But it’s the truth. Does this “blanket” statement include yourself? If WMDs were found, would you have still been in favor of ousting Sadamm by force considering that was the only way to remove him or would you have been in favor or getting the U.N. inspector teams back in Iraq to over see the destruction of the WMDs…AGAIN, like they did in 1991.
“Once again, that isn’t the rationale that was given.”
I remember that the “Iraqi freedom” idea was always PART of the rationale for he invasion. The entire operation was called “Operation Iraqi Freedom” if you recall. You are incorrect.
“By the way, you’re right, there were weapons in Iraq before the occupation; the ones sold to Iraq by the US”
The U.S. didn’t sell any WMDs to Iraq. The WMDs were manufacured in Iraq by Iraqi scientists. The U.S. sold the COMMON components to make the WMDs.
“…which the UN were in the process of dismantling.”
Wait a minute I thought the all of the blow hards in this blog have repeatedly said the Sadamm didn’t have any WMDs before the invasion and that they were all destroyed back in the early 1990s. Are you suggesting that Iraq DID have WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion?
“So, they DID lie to Americans over WMD’s, but only because people are idiots?”
Read slower…I said SOLE reason for invading. The WMD rationale was based on intelligence information that later proved to be false…oh but wait, you just said the the U.N. inspectors were in the process of destroying WMDs that many said Iraq never had just prior to the 2003 invasion! Which is it?
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:26 pm[...] (Via ThinkProgress): [W]e’ve stopped a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida. Well, I shouldn’t say nobody. Nobody with brains.” [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:45 pmOK… Gary, Senator Hatch and the rest of you numbskulls… can we finally put this “al Qaeda worked with Saddam’s Iraq” trash in the garbage can where it so justly belongs?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:28 pmwell, tracy, you’re too far gone for me to reach. maybe the invasion was a catalyst, after all: seems a nice little civil war is in full effect in iraq now.
what a great idea invading iraq was! that is, if you wanted american soldiers to die for no reason, for us to go broke in the process, and for the entire middle east region to be completely destabilized.
well, at least it oughta stir up the pot a bit and take care of that radical islam problem! or not! wonder how the administration’s going to spin their way out of this one…?
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:23 pm“well, tracy, you’re too far gone for me to reach. maybe the invasion was a catalyst, after all: seems a nice little civil war is in full effect in iraq now.”
So you figure somehow the Iraqi people were going to get out from under the dictatorial control of Sadamm and his sons by themselves? Man I am glad the French and the Spainish didn’t have the same attitude back in 1778, when they helped the U.S. to defeat the British, that they do now. If those countries wouldn’t have helped back then the U.S. would probably called New England. I also remember the U.S. having a nice little “civil war” in order to settle their differences.
“…if you wanted american soldiers to die for no reason”
The Iraqi people and the potential political change that is needed in such an important part of the world aren’t worth it to you? Maybe for you, those we chooose to help would have to be European like the Serbians were when Milosivic was engaged in genocide.
Your shortsightedness and lack of long term goals is appauling.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:40 pmBasically Most Americans are waiting for the wealth to come from stealing Iraqs oil wealth and possibly Irans too (( as in American Battle plans for Iran here http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/ archives/ 2006/ 02/ battle_plans_fo_1.html
The democrats I think dont speak out against the war because monkey boy Bush might just manage to steal all the worlds oil reserves …therefore most say morgage paying americans , workers, fear for their future …and have hidden ajendas …If Bush pulls this steal off …and America becomes rich again the democatrats will look very foolish …I think and thats why they do not speak out
February 24th, 2006 at 5:54 pm[...] The exploitation of our gullibility is inexcusable in a public servant. [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 10:15 pm