Inconvenient Facts: Russian Government Tipped Off Hussein To U.S. War Plans
By on Mar 24th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Inconvenient Facts: Russian Government Tipped Off Hussein To U.S. War Plans
President Bush, 9/16/05:
We’ve got a strong ally in Russia in fighting the war on terror….we understand we have a duty to protect our citizens, and to work together and to do everything we can to stop the killing.
AP, 3/24/06:
The Russian government provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on U.S. military movements and plans during the opening days of the war in 2003, according to a Pentagon report released Friday.
Saddam’s regime never had any meaningful relationship with al-Qaeda, despite repeated suggestions to the contrary by President Bush and others. The same can’t be said, apparently, about Saddam’s relationship to the Russian government.
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
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
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
But I thought Bush could see Putan’s soul?
March 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pmLOL beat me to it POP
March 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pm… and wasn’t it Putin or his soul that personally warned Bush that the US was about to be attacked in the months leading up to the events of 9/11?
March 24th, 2006 at 3:23 pmLet’s hold off on the whole “Invading Iran” thing for the time being. We need to invade Russia first…
March 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pmFriday’s Math Assignment:
((China + South America) x (Russia + Iran) = Trouble for US)/North Korea Pre-emptive strike
March 24th, 2006 at 3:32 pmIncompetence is as incompetence does.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:33 pmEnd the GOP criminal sydicate.
What’s the problem? Russia was helping to defend a harmless country against an illegal invasion! I see no problem here.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:35 pmWhy is Saddam getting blamed for everything? There is no proof that the man had anything to do with Al-Quaida or 9/11. 9/11 must have been great for W. He finally had a reason to target Saddam (although there was no connection between the two). Oh poor Iraqis, let’s go take down their dictator so they can have freedom. Meanwhile, Quaddafi and Kim Jong are dictating away…
March 24th, 2006 at 3:39 pmBut the AP report also claims –
“Whether by chance or design, one piece of Russian intelligence actually contributed to an important U.S. military deception effort.”
So it’s quite likely Judd’s claim that Russia helped Iraq is just a lot of hot air.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:42 pmI guess this means the Russians were with the “terrorists” then. So, when do we start bombing them? BushCo can name it ‘Shock and Circumstance.’
March 24th, 2006 at 3:42 pmfirst i’d like to say that i wouldn’t make much of this, because i think that the
pentagon and the white house may use this to make the other things in abc’s report
seem more creditable. i smell a rat.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:42 pmBush “i looked him(putin) in the eyes saw his soul , and we can do business”
Yes siree bob , that’s the way to conduct poreigh policies.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:43 pmDumb moron .
GOOD – if it were not for Russia having 22,000 nuclear Bombs and 5500 ready for quick launch at America , America would have started a war111 by now
And Russia has Diplomatic Talks with other nations – Unlike Bush
March 24th, 2006 at 3:43 pmSaddam’s regime never had any meaningful relationship with al-Qaeda, despite repeated suggestions to the contrary by President Bush and others.
Those “others” would be the Cinton administration…
Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, August 25 1998 on the al Shifa-al Qaeda-Iraq connection:
Q: Ambassador Pickering, do you know of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX?
PICKERING: Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company’s history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq’s VX program.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pmRemember Belarus. This is part of a coordinated effort to punish Russia for the “unfavorable” outcome of their election.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:46 pmOFF TOPIC: From CNN: Exclusive: In a rare one-on-one from the White House, Laura Bush shares her urgent message to America’s women. — Urgent? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
March 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pmThose “others†would be the Cinton administration…
Comment by Infinite Reach — March 24, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Those “others” did not order the invasion of Iraq.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pmOh, we have another Clinton official “lying†about the Iraq-Sudan-Al Qaeda connection.
Ambassador Bill Richardson, in an appearance on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,†on August 30, 1998.
“We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor–chemical precursor at the site,†said Richardson. “Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation–the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation–a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan’s leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you’ve got a pretty clear cut case.â€
March 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pmRichard Clarke writes in his book, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror about the Iraqi VX found at al Shifa by the CIA:
EMPTA is a compound that had been used as a prime ingredient in Iraqi nerve gas. It had no other known use, nor had any other nation employed EMPTA to our knowledge for any purpose.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:49 pm#18 And how much of that stuff was INERT by 9/11?
Clinton didn’t invade, and get us stuck in a quagmire; Bush did.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:53 pmWilliam Cohen preparing the American public for war, ABC This Week, Nov 16, 1997 interview:
William Cohen: It becomes all the more important now that the inspectors on the ground have been evicted as such to have some oversight capability from the air. The U-2 provides that capability. For example, I can show a number of slides here to indicate what has taken place following the Persian Gulf War when Iraq was driven out of Kuwait.
The United Nations decided that he must get rid of all of his biological and chemical weapons. Now we discovered — the United Nations discovered — that he had immense amounts on hand. We discovered, for example, that this is a facility that was producing — that was, in fact, producing — biological and chemical weapons that had evaded the initial discovery by the inspectors.
Now once that was discovered with the help of overhead capability…
Cokie Roberts: And this was just last year?
William Cohen: This was back in 1996 in which this was destroyed. So, that facility that went undetected initially has been destroyed. They have destroyed enormous amounts of chemical and biological weapons.
It’s important when we talk about weapons of mass destruction that we translate into something that the American people, and hopefully, the world community can understand.
For example, when we talk about Anthrax — Anthrax, if you took a five-pound bag of sugar and accept — call this Anthrax {producing a 5-pound bag of Domino® table sugar from under the interview table}. This amount of Anthrax could be spread over a city — let’s say the size of Washington. It would destroy at least half the population of that city. If you had even more amounts…
March 24th, 2006 at 3:54 pmInstead of scwabling over democrats and republicans – why not vote monster raving looney party –
Remember the big secret for voting for the two main parties is , nothing ever changes for the good for the next 50 – 100 years same old scwabling and then your kids have to go though the same shit – meanwhile theres no real progression -
March 24th, 2006 at 3:54 pmI guess Putin wasn’t seeing the same thing in chimpy’s eyes as chimpy saw in his.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pm.
#19
Console yourself with that fact, and hold it tightly to your breast; you’ll need something to keep you warm on those long nights BACK IN THE POLITICAL WILDERNESS!
March 24th, 2006 at 3:56 pmOh, we have another Clinton official “lying†about the Iraq-Sudan-Al Qaeda connection.
Comment by Infinite Reach — March 24, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
What is with conservatives and their Clinton obsession?
Bill Clinton did not order the invasion of Iraq.
This is not his watch anymore; it is Pres Bush’s. We are talking about 2003, not 1998 or 1997.
Even if the official lied, fact remains Putin (supposedly an ally and “good friend”) fed intelligence to Hussein’s regime -one of the members of the “axis of evil”.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pmSudan’s leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you’ve got a pretty clear cut case.â€
Comment by Infinite Reach
That all sounds like they are reaching for straws except that last part.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pmInfinite Reach is an intellectual pussy. Debate is beyond his Infinite Reach.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pmThen I guess his reach is rather finite.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:59 pmThen there’s the infamous VX Report:
Jamie Rubin,when asked about the VX report yesterday (October 26, 1998). Rubin said, “These findings make clear that Saddam Hussein did produce VX weapons contrary to what he said; that he produced these most horrible weapons, even though he said he didn’t. It shows the urgency and necessity of Iraq coming clean on
March 24th, 2006 at 3:59 pmwhat they built, what they have . . . Until Iraq is disarmed of its
weapons of mass destruction, until Iraq complies with international
Security Council resolutions that demonstrate its peaceful intentions,
sanctions must remain on indefinitely because he is a threat to the
region and a threat to the world.”
Judd, thanks for the link to WaPo – so Saddam had “no collaborative link” with Al Quaeda – what was their documented non-collaborative link??
Moral of the story: never trust former KGB Communist. Bush was being polite – Putin has no soul.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pmPussy.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pmGee, I say “intellectual pussy” and guess who answers the pavlovian call?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:01 pmWouldn’t it be nice if you could filter the posted comments like we do our e-mail. You know, send certain ones straight to the trash can.
Ahhhh, I feel the bliss just thinking about it….
March 24th, 2006 at 4:02 pmMighty Moron-
Bush polite?????????? HAHAHAHA. That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:02 pm#25: What is with conservatives and their Clinton obsession?
They’re pissed because they didn’t get a hummer in the Oval Office!
March 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pmJudd – as usual, you are overlooking facts that help America. ABC just released documents that showed Sadam and Osama had contact in the mid-90s. Now I know you like score cheap points and root for the enemy, but at least be honest about it.
As for Russia, I remember when liberals used Russia as a reason why we shouldn’t go to war – because they opposed. You people are shameless hypocrites.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:06 pm#32- you love trolls. Even though we remind you of your electoral stupidity, you love us.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:07 pmBill Clinton continued to prepare the nation for war with his “lies” about Iraq WMD:
At a DNC event at the Sacramento Capital Club, November 15, 1997 Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against “organized forces of destruction,” telling the audience that only a small amount of “nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did.” Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons “fall into the wrong hands” is “fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we’re having in Iraq today.”
“[T]hink about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you.”
March 24th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#36: Definition of a hypocrite – One who says one thing and does another. Well, I guess you might as throw Bush and his administration in there too. I don’t see how they’re any less of a hypocrite. Lying to the American people to go to war, look who’s the hypocrite now.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:11 pmSo Saddam had better intelligence than Bush did??? Not that it helped Saddam…..Bush just listened to the intel he wanted to believe, not the intel that didn’t fit his preconceived notions.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pm“Moral of the story: never trust former KGB Communist. Bush was being polite – Putin has no soul.
Comment by mighty aphrodite ”
Mighty Aphrodite was just being an apologist – because (s)he has no brian – DUH.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:13 pmputin must be laughin his ass off
March 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pm#39 – no one lied to go to war. Sadam was threat, regardless of what the fringe left says. Did Hillary, Kerry, Maddy Albright, Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore and the rest of the Democrats lie when they said Sadam had weapons. NO. Stop re-fighting history.
People like you would have never accepted invading Iraq because you have a narrow view of the WOT and you inherently have a problem with spreading democracy. Interesting because if someone like Sadam or Hugo Chavez were to gain power in America, you would be the first to go.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:15 pm#41 – You’re right – I do not have a son named “brian”…..
March 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pmInfinite Reach,
Most of these posts have little to do with Iraq, or if they do recomend keeping the sanctions in place. Exactly what Clinton was doing from the start to the end of his presidency. If Sudan had links to Osama Bin Laden, and Al Quaidi why did we not invade them? Unless you think that Sudan is meant to mean Sadaam? There is a difference. One of the posts indicates a factory was destroyed after it was discovered that Sadaam was using it to make chemical weapons. this actually weakens the Bush case and makes sadaam sound even more impotent then what he was.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#43: I don’t have a problem spreading democracy, if that’s what our main purpose was. But it’s not and ignorant, narrow-minded republicans like you will never see that. Somehow W brainwashed all of you and now you’ve become W-worshipers. It’s quite disgusting to those of us who can see from outside the cage. If we’re spreading democracy, then we should give our friends democracy first before we give our enemies democracy. Case in point: Saudi Arabia. They’re our friends right? Guess what, it’s a Kingdom, Kingdom=no democracy.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#45 – no, we’re just pointing out what hypocrites liberals are when it comes to using military action. I’d almost elect a Democrat like Mark Warner so we can win the war. God knows you people will have a sudden conversion if it’s a Democrat killing women and children.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:20 pmHugo Chavez, the twice-democratically elected (and satisfactorily observed elections) president of Venezuela? How did he get involved in this? What is he to do with the Russians tipping off the Iraqis?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:24 pmPeople like you would have never accepted invading Iraq because you have a narrow view of the WOT and you inherently have a problem with spreading democracy.
Comment by ThinkStalinism — March 24, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Democracy cannot be spread at gun point. That is an utterly ridiculous notion.
Interesting because if someone like Sadam or Hugo Chavez were to gain power in America, you would be the first to go.
Chavez was voted president by the majority of the Venezuelan people. Not once, but twice: He won the 1998 election with close to 60% of the vote. And was ratified in the 2004 recall referendum, again with close to 60% of the vote. Over 400 international observers –including former US president Jimmy Carter– were on the ground to certify the transparency of those elections. The OAS Secretary General César Gaviria (and Mr. Carter) endorsed the results of the referendum.
Chavez is the democratically –and freely– twice-elected president of Venezuela.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:25 pmIt is so fun watching republicans try and rewrite history.
We are not the world police. We do not have the right to invade a country that has not and did not threaten us. Just because previous administrations said we needed to WATCH Iraq does not translate into a war with Iraq.
If the Iraqi people wanted a different form of government it was theifight, not ours. Now what are we going to do against Iran and North Korea. They have always been the bigger threat but we have no way to protect ourselves military wise.
And by the way, where is Osama anyway? Certainly not the one on trial!!
March 24th, 2006 at 4:25 pmDear Mr. Reach – How nice of you to point out facts to people who live on half truths and tofu.!! But they can be fun to play with….You’ve had your shots, haven’t you?
Dear Mr./Ms Angry Democrat – (BTW, apt moniker!) Saudi Arabia is no “friend” – it’s a “business relationship” – period. Are you “friends” with everyone you do business with?? Pitiful…..
March 24th, 2006 at 4:27 pmI told you ThinkStalinism was ignorant! He doesn’t even have his facts straight. If he did, he wouldn’t bring Hugo Chavez into this discussion.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#51 – do you hold hands with your buisness associates?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#51 – I mean, cause if you do it’s OK – a bit weird – but I am open minded!
March 24th, 2006 at 4:29 pm(…) until Iraq complies with international Security Council resolutions that demonstrate its peaceful intentions, sanctions must remain on indefinitely because he is a threat to the region and a threat to the world.â€
Comment by Infinite Reach — March 24, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
Wise words… sanctions, not invasion and war…
Now we know the sanctions and inspections were working: Hussein did not have WMDs. What was needed was more time for the inspectors to do their job.
All the intelligence prior to the invasion pointed to that fact and it was Pres Bush who decided to ignore it: He decided to manufacture his own reality instead.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:31 pm#32 It’s like Laverne and Shirley:
Who could be that stupid?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:31 pmMight Aphrodite: Hello.
Sadam was a threat – as defined by even most Democrats.
Chavez is a communist. He passed a law that would make it a crime to talk jail time to speak against him. SO yes, he may have been democratically elected (but excuse me if I don’t take Jimmy Carter’s word on that), but people like you would be put in jail if you criticized him. I think that’s bad.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:32 pmIt’s unfourtunate that you IR, MA, and TS are not reading the facts they post. they carry out the watch Iraq, but fight the terrorists. Remember Clinton ordering smart bomb strikes in Sudan? I wonder why he did that?
As for Saudi Arabia being a “friend” I generally only hold hands with my wife or son.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:32 pmMighty Moron-
Friend or business partner, whatever, we have some sort of amicable relationship with them, unlike Iraq. Then we should be giving their people freedom first before Iraq. Do you have any idea how women are oppressed in Saudi Arabia? They can’t even sit in the front passenger seat of a car. They have to sit in the back. They can’t drive a car. They can’t work, etc. The list goes on and on. Why aren’t we doing anything about that? Because, hell, we don’t care. We’ve already got control of their oil. Who cares if their women have freedom or not. It’s the oil we care about and stuffing fat republicans’ wallets.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:33 pmI’d be very surprised if this were true as it’s presented. There was little to no reason for Russia to be going out of their way to help Saddam like that. If anything, they were trying to do what they could to keep the situation from becoming as chaotic as Putin worried it to be (and no leader anywhere saw what was going to happen in Iraq more clearly than him).
March 24th, 2006 at 4:36 pmSaudi Arabia is no “friend†– it’s a “business relationship†– period. Are you “friends†with everyone you do business with?? Pitiful…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 24, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
“(…) the Crown Prince has been very strong in condemning the murder of U.S. citizens. (…) Right after 9/11, he was one of the strongest voices of condemnation. He understands how devious Osama bin Laden has been. He knows that — that anybody who — you know, that a strategy by some would be to split the United States and Saudi Arabia. It’s a strong and important friendship, and he knows that and I know that, and we’re not going to let that happen.”
–Remarks by the President After Meeting With Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
Bush Ranch
“Today, we renewed our personal friendship and that between our nations.(…) Our friendship begins with the recognition that our nations have proud and very distinct histories.(…)The United States recognizes we must exert great efforts to overcome obstacles facing Saudi businessmen and students who wish to enter the United States and we pledge to our Saudi friends that we will take on this effort”
March 24th, 2006 at 4:38 pm–Joint Statement by President Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah
#55
March 24th, 2006 at 4:38 pmSaddam had 15 days to come clean, not 15 years. By 2000 all Arab neigbors, France, Russia and China were ignoring sanctions. Sanctions were not working. Do I need to refresh your memory? I have the links to the stories and quotes that came out during the Clinton’s Iraq Crisis, you know I do.
I have the links to the stories and quotes that came out during the Clinton’s Iraq Crisis, you know I do.
Comment by Infinite Reach — March 24, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Is this a threat? Go ahead, post them. I’ve seem them all before.
And when you are done, mull on this: Hussein did not have WMDs, and was not “unique and gathering threat”.
Clinton did not order the invasion of Iraq. Pres Bush did.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:42 pmSure I would like to see your links. After all the ones our posted just showed what a jackass you are. Sudan is a country, Sadaam is the deposed dictator of Iraq.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:42 pmInfinite Reach,
The Duelfer report said sanctions did work, before you can ‘refresh’ other people’s memory, you might refresh yourself. Your ‘premise’ is retarded, because the administrations own reports prove you to be wrong.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:44 pm#61: Well said. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe Mighty Moron will get my point now.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:45 pmCONSIDER THE SOURCE OF THE “RUSSIA GAVE SADDAM ‘PRE-WAR’ STRATEGIC ASSISTANCE” STORY…
“Russia Gave Saddam ‘Pre-War’ Strategic Assistance”, by The Pentagon
…it sounds to me like nothing more than the Introductory Music to yet another chorus of that Old Favorite Tune of the Administration’s, as to where (and to whom) went the supposed WMD’s.
SOUNDS LIKE A THE SAME OLD TUNE TO ME, ESTABLISHING A SADDAM-RUSSIA ‘PRE-WAR’ LINK
“Russia Gave Saddam ‘Pre-War’ Strategic Assistance”, as sung by The Pentagon
March 24th, 2006 at 4:47 pmInfinitely Stupid can’t tell the difference between a ‘threat to his people’, ‘threat to his neighbors’ or ‘threat to the US’. What kind of threat are the trolls claiming? Who knows, they certainly don’t seem to.
There’s a difference between a country posing a threat and one posing a DIRE THREAT or IMMEDIATE THREAT which is what Bush claimed. Morons like Infinitely Stupid suffer from the same kind of ‘talking points spin language brain dead syndrome’ that all propagandist induced retards suffer from. They no longer can distinguish reality from hype, and ‘current’ from ‘past’ threats.
Hey Infinitely Stupid, I can pull out stuff from Vietnam, Korea and WWII/Japan/Germany that say all of those countries ‘ARE’ a threat – but that doesn’t make it so today dimwit. No more than the statements made in the 1990s bear any relevance to 2002 and what should occur there. It’s called ‘CONTEXT’, and ‘RELEVANCE’, something Reichwing Retards are infinitely incapable of recognizing.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#58- “Remember Clinton ordering smart bomb strikes in Sudan? I wonder why he did that?”
- Comment by Krazny
**** Perhaps President Clinton thought the janitor in the aspirin factory was the mastermind behind Al Quaeda?? Then again, knowing how the left HATES pharmaceutical companies…
Clinton, always looking for ways to (sort of) implement Repub policies, attempted to show that he was not “soft” on terrorism.
#59 – AD – We AGREE on SOMETHING!!!! We have a business relationship with the Saudi’s because we want to buy their oil – and they want to sell it to us. We do not care that they treat their women like second class citizens as that is a cultural and religious reality. I believe it demonstrates that all cultures are not equally valuable.
If I had my way, we would be pumping Jolly Green Giant ethanol in our cars and the Saudi’s could return to their camels and tents. Someday….
March 24th, 2006 at 4:50 pmWhat’s up with W’s administration? Why do they keep linking one country/man to another? First it was Osama, and they linked Saddam to him and now they’re linking Russia to Saddam, who’s next? I don’t get it…
March 24th, 2006 at 4:50 pmChavez is a communist.
Comment by ThinkStalinism — March 24, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
So? Is this supposed to be a character flaw, or is it against the law?
He passed a law that would make it a crime to talk jail time to speak against him.
The venezuelan media law is not more stringent than the Patriot Act, or worse than the warantless wiretapping program.
SO yes, he may have been democratically elected (but excuse me if I don’t take Jimmy Carter’s word on that), but people like you would be put in jail if you criticized him. I think that’s bad.
You don’t have to take Mr. Carter’s word on that. What about the other 400 international inspectors? Or OAS Secretary General?
As I said before, the media law is no more intrusive or restrictive than the Patriot Act.
And if Hussein was the threat you believe he was, what do you think of Russia’s Putin passing on intelligence to him? Should the US “pre-emptively” strike Russia now too?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:51 pmMighty Moron -
Read post #61. W claims Saudis are our friends. What do you say to that?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:53 pmSo which ABC report are we talking about: this one? Its a hard leap to make from this to Tony Blair’s ‘45 minutes from a chemical attack’.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pmClinton’s cabinet tried to warn Bush of the threat of terrorist attacks. reading the items that IR has linked here it is even more obvious that the clinton Admin was aware of islamic fundamentalist problems, and tried to pass that warning onto Bush.
Bush ignored the warnings until 9/11, and then used it as an excuse to invade Iraq.
If he was in charge during WWII we would have invaded china after pearl harbor after all there both asian countries right?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pmTony Blair…Oh god, he’s another moron. It’s sad to watch a grown man kiss ass to W. And funny at the same time.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:57 pmDear Infinite – You’ll soon lear that the terms “moron” and “retard” are terms of endearment. You might come to find that liberals are liberals no more – they care about no one (except themselves and those who hate GWB). They do LOVE their cornucopia of entitlements, and resent the cost of this war. I remember when progs cared about the tortured and abused of humanity – and not just those in Allied custody.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:58 pmMA when you stop acting like a child we will stop treating you like a child.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pmSo does Bush want to attack Russia now for having helped Saddam? Russia still has about 2000 nuclear missiles and bombs, so Bush cannot threaten them unless he wants a worldwide wipeout of the entire human race! We do not even have bomb shelters anymore so 99% of Americans would die in a nuke war with Russia/China!
March 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#76 MA I’m confused – these two sentences:
What entitlements in particular? Are you talking about social security, access to affordable health care, good schools, well-paid teachers, rural electrification, good roads. Seems to me those ‘entitlements’ as you call them are the people of this nation voting to care for the underpriviledged, the poor, the tortured and abused etc etc. Why do you contradict yourself? I thought you were supposed to be a high-powered lawyer – seems an elementary mistake to me.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#71 keep drinking that leftist kool aid. While you’re at it, go live under communist rule and get back to me. You people clueless to your own anti-American hatred.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:11 pmYEP, JUST AS I SUSPECTED
I just logged on over to Foxnews.com to see where they stand on the big “Russia Gave Saddam ‘Pre-War’ Strategic Assistance†story (by the Pentagon), and sure enough, there it is, as big as life, right there at the top of their page:
SADDAM’S SOURCE
Pentagon: Russia Shared Intel
…now I ask you, how eager is Foxnews to post Page 1 headlines that embarrass the President or the Administration (or anything RNC)? How eager did you say?
When does Foxnews post anything on Page 1 (or any Page at all) that isn’t more or less good-n-cheery news (if not talking points) about the President and his Administration? When was that you say?
I say consider the Source; I say it sounds like someone’s trying to establish a ‘pre-war’ Saddam-Russia link, one where Russia does all it can to assist the Poor Guy in his ‘faceoff’ with the U.S.; would that include spiriting away the pesky WMD’s for the Poor Guy? (You know what the pesky WMD’s are: they are the stuff that falsified ‘pre-war intelligence’ is made of)
So I ask you, are we about get another chorus of “The Pesky WMD’s Were Spirited Away to Russia”.
Sounds like it to me; so consider the Source; and consider that FoxNews is leading with this on the web page, Page 1….
In about 45 minutes, I’ll check to see if they’re leading their broadcast with it too.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#63 – *****PROGRESSIVE REVISION ALERT*****”And when you are done, mull on this: Hussein did not have WMDs, and was not “unique and gathering threatâ€. – GregrrrSamsa
*****BUT Clinton and the rest of the world THOUGHT HE DID!!! And if Saddam was NOT a “unique and gathering threat” why did Clinton sign the resolution that Saddam should be removed?
“On the domestic scene both conservative and liberal spokesmen voiced disappointment with President Bush’s apparent vacillation and willingness to let Saddam violate the sanctions and U.N. inspections. A group of three Democratic senators — Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry — reminded the president that the Senate had voted overwhelmingly over three years ago to authorize the military removal of Saddam Hussein, and suggested that the old “Jim Baker/Frank Carlucci realpolitik†was at work again, or as Sen. Clinton put it, “Just pump that oil and it’s O.K. with us that he does pretty much what he wants to his people.â€
Sen. Clinton went on to hammer the president, “We need leadership, not more of the same old, same old that we see with North Korea and Iran. Could I remind the president that three years ago we cited 23 reasons to remove Saddam Hussein and approved them all by a 77 vote, and that the House got nearly 300 votes in their similar resolution? And all this follows the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act passed by the Senate and signed by my husband.â€
Sen. John Kerry recalled for President Bush that over three years ago he had been on record to remove Saddam, and recited his earlier statement in the Senate issued in 2002: “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Victor Hanson
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson093005.html
March 24th, 2006 at 5:11 pmHmm.
US supplied “Freedom Fighters” in Afghan War [Reagan Covert op]
and now the Russians are helping the Iraqis.
Why It sounds like the Cold War might have resumed. Mark your Calendars.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:14 pmUh would that be because the Bush admin worked up the danger Sadaam posed, attacked anyone who did not back the invasion of Iraq, and misused the trust our country placed before GWB after 9/11.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:15 pmWell it’s good to see the repugs back to their old talking point – It’s all Clinton’s fault!!!
They conveniently forget that it was their pres who fed congress and the nation selective intell.
They conveniently forget that in 2000 and 2001 EVERYONE in this administration said Sadaam did not have wmd’s.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:15 pmkeep drinking that leftist kool aid. While you’re at it, go live under communist rule and get back to me. You people clueless to your own anti-American hatred.
Comment by ThinkStalinism — March 24, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Again: Chavez was elected. Twice. If he is a communist, Venezuelans don’t seem to mind it. And that is the only thing that matters.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:16 pmOnce again it must be nice to not have to think for yourself, form your own opinions, have someone else come up with your talking points and then just try to shout louder than those disagreeing with you.
It is hard being a democrat and forming your own opinions and allowing others to have their own opinion no matter how riduclous and uninformed.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:18 pmOh, and ThinkStalinism:
If Hussein was the threat you believe he was, what do you think of Russia’s Putin passing on intelligence to him? Should the US “pre-emptively†strike Russia now too?
Or maybe it is Clinton’s fault?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:18 pmThey hate Clinton because they know if he could run again he would kick the ass of any candidate they could find!
I also really resent being told I hate America because I am doing my constitutional duty – speaking up when I see things occurring that I do not agree with!
March 24th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#82 Er MA, apart from the references to the 1998 ILA and the 2002 resolution, this entire article is a fictionalized ‘what-if’? I note that in 1998 the Republicans controlled both houses and that the ILA: ‘the Act itself prohibits the use of U.S. Military force to achieve that aim and that the main aim of the Act was to restore access to U.N. inspectors’ (source Wikipedia).
March 24th, 2006 at 5:22 pm#61 – – The Saudi’s sent condolences – again, so what!! It’s the polite thing to do – but you have managed to encapsulate the problem with progs – “NO humour” and “Taking EVERYTHING literally”. (Too much day care as a kid????)
#70 – - Angry Dem, The message above is for you ALSO!!! Read it twice – three times, if necessary. Referring to the Saudi’s as “friends” is the same as when Repub members of the Congress or Senate refer to progs as “friends” – they are being polite, two faced – but polite.
Turtle – I must RUN – - – will get back on entitlements!!
March 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pmOh I remember when all this Started.
The Yellowcake Crew;
Rummy, Cheney, and Wolfowitz
President Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium — the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders. Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. companies, including Westinghouse and General Electric, scrambled to do business there.
‘I don’t think the issue of proliferation came up’, Henry A. Kissinger, who was President Ford’s secretary of state, said in an interview for this article”. [3]
A number of declassified documents were found on the website of the President Ford Library and Museum in Ann Arbor, Michigan [4]. Two documents in particular, dated April 22, 1975 and April 20, 1976, show that the United States and Iran held negotiations for cooperation in the use of nuclear energy and the United States was willing to help Iran by setting up uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing facilities.
National Security Study Memorandum 219, US-Iran Agreement on Cooperation in Civil Uses of Atomic Energy (March 14, 1975) [5]
National Security Decision Memorandum 292, US-Iran Nuclear Cooperation (April 22, 1975) [6] [7]
National Security Decision Memorandum 324, Negotiation of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran (April 20, 1976) [8] [9]
National Security Study Memorandum 238, U.S Policy Toward the Persian Gulf (February 13, 1976) [10]
Accordingly, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz were all involved in backing Iran’s Nuclear Program designed to extract plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. [11]
March 24th, 2006 at 5:24 pm#90 how about some quotations from some Tim LaHaye Rapture stuff? I’m sure you can get some fun fictionalized history there you can push as fact on TP.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:25 pmPosting Victor Davis Hanson as a source?
Plumbing the intellectual depths again I see.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:26 pmHey IRI can you yet say this?
Neo-Cons are Hypocritical Liars.
“Freedom Fighters” and Reagan!
Nuclear Gifts from RePIGnicans!
WMD to SADDAM
Nukes to India!
Death for AMERICAN Soldiers!
See how the Nuclear trojan Program works?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:27 pmGive them Technology then Kill them for it!
Thats IRI all right!
#91 Take your time MA – but do us the favor of posting links to real facts and not fictionalized accounts of what-ifs as if they are facts, like you did in #82….:)
March 24th, 2006 at 5:28 pmSo the defense now is we take things to literally, and don’t have a sense of humour?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:37 pm“#70 – - Angry Dem, The message above is for you ALSO!!! Read it twice – three times, if necessary. Referring to the Saudi’s as “friends†is the same as when Repub members of the Congress or Senate refer to progs as “friends†– they are being polite, two faced – but polite.
Comment by mighty aphrodite ”
So you’re saying republicans LIE for political purposes? Wow, that’s one of the few HONEST things you’ve ever written Mighty Moron. Oh, and how about that ACLU court case you lied about being a part of – is that part of the ‘friends’ lie, or do you count that as separate kind of two-faced (lie) behavior?
And aren’t you lecturing everyone on the importance of ‘honesty’, yet another moment of hypocrisy. There are so many of those opportunities with you – you know a college educated person like you ‘claim’ to be would start to have got a clue MONTHS ago. I can see that we can add ‘inability to learn’ to the growing list of failures in your character and abilities.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:54 pmthe article is vague on what channels were used to give intel to Iraq, if it is true at all.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:56 pmIf Russia seriously wanted to spice up US in Iraq, body count would be much higher.
Pentagon is known for using planted stories and desinformation. Let’s wait for Putin’s comments, if he considers the story is worth comment.
“*****BUT Clinton and the rest of the world THOUGHT HE DID!!! And if Saddam was NOT a “unique and gathering threat†why did Clinton sign the resolution that Saddam should be removed? Mighty Moron”
Yeah, and we thought Hitler had them in the 1940s, but there’s this thing called ‘time’, that changes things. You know, like the changes that occurred as a result of the BOMBING and INSPECTIONS that happened after Clinton signed that resolution? And oh yeah, he was able to contain Saddam without killing and wounding 10s of thousands of americans and spending TRILLIONS of dollars in the end.
Wow, I miss having a competent president that understands how time works. Now we’re stuck with a president and shortbus trolls like you that don’t understand ‘time’.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:57 pmBUT Clinton and the rest of the world THOUGHT HE DID!!! And if Saddam was NOT a “unique and gathering threat†why did Clinton sign the resolution that Saddam should be removed?
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 24, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
I don’t know and I really don’t care. Fact is Hussein was not the “urgent and gathering” threat Pres Bush claimed. Also, Bill Clinton did not fix “facts around the policy”.
Plus, as of March 2003 it was clear Hussein did not have WMDs; the inspectors had not found any, or even traces that Hussein’s regime was manufacturing them.
What matters is who decided to ignore the evidence in order to launch an invasion against Iraq. And that is Pres Bush.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:59 pmAnd also on #82 Mighty Moron, all that proves is the administration fabricated evidence – and you’re welcome for me correcting you. Aren’t you glad that I’m so tireless in correcting your ENDLESS streams of errors, out of context quotes, and proofs of things you didn’t mean to prove? Wow, are you sure you graduated ANY school? This kind of sloppy research would get most students kicked out of lawschool, yet another piece of proof that you aren’t a lawyer.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:59 pmTurtle – Wiki also notes that your point is still being debated – BUT the Congressional summary of the HR 4655 notes:
H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
H.R.4655
Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98)
RELATED BILLS: S.2525
SHORT TITLE(S) AS PASSED HOUSE:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS ENACTED:
Iraq Liberation Act 0f 1998
SUMMARY:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 — Passed House, amended)
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 – Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
This is not “fictional” – no matter how much you wish….
And about those “entitlements” – perhaps my evidence is a bit anecdotal here – but in my SD newspaper, there are repeated references on the Letter to the Editor page about “how much more funding for the poor, addicted, addled (or fill in your favourite)down-trodden group) we would have with out funds being diverted to Iraq. Come to think of it, I’ve seen those same sentiments expressed HERE at TP.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#101, Gregor since the ILA in 1998 specifically prohibited the use of US force to remove Saddam outside of the UN, the ILA was sinply a tool to ratchet up pressure to get UNSCOM back into Iraq to continue monitoring weapons activity…Clinton signed a limited bill handed to him by the Gingrich Congress.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:07 pmMA,
the bill you reference say it should be the policy to remove sadaam and replace him with a democratic government. It does not say we should invade Iraq.
Again I would prefer my tax money to go to help people not bomb people.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:11 pmterry the turtle 73 – this may be the abc report … it was posted by a trol yesterday, in the thinkfast thread #105…interesting that it has changed somewhat, since i bookmarked it then and the way it looks/titled today… but not the editors notes behind each section…
March 24th, 2006 at 6:11 pm*posted by a TROLL … but NOTE the editor’s notes…
March 24th, 2006 at 6:13 pmcorrection for 106
#94 – Hanson beats both Sheens hands down. (They prove that lack of intelligence can be a genetic defect.)
Turtle – Just for you!!
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.html
You’re welcome!!
March 24th, 2006 at 6:15 pm#103 MA – read what I say, don’t tell fibs – the only thing that was not fabricated in your post #82 was the reference to Clinton signing the ILA and the 2002 Iraq resolution – all that dialogue was made up! All fiction – like reading a Tim LaHaye novel – a hilarious post, absolutely hilarious.
And you can read what the ILA was actually for – funding Ahmad Chalabi’s Disneyland of Fabrication and not committing US force outside of the UN to unilaterally implemented regime change. You read too much into the ILA and forget the politics of the time.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:16 pm#108 – Come on MA – where’s your lazer-sharp lawyer’s brain on this:
Right at the bottom:
This was a handout from the PNAC to Ahmad Chalabi, nothing more – well done Ahmad, they bought your snake oil, hats off to you, or should that be turbans…
March 24th, 2006 at 6:19 pmKrazny – The Bill says what it say – you wishing upon a star doesn’t change it.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:19 pmYou’re welcome!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 24, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
That link is to a page that cannot be found. This is not the first time you include a broken link. Do you ever check your URLs before posting them?
March 24th, 2006 at 6:21 pm#108 “Hanson beats both Sheens hands down. ” Except when he’s making stuff up.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Turtle -That is the reason all those DEM (NOTE – I did not say DAMN) Senators joined in authorizing the use of force – because of limitations in ILA – as much as they’re trying to wiggle out for a primary campaign.
(Funny thing – I’ve noticed the people who tell me “How smart they are” usually aren’t.)
March 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pmMA
you are wishing upon a star. Stating that the goal is to remove Sadaam Hussien and establish democracy in Iraq, and stating that we need to invade Iraq are two very different things.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pm#112 Apparently not! Oh dear, fake posts… too funny.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:24 pmMA
so now your saying the ILA did not authorize military force? Was that a flip flop?
March 24th, 2006 at 6:25 pmFOX NEWS CHANNEL’S ‘SPECIAL REPORT W/ HUME’
Which I guess is what passes for their 6:00 ‘news’, made this Saddam-Russia ‘pre-war’ link it’s 2nd blurb up front, but didn’t get to it until after the first break, where they then ran with it:
About five minutes worth; from the pentagon; it contained a great deal from a uniformed spokesman, he was Army; it had lots of stock footage of saddam sitting at conference table, saddam on balcony, etc.; it had stock footage of Moscow, the Kremlin I believe…
The “Saddam-Russia ‘pre-war’ link” story occupied the entire broadcast between the first and second break; and again, as I’ve posted above, this is obviously an Overtune to that same Old Song about where did the WMD’s go?
This Pentagon-provided “Saddam-Russia ‘pre-war’ link” is just the noise that precedes the claim that that’s where the WMD’s went: Russia.
You know what WMD’s I’m talking about: the ones that were the subject of the Administration’s false ‘pre-war intelligence’ claims…
False ‘pre-war intelligence’ claims that are the reason for the Iraq invasion.
Stay focused all.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#114, I’m sorry MA, I can’t take you seriously anymore today….
March 24th, 2006 at 6:27 pmKrazy – So you would be content if Saddam were still in power, mass graves were still being dug and the democratically elected leader garnered 98% of the vote??
Just asking….
March 24th, 2006 at 6:30 pmI’m going to go read some Tom Clancy and see if I can post that next week.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:31 pmahh the last refuge of the cornerd troll. nice MA. trying to place me on the defensive about Sadaam being a dictator. If we were to force and gun point every country on this earth that was run by a non democratic government, we would be at it for a very long time. Also there are many countries much closer by that we could have done this too Cuba for example.
Please try to find an argument.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:35 pmThat’s OK, Turtle – I never take you seriously…The link isn’t broken – Gregrr’s abilities maybe, but not the link.
Krazy – “authorizing the removal” is “authorizing the removal” but as all good Repubs know, progs require reiteration and painstaking explanation
March 24th, 2006 at 6:36 pmMaybe some ‘Red Storm Rising’ now that Fox News is back after Putin and his boys again. Watch out – manuevers of the Soviet Navy off Iceland in response to Fox’s expose of Russian intelligence being passed to Saddam….I thought we were at peace with Eurasia though….
March 24th, 2006 at 6:40 pmGregrr’s abilities maybe, but not the link.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 24, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
No special abilities are required to click on a link, even a broken one -as in this case.
It doesn’t take any special ability to make sure it works before posting it, either.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:41 pmHere you go…ILA 1998
March 24th, 2006 at 6:41 pmKrazy – I addressed your points, but you repeatedly change the argument, (Iraq & Cuba)and/or refuse to accept evidence.I understand, I watch that “other one” do the same thing repeatedly….unsuccessfully, but repeatedly..
March 24th, 2006 at 6:42 pm#123 – Krazy – So answer the question ALREADY – Saddam in power ?? – it’s a “yes” or “no” question.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:46 pmMA,
giving how much parsing the right has been doing to explain the bush admins statements as of late, I wonder who needs reiteration and painstaking explination?
Here let me help by linking your quote from the ILA here:
Now I am going to italicize the pertinent bit:
seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power
Notice it says nothing about authorizing the use of force, or authorizing the removal of Sadaam Hussein. It says that the US shall seek to remove Saddam.
this could be through sanctions, political pressure, military force, or other options.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:46 pmand in response to 132 it is not a yes or no question and you know that.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:47 pmmighty aphrodite,
Is that like the 1990s report which cited Hutchison as a security risk for smuggling arms in to the US, and the same Hutchison that’s going to be monitoring cargo for nuclear materials coming into the US?
Funny how you seem all ‘giddy’ about old intelligence reports, except the ones that show Bush is ’soft’ on security.
Guess it’s part of that ’selective reasoning’.
Oh and as for the ‘do you prefer Saddam in power’, that’s like the old ‘do you still beat your wife’ question. The lack of creativity in it (it’s all over the blogs) wins you the Domenech award of the day for plagarism and strawman arguments.
MORON.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:50 pmGregor,
Should we expect Mighty Moron to fact check before (s)he posts – now THAT would be a first – bahaha.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:51 pmKrazny,
Mighty Aphrodite is trying to get a yes/no answer to a false predicament, as if Hussein in power or Iraq invasion were the only two options.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:51 pm#132 – Krazy – it explicitly exludes US force from the resolution…..
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .
March 24th, 2006 at 6:53 pmI fully realize the intent of the question gregor. that is the one of the final arguments of a right wing poster. It is a spurios question meant to place liberals on the defensive, and shut down debate.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#137 Krazny – sorry – naughty typo – at least I didn’t link to a fictional post…that was lucky.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:56 pmRyan,
It’s good to have you back.
And yes, having our “conservative” visitors double-check their stuff would be nice for a change. The amount of misinformation is simply staggering…
March 24th, 2006 at 6:57 pmNo harm Terry =)
March 24th, 2006 at 7:00 pmTerry,
Just to preempt a “aha! there is a provision that allows the use of force!” from MA, the provision Sec. 8 alludes to is:
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
Nope, no invasion and occupation there either…
March 24th, 2006 at 7:01 pm#142 – $97m – wonder how many trips to Monaco Ahmed and the boys got off that?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:03 pm#142 – that’s a lot of rentals for Chuck Norris films though.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:04 pmIt seems that no one has mentioned that
THE CIA ATTACKED THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR’S CONVOY DURING THE INVASION PHASE, firing on the convoy, and seriously wounding his driver — WHICH IS AN ACT OF WAR.
At first CENTCOM said they didn’t do it; then they said it was the Aussies; then they admitted it was the CIA; then they said it was all a mistake. Wow, they make a lot of mistakes.
I’ll have to dig up the articles again (on the other computer).
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/russ-a10.shtml
March 24th, 2006 at 7:15 pmIn fact,
The Clinton Administration were there “others” describing the relation ship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
#65
The Duelfer report said sanctions did work, before you can ‘refresh’ other people’s memory, you might refresh yourself. Your ‘premise’ is retarded, because the administrations own reports prove you to be wrong.
Wrong.
“From the evidence available through the actions and statements of a range of Iraqis, it seems clear that the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible—within the vital constraint that no action should threaten the prime objective of ending international sanctions and constraints. Saddam continued to see the utility of WMD. He explained that he purposely gave an ambiguous impression about possession as a deterrent to Iran. He gave explicit direction to maintain the intellectual capabilities. As UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation. He directed that ballistic missile work continue that would support long-range missile development. Virtually no senior Iraq; believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:08 pmInfinite Reach,
Your reading comprehension is as lame as your arguments. The Duelfer Report showed that Saddam had been contained, and what you’ve posted is ’speculation’ as the the mind of Saddam and not the status of the WMDs themselves.
What a MORON.
Saddam had been shut down, what he ‘wanted’ to do isn’t relevant – the only relevant point was what he was CAPABLE of doing, which was hiding in a cave.
You guys are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:14 pmSanctions were working!!!
Wrong.
“1998—End of Inspections. The patience and utility of cooperating with the Security Counciland the UN inspectors were diminishing in the view of Baghdad during the course of 1998. The potential of the inspection process leading to a formal lifting of sanctions by the Security Council was seen as diminishing. The approach of eroding the constraints of sanctions until they collapsed appeared more promising. Certainly the fl ow of imports and revenues was growing.
The divisions in the Security Council were greater between the United States and the United Kingdom on one side and France and Russia on the other. (Iraq encouraged competition between France and Russia to do more to support Baghdad.)
At the same time, Baghdad viewed the domestic controversies in the United States as indicating, if not weakness, certainly a distraction to the White House. During the summer of 1998, when UNSCOM surfaced its concern over the evidence it found that Iraq had, contrary to its declarations,weaponized VX in missile warheads,(REMEMBER THE INFAMOUS VX REPORT? REMEMBER IRAQII VX FOUND IN SUDAN? REMEMBER OPERTAION INFINITE REACH?) Baghdad appears to have concluded that there was no prospect of satisfying the inspection teams. Cooperation with UNSCOM was seen as a trap, not a path to ending sanctions. Baghdad ended full cooperation in August and began a series of confrontations with the UN that aimed at bringing its dialogue to the Secretary General and Security Council directly, and marginalizing UNSCOM. Baghdad was largely successful in drawing the Secretary General into the controversy and causing France and Russia to take fi rmer positions on its behalf. Ultimately, Iraq did not fully cooperate with UNSCOM in a test period of renewed inspection activity during December 1998. The United States and United Kingdom reacted militarily with a circumscribed bombing campaign that took place between the time President Clinton completed a previously scheduled visit to Israel and the beginning of Ramadan, about four days later.”
The UN Security Council struggled for a year to find a new consensus on Iraq. Finally, after much debate they passed a new resolution in December 1999 (UNSCR 1284). It included (largely at Russian insistence) language about the suspension and ultimate lifting of sanctions. Nevertheless, Iraq ignored its demands and also paid no further consequences. Clearly their strategy was to erode sanctions, and they saw no need to accept a new set of inspectors.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:15 pmSanctions were working according to Duelfer!
Sorry, you’re wrong.
“2000—The End is in Sight. By 2000, the erosion of sanctions accelerated. The semi-annual debates over the renewal of sanctions in the Security Council became the forum for Iraqi proponents to argue the case for relaxing sanctions further. Out of concern that this pillar of containment policy was about to collapse, the United States (under a new administration) proposed “Smart Sanctions†in early 2001.”
March 24th, 2006 at 8:18 pm#65
The Duelfer report said sanctions did work, before you can ‘refresh’ other people’s memory, you might refresh yourself. Your ‘premise’ is retarded, because the administrations own reports prove you to be wrong.
Sorry, sweet tits, you’re lying Lyin’ Neat.
KEY FINDINGS
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign
intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and
jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly cameto see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:26 pmthis still does not make the case for invasion. The White House claimed that Saddam not only would be producing chemical, biologicial, and nuclear weapons within months? But also that Saddam would transfer these weapons to terrorist regimes. If the best case you can make is Saddam kept the intellectual links needed to rebuild his WMD program then you have failed to make your point.
You have also discounted the possibility that the problems with the OFF program would have been located before the sanctions were dropped, and UN intervention would have put Saddam back at square one. I only put this forward, because hey if were going to make up stuff why not.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:56 pmThis is our Afghanistan and Russia’s saying–hey, payback’s a biatch. what a bummer = (
March 24th, 2006 at 9:24 pmseems to me the US backed Bin Laden over that one. Now the Russians backed Hussein. Hmmm. weird.
Bush, the moron who, with great hubris, looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, has a Sec. of State who specialized in the study of Russia, thought he was winning Putin as a friend and confidant. Some of us old enough to remember things a little differently were worried about Bush’s incautious approach. Why didn’t Rice advise him differently? How competent is she?
March 24th, 2006 at 9:25 pmPutin is a former KGB man who plays the game with strategy and finesse.
We have a president who plays the game with strategery and fecklessness.
Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Comment by Infinite Reach — March 24, 2006
Or at least make it appear that way to his fundamentalist Muslim neighbors and that’s really all that you can prove, isn’t it?
March 24th, 2006 at 9:42 pmthis still does not make the case for invasion. The White House claimed that Saddam not only would be producing chemical, biologicial, and nuclear weapons within months? But also that Saddam would transfer these weapons to terrorist regimes.
krazny
Not “would” transfer.
According to Thomas Pickering, George Tenent, Bill Richardson, William Cohen and Richard Clarke. Iraq did supply VX to al Qaeda in Sudan. That’s why Clinton bombed al Shifa and the al Qaeda Camps simultaneously in August 1998, then bombed Iraq after confirmation (The VX Report) they were hiding their VX after claiming it was accounted for.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:45 pm#46 Just an explanatory comment: Spain is a Parliamentary Kingdom (against the idiotic coments of Jeb Bush talking about the Republic of Spain) with a democracy. Our Congress and Senate decide our laws, as in your country.
March 24th, 2006 at 11:08 pm#106, 107 – Katy sorry not to respond to your kind answer to my query until now. Appreciate your perspective back to the earlier report. It looks like the papers coming out of the invasion are telling some interesting tales both in the raw and how the media is pushing it out to the public, keeping tabs on it is going to be a challenge.
#147 Infinite, I think you have it – the WMD dance was all about Iran and remaining a strong man in the muslim world. He was desperate to keep the illusion that he had the WMD, else his position vis-a-vis the Iranians was weak. I think he miscalculated vis-a-vis the US. And here we are – the Iranians got the US to do what it wanted for them….
#149 Sanctions were working – wrong? Then why does Colin ’shit doesnt stick to me’ Powell and Condi ‘what PDB?’ Rice say otherwise? Check the video – the text doesn’t do it for me
March 24th, 2006 at 11:57 pmI think that BushCo is pissed off at Russia for offering nuclear assistance to IRAN, and hence undercutting their “They’ll have bombs any minute now!” assertions. Russia is big enough to keep BushCo at bay, and BushCo knows it. So now they need to make Russia “The Bad Guy”, and they will attemot to blame Russia for the miserable failure they have been in Iraq. I can hear it now, It’s all Russias fault, they tattled on us, and NOW they are helping Iran! It would be so like them to do it. It is always someone else’s fault. Jerks.
March 25th, 2006 at 1:20 amInfinite Reach is rolling out the Pentagon line.
Don’t forget — You get an Iraqi Ear or Testicle trophy with every order.
And a Certificate of Authenticity, signed by Donald Rumsfeld.
March 25th, 2006 at 5:16 amIts not a case of democrat or republican your all being fooled there as bad as each other their game is to make you vote one or the other, nothing ever changes nothing gets better, they keep you voting while a hundred years later your children will go threw the same shit , get it,
you need a completely different approach like a liberal goverment
March 25th, 2006 at 7:04 amOn Friday, one of my classes chose to veer the discussion of class (hydrology) off onto Politics. So, of course, I gave them the ammunition :). After all, the future they are facing is going to be a challenge. Especially as the population is expected to double by the year 2030, and all the potable water we have is already polluted and being consumed by industry.
I then told them that according to the current deficit that they each owed the government about $30K each to pay the spending bill. That we all do. Freaked some of them out. So I then told them not to be afraid, but pro-active – and, that if they wanted, they could write our elected representatives and tell them what they think… I’ll provide the opportunity on Monday.
Let’s hope that some of those seeds grow.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:54 amDear Unbelievable – Will you be editing and fact checking your students letters?? I’m positive you are the type of diligent teacher who does not promote her own politics in classroom discussions – your bedrock fairness dictates you present both sides to an issue.
March 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pmThe Press is getting played on this story. How come no one seems at all interested that the Russians would be able to get the US secret strategy from a completely secure room, the US Centcom Command Center?
Anyone notice all the stories that have been popping up about how bad Russia is lately? The American public is being prepped for “Russia the Bad Guy” part 2. I have family in Russia, and have been to Russia a lot. It is nothing like the Soviet days, and there is still a press that reports negative things about Putin and his government. The Russian Government did take over Channel One, but there is still NTV. Channel One is no worse than FOX here.
One other thing, the 1990’s was not some great exercise in Democracy for Russia, it was about a few taking all the resources for themselves. Robber Barons on steroids. THe power and wealth of the Oligarchs has been brought under some control under Putin.
THis is not to say Putin and his cronies are a bunch of saints, but they are not the second coming of Stalin either.
This has a lot to do with Russia holding the G8 this summer and little to do with Iraq. It has everything to do with Iran and trying to contain growing Russian influence in central Asia, and nothing to do with some great betrayal.
Just watch, the screws will be put to Putin to concede something or make some statement, if he does not President Bush will not go to the G8 Summit and use this “Spy Scandal” as a pretext.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:18 pm“Dear Unbelievable – Will you be editing and fact checking your students letters?? I’m positive you are the type of diligent teacher who does not promote her own politics in classroom discussions – your bedrock fairness dictates you present both sides to an issue.
Comment by mighty aphrodite ”
I nearly rolled over laughing when I read this. You talking about ‘fact checking’? The ‘queen’ of broken links, failed ‘facts’ and bitter resentment of those ’smarter’ and ‘better educated’ than yourself. Bahaha. And you know, the only thing ‘fair’ is to point out that ‘opinion’ cited by republicans are not ‘facts’, and therefore elevating these ‘opinions’ to be an opposing ’side’ is inherently ‘unfair’. Yet it’s the sort of ’special treatment’ that republicans expect for their ignorant and uneducated opinions daily. You don’t want ‘equal treatment’ mighty moron, you want ’special treatment’.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:22 pmDear Unbelievable – Will you be editing and fact checking your students letters?? I’m positive you are the type of diligent teacher who does not promote her own politics in classroom discussions – your bedrock fairness dictates you present both sides to an issue.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 25, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Unlike you, I think we are overprotecting children to their detriment. Uh-oh, might cause Susie to think if we tell her the truth – so we don’t do that.
I don’t need to check their letters. They write better than you and are quite capable of presenting their own ideas, not the talking points of someone else.
The idea is to get them interested in what is going on in their world. To know what their elected officials are doing with their future. To get them to vote or run for office because they want to grow up in a world without so much hate and destruction. If you actually had children, you’d know that at this age, they are hopeful. There’s a chance for them to find positive resolutions to the futures awaiting them. I have hope that they will. But I supose that that is the difference between us – I’m actually doing something and you’re just whining like an obedient little neocon. Grow up.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:43 pmYou don’t want ‘equal treatment’ mighty moron, you want ’special treatment’.
Comment by Ryan Neat — March 25, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
There really isn’t any individuality among them is there? I have students with parents just like this who whine to the Administration that the information I am presenting their child is difficult. How dare I challenge them to actually learn something useful and start to think instead of sit, speak, roll-over. Much rather have that impressive A and no education than a B and valuable knowledge… Our priorities are so screwed up we’ll be lucky if we survive this phase in our own history.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:46 pmWarning, Magda, there is science below:
Earth’s warming likely irreversible, scientists say
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Within the next 100 years, the growing human influence on Earth’s climate could lead to a long and irreversible rise in sea levels by eroding Earth’s vast polar ice sheets, according to new observations and analysis by several teams of scientists.
One team, using computer models of climate and ice, found that by about 2100, average temperatures could be 4 degrees warmer than today and that over the coming centuries, the world’s oceans could rise 13 to 20 feet — conditions last seen 130,000 years ago, between the last two ice ages.
The findings, being reported today in the journal Science, are consistent with other recent studies of melting and erosion at the poles. Many experts say there are still uncertainties about timing, extent and causes.
But Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, a lead author of one of the studies, said the new findings made a strong case for the danger of failing to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
“If we don’t like the idea of flooding out New Orleans, major portions of South Florida, and many other valued parts of the coastal U.S., we will have to commit soon to a major effort to stop most emissions of carbon to the atmosphere,” he said.
According to the computer simulations, the global nature of the warming from greenhouse gases, which diffuse around the atmosphere, could amplify the melting around Antarctica beyond that of the last warm period, which was driven mainly by extra sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere.
The researchers also said that stains from dark soot drifting from power plants and vehicles could hasten melting in the Arctic by increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed by ice.
The future rise in sea levels, driven by loss of ice from both Greenland and West Antarctica, would occur over many centuries and be largely irreversible, but could be delayed by curbing emissions of the greenhouse gases, said Overpeck and his fellow lead author, Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/264196_meltdown24.html?dpfrom=thead
March 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pmhttp//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010618.html
”And to President Bush. Did President Putin ease your concern at all about the spread of nuclear technologies by Russia, and is this a man that Americans can trust?
PRESIDENT BUSH Yes. Do you want to go first? ”
———
(Bush) ”And today has been a very constructive day. Everybody is trying to read body language — mark me down as very pleased with the progress and the frank discussion. We will meet again in July, then later in the fall. Then we’ll have the great Crawford, Texas Summit. And I believe that people who watch carefully our relationship will see that it grows and emerges. It starts with trust. Ron asked a great question can I trust him? And I can. And from that basis we can begin a very fruitful relationship.”
March 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pmWhen I taught, I had four rules:
March 25th, 2006 at 7:56 pmDon’t let me opine.
Teach only the facts.
Don’t force religion on anyone.
Let the students opine.
That was easy because I only taught physics and math (And Comp Sci).
CAN YOU IMAGINE PUTIN, THE OLD KGB HAND, SIZING UP THE CHIMP AT THEIR FIRST MEETING?
HE MUST HAVE BEEN LICKING HIS LIPS AS HE THOUGHT: “I’LL HAVE THIS IDIOT FOR BREAKFAST.”
March 25th, 2006 at 9:11 pm