Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) Calls Out Cheney For Continuing To Push Faulty Intelligence
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) Calls Out Cheney For Continuing To Push Faulty Intelligence
The Bush administration continues to falsely link Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 hijackers. On Sunday, Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, asked Vice President Cheney if he still believed 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta ever met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. Cheney replied:
We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm…
But in fact, we do know. Today Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) wrote to Cheney and pointed out at least four reports that have concluded the meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer never took place:
Just last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that cites multiple declassified intelligence assessments, some from as early as mid-2002, reporting evidence that the meeting did not occur. In addition, the 9/11 Commission concluded that “[t]he available evidence does not support the original Czech report” of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi officer.
There are also classified assessments on this topic from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, dated 20 March 2006 and 27 April 2006, respectively.
The evidence is now public and the facts undisputed that the Prague meeting never happened. There was no provable link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda prior to 9/11.
During the same interview, Cheney also continued to falsely cite terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as the link between pre-war Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Lies lies lies.
Sooner or later people are gonna call you on your bullsh!t.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:39 pmWe should all have pity for poor Dick Cheney. Imagine having to see that mug in the mirror every morning for the rest of your life.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:44 pmCould the rest of the Democratic Party join her on this?
Time for the ‘opposition party’ to oppose something…
September 12th, 2006 at 5:44 pmAlways the same scoul in the Cheney pics.
So Cheney knows things are going on but just can’t prove it. His intuition tells him so. Ok I have a lot of intuition on things going on I can’t prove too, do I get to legitimize them?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pmYou have to hand it to Jane. She has more balls than Darth Cheney!
September 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pmThese neocons are pathological liars which means that they eventually believe their own lies.
More important, though, is Chris Matthews’ latest piece that the Saudi’s knew about the plans for 9/11 before the fact. I hope Think Progress will bring it to us for everyone to see.
Maybe Bush Sr.’s association with those Saudi’s in the Carlisle Group needs more scrutiny; after all, they were in NY on 9/10 and 9/11 and were secretly flown out when air space was closed. Seems like a plausible beginning for some investigative work to me.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:48 pmAnd of course when Russert brought up the Senate Intelligence committee report, Cheney said he hadn’t seen it. Come on, even if he hadn’t read the entire thing, someone must have at least briefed him on the fact this it disputes his prior talking points. What a bastard!
September 12th, 2006 at 5:52 pmYou know, when I posted this last night, I never realized that it would create such an uproar. At first, I thought maybe I should’ve warned people about the graphic images (as I usually do when I use them) but I’d decided that doing so would rob this photo montage of what really happened on 9/11, and what we should never forget, of its emotional power and shock effect. It’s actually cost me a regular reader.
So if I offend anyone, I apologize in advance. Yet at the same time, I do not apologize for this montage from Hell.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:02 pmThe movie ‘LIAR LIAR’…..oh please let this happen to him so we can all hear him say…”What do I care Timmy, I have more Halliberton stock than GOD!”.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:02 pmMy guess is that he would respond to Rep Harman’s letter with the same thing he told Russert, “I’m not buying it.” When he did that, it reminded me of how Stephen Colbert reacts when a fact is pointed out that disputes what he’s saying, “It doesn’t mean I have to believe it.” This is exactly how Dick Cheney (who once shot a 78-year-old man in the face and then sent his friend out to lie about it, which is another thing Russert could have nailed him on but didn’t) handles the “inconvenient truth”. He just refuses to accept that he’s wrong. How do you non-violently get the point across to someone, especially someone as powerful and evil as Cheney, that he is wrong?
September 12th, 2006 at 6:05 pmIf Jane Harman is actually confronting Cheney, next will be Liberman… my head is spinning. Isn’t Harman one of the Democrats that was informed of the NSA warrantless spying and did not challenge it?
September 12th, 2006 at 6:07 pmthis is a good smackdown of cheney. but I have once question. How do you prove something “never happened”?
I always thought it was next to impossible to prove the absence of something like that.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:09 pmMaybe Bush Sr.’s association with those Saudi’s in the Carlisle Group needs more scrutiny; after all, they were in NY on 9/10 and 9/11 and were secretly flown out when air space was closed. Seems like a plausible beginning for some investigative work to me.
Comment by sunshine
More than that, notonly the Carlisle group, but PNAC members, Halliburton.
Something that never was fully investigated was that Atta was training at a avaiation school in florida, owned by 2 friends of Jeb Bush. One of the owners was busted smuggling 54 pounds of coke, touted as the largest bust ever in Florida. Charges were dropped, the guys didnt lose their license
So Atta ended training to fly there, then right before 911, was seen partying on a Sun Cruise boat, which was owned by Abramhof, who became owner after the original owner was gunned down in a mob style hit other things.
Yes, alot of things do not add up and the investigations have all been stopped by the current administration.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:16 pmAnd of course when Russert brought up the Senate Intelligence committee report, Cheney said he hadn’t seen it.
Like how Tony Snow didn’t want to discuss the specifics of the report but was sure that the opposite of what it said was true. They have the most convenient cases of amnesia.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:18 pmHow do you non-violently get the point across to someone, especially someone as powerful and evil as Cheney, that he is wrong?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — September 12, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
An indictment, and then a verdict of guilty?
September 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pm“We don’t know that there aren’t any unicorns in Central Park… I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm that there are… yet nobody has been able to confirm that there aren’t… so right now we just don’t know… the jury is still out.”
-Dick Cheney
September 12th, 2006 at 6:26 pmHow do you non-violently get the point across to someone, especially someone as powerful and evil as Cheney, that he is wrong?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
A shot in the face while hunting.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:29 pm#11, Snoop: In some cases you can prove that something “never happened”, such as a watertight alibi. Even more, in such cases as the Czech intelligence report it is for them to prove that a meeting occured as they are the ones claiming it did. The next question for the right honorable reporter would be, “Where is your evidence, Mr. Cheney?” Bite and keep on biting, don’t let go.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:31 pmWe don’t know that there aren’t any unicorns in Central Park…
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — September 12, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
Not only hysterical, but if that comment doesn’t make the point, I don’t know what would…
September 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pm#11 snoop: Maybe because they knew it was made-up bullshit to begin with.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pm…Yes, alot of things do not add up and the investigations have all been stopped by the current administration.
Comment by Wayne — September 12, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
ooo, wayne… that’s a big ol’ bite…
September 12th, 2006 at 6:35 pmdon’t suppose you can source any of that?
nothing sounds unbeliveable, but those kinds of things need cited…
just sayin’…
nothing sounds unbeliveable, but those kinds of things need cited…
just sayin’…
Comment by katy — September 12, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
Being passive-agressive doesn’t make you any less obnoxious.
By the way, it’s spelled unbelievable…
September 12th, 2006 at 6:38 pm“Failure and accountability” should be the message from here on out. Closing should be “we will hold the administration’s hand for the next two years, to make America safe”.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:40 pmJust look at that picture….. looks mighty power hungry and corrupt
to me. Just shows you what the members of the most elite,
honesty and integrity which we are suppose to put our trust
into people like that????
ALL OF THEM ARE CROOKS… JEFFERSON, HASTERT, BOEHNER,
September 12th, 2006 at 6:42 pmDELAY, CUNNINGHAM… THE LIST GOES ON & ON
Meet President Cheney, the BIG LIE!
September 12th, 2006 at 6:43 pm#12 Wayne: Nice to know you can research and read. Now if you and the rest of us could only get the rest of America to do the same thing. They would be appalled and the only way Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc. could get out of the country (to escape prosecution, of course, which is what they deserve) is on one of those free-fly-anytime Saudi jets.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:45 pmHere we go again. The left-wing kooks continue to recycle old news and as if it were new. Really, who cares if Cheney is trying to pitch the Al Qaida-Saddam link? The answer is……… nobody. Of course Bush and Cheney will never admit that there was no link. At this point, the preponderance of the evidence would suggest there was no link. But, IT IS NOT PROVABLE BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT, which is why Bush and Cheney will never admit that there was no real cooperation between Al Qaida and Saddam. But like I said, who cares? Why don’t you kook liberal wackos jump on the wagon and help support the winning team? (that’s us AMERICANS, but sometimes you traitorous dogs seem to forget which team you belong too). Splitting hairs about a link that may or may not exist is irrelevant to the current situation in Iraq. Support the war, please. Hundreds of thousands of US Servicemen are sick of your bitching.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:49 pmMeet President Cheney, the BIG LIE!
Comment by theswan
Oh Dear Lord Don’t Even Think That!!!
That one sentence gave my a serious case of the heebee- jeebee’s!
(I need a shower!)
September 12th, 2006 at 6:56 pmThis is really totally SICK, the VP liying to we the people? What ? Thank God for the congresswomen!
September 12th, 2006 at 7:01 pmNow, what the f…, it’s always the women who are out front. The congressmen apparently hide behind ..money? Fear? Being disinfrancised? lost in crazed political world???
Where are those brave defenders of our LIBERTY?
#20
read http://www.madcowprod.com/
and it was heroin, not coke, my bad on that
Daniel Hopsicker has been writing on the cia blackbag ops connections with the drug cartels for years. He connects the dots pretty well.
Add to that, Able Danger’s personel knew Atta was in Florida, and were told to leave him alone by the higher ups in the military and not to warn the FBI ( fact )
Something very fishy was going on in Jeb’s back yard
Jeb is one of the founders of PNAC, by the way.
There are more, but I am still at work,no time atm. Do some research on your own
September 12th, 2006 at 7:03 pmComment by unbelievable — September 12, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
huh? girl, you are just plain weird… and mean…
September 12th, 2006 at 7:12 pmnot sure where you wanted to go with that, but i’m not followin’…
So, if I disagree with Bush’s policies, it means I am a traitorous dog? That is an incredibly un-American sentiment. You would feel more comfortable in China where dissent is equated with treason.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:12 pmOh, #31 is directed at #26.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:13 pm#17 JFH “Even more, in such cases as the Czech intelligence report it is for them to prove that a meeting occured as they are the ones claiming it did.”
True dat. good point.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:19 pmthat’s us AMERICANS, but sometimes you traitorous dogs seem to forget which team you belong too). Splitting hairs about a link that may or may not exist is irrelevant to the current situation in Iraq. Support the war, please. Hundreds of thousands of US Servicemen are sick of your bitching.
Comment by A Real American Cheese
Why would you want traitors to support the war? Wouldn’t that de-legitimize it to all the non-traitors?
September 12th, 2006 at 7:20 pmThere are more, but I am still at work,no time atm. Do some research on your own
Comment by Wayne — September 12, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
thanks for that link, wayne… of course i could do my own research, just that you were throwing that info out there like you had easy access to it, so i asked… like i said, nothing unbelievable about any of it – i put nothing past these criminals – just always looks more credible with a link or two…
September 12th, 2006 at 7:21 pm…
test
September 12th, 2006 at 7:23 pmNP, Katy =)
another good site to check out is http://www.oldamericancentury.org/
LOTS of good info and links there.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:25 pmWhat happened to this exchange:
RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
Lying piece of sh*t.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:25 pmAnd what gets greater news coverage? Cheney’s flagrant lies, on Sunday morning MTP, or Jane Harmon’s contradictions later, with the facts on her side?
September 12th, 2006 at 7:27 pmThis is another example of how they do it – they get the coverage – so what if they lie? The words are out there, and that’s their goal.
w professes t be “therealamerican” too.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:28 pmWe’ll consider you just an ordinary con. What a distinction.
It’s obviously to late for you. Cash out.
Dunno about you, but I was brought up that people who have real integrity aren’t afraid to admit that they’re wrong. Being unable to admit it is evidence of moral and intellectual cowardice. He knows he’s wrong but he’s not man enough to admit it. It’s that simple.
He’s a coward.
Hear that, trolls? He’s a coward. Pure and simple. And a bad shot who hunts canned game and doesn’t look before he shoots. That’s your man.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:29 pmNote the reposts here by the right wing nutz. The whole point of the article is that NO LINK exists, and then they poo-poo the entire arguement as unimportant – which is hilarious since 2700 American boys and girls DIED in this little unimportant miscalculatuion and we are spending 30 billion dollars a month on this little unimportant hair-splitting difference of opinion. But then they go right on and insist there “could be a link, we’ll never know”. Ah the frickin point of the article is every reputable source – CIA, FBI, etc all say THERE IS NO LINK, not “we’ll never know”, THERE IS NO LINK. So either you call Cheney a liar or stupid, your choice, but pick one.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:29 pmBTW
September 12th, 2006 at 7:31 pmCheney is off campaigning for a representative who once attacked his wife with a shotgun. Cheney must find like company with people who are reckless with firearms.
huh? girl, you are just plain weird… and mean…
not sure where you wanted to go with that, but i’m not followin’…
Comment by katy — September 12, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
Hardly. You just aren’t as slick as you think you are. No matter how much you deny your passive-aggressive behavior, and then try to play the victim when you’re called out, you’re still transparent, and immature.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:43 pmIraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Period.
Time to print out bumper stickers or use your handy puff pen markers on your car to get this message across since our fleaders continue to lie about it.
Also remember to vote for Democrats this November.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:46 pmSo Jane Harman is pointing at 4 reports proving a negative?
September 12th, 2006 at 7:51 pmIraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Period.
Comment by Susan — September 12, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
The latest talking point among Bush supporters seems to be “But, Saddam needed to go.”
I had a disagreement with two co-workers who said that Saddam defintely had WMDs. I said “Oh, really. An angry mob is coming toward your house and you are going to hide your shot gun in the closet?” The response was (see above).
So I said “You know this because you’ve been to Iraq? I know people from Iraq. They say that Saddam was better than this chaotic nightmare their country has become.” The response was (see above). I left. Today, one of them was reading the Bible (with Armageddon coming and all). I swear they are on the verge of having Bible Study in the workroom…. Blind faith on every level, I suppose.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:55 pmCheney would no doubt blame the Titanic sinking on the Saddam-Osama relationship too.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:59 pmSo Jane Harman is pointing at 4 reports proving a negative?
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
No… Cheney is pointing at zero reports to prove a positive!
September 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pmThey say that Saddam was better than this chaotic nightmare their country has become.â€
I’m guessing they aren’t kurds from Halabja
September 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pmIraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Period.
Comment by Susan
I think bumperstickers with “google PNAC” would be a good idea also. Let them open their own eyes.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:04 pmThis guy is the most obstinate, bald-faced liar I have ever seen.
I mean, how the hell can you so blatantly LIE LIE LIE in front of the camera so much? Hell has a special place reserved…
September 12th, 2006 at 8:09 pmNo… Cheney is pointing at zero reports to prove a positive!
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — September 12, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
I never disputed that, I was asking how we in “FACT DO KNOW” (That the meeting never took place)
But in fact, we do know. Today Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) wrote to Cheney and pointed out at least four reports that have concluded the meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer never took place:
Quoted from this article.
I just guess I am a little more restrictive at what I consider a FACT than some.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:11 pmNo, I think the Titanic was Clinton’s fault…
September 12th, 2006 at 8:11 pmTESTING – my last comment got eaten, first time this ever happened to me. And kind of odd considering on a previous thread I mentioned that I had never had any problems, what an hour ago? What gives?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:14 pmPhew, there it is… I was worried, seeing the NSA under my bed for a minute there…
September 12th, 2006 at 8:15 pmHonestly talk about spin, who takes:
“[t]he available evidence does not support
and turns it into:
But in fact, we do know
September 12th, 2006 at 8:19 pm“Clinton was responsible for the sinking of the Titanic and there may or may not be evidence to support this.” – Dick Cheney
September 12th, 2006 at 8:20 pmI never disputed that, I was asking how we in “FACT DO KNOW†(That the meeting never took place)
I just guess I am a little more restrictive at what I consider a FACT than some.
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Dear Tunda – one can never prove a negative!
Instead of worrying about why Harman can’t prove a negative – why don’t you start worrying about why Cheney can’t prove the positive assertion that he has made without any evidence… and that incidentally is part of the justification for the current citation that is getting American troops killed?
Cone on… support our troops… make sure our politicians only deploy them with reason… verifiable reason!
P.S. See post 15 if you have problems understanding why negatives can’t be proven.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:40 pmThe Clintonistas told us that their was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Were they lying?
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€
September 12th, 2006 at 8:41 pmMore lies from the Clintonistas?
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.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:43 pmFrom the man who put OBL’s family on a plane for a quick exit from the US…
Richard 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.”
September 12th, 2006 at 8:47 pmHmm, wasn’t George Bush asking Saddam Hussein to “prove a negative” when he demanded that he give up the WMDs that he DIDN”T HAVE?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:47 pm#26 Jingoistic American
Since you started the lawyer talk, wouldn’t you agree that the burden of proof is on the government to make the case that there was a link? Otherwise, you need to prove to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that there’s no link between you and Al Qaeda.
Um…because war isn’t football?
Sorry, you don’t get to decide who’s an American. And every American who posts on this site is as proud of their citizenship (perhaps not their government) as you. So you can cut that out.
Aren’t you at all upset that you were played for a fool? We were told that Saddam was going to provide terrorists with WMD. We were told that Americans needed to die to get him out of power. Now we know that not only where there no WMD, Saddam was no more likely to give them to terrorists than we were. The whole thing was PNAC’s pipe dream, and packaged so as to be palatable to a citizenry wounded by tragedy. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a lie?
Hundreds of millions of US Americans are sick of this unjust and immoral war.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:49 pmwhy do the 30% of cultist who still support this lying adminstration
September 12th, 2006 at 8:52 pmalways fall back on “but Clinton, or Pickering”.
WHo gives a rats ass? – they did not plunge is into this insane quagmire.
We are discussing the lying asshole Cheney – stop the non-sequitors
allready you blind fools!!!!!
Was William Cohen lying?
On November 16, 1997 Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC’s This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax “would destroy at least half the population” of Washington, D.C. Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. “One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days.” And he noted that Iraq “has had enormous amounts” of anthrax. Cohen also spoke on the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: “One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such — one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.” And he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill “millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms.”
September 12th, 2006 at 8:53 pmAmbassador Bill Richardson, in an appearance on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,†on August 30, 1998.
Comment by Glad, damn glad
Its my understanding Bill Richardson is really one of your boys Glad. I don’t care if he’s a Dem. Do I have to go find lots of “proof”, or do you already know this?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:56 pmDear G.W,
First off I am painfully aware that you can’t prove a negative. That is my point. You may try to redirect whatever you want. I just expected something along honest reporting on this blog (Which they normally do pretty good). This specific article is poorly written and does not do the Progressive movement any justice, unless it’s purpose is to spread misinformation.
the facts undisputed that the Prague meeting never happened.
Undisputed negative facts now. You can feel free to deny that this specific article is garbage or not. The article could have been informative and said ‘Jane Harman, wrote a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney and here is what she said. I have taken the time to get you links to the specific reports she referenced”. Instead this article claims something that is not written, of course several members take it as “true” and run with it (All the while thinking they are the educated ones). Keep drinking the Kool-Aid handed down and use articles like this for your “knowledge”.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:57 pmCheney on going to war with Iraq: “If on 9/11 they’d had a nuke instead of an airplane, you’d have been looking at a casualty toll that would rival all the deaths in all the wars fought by Americans in 230 years. That’s the threat we have to deal with, and that drove our thinking in the aftermath of 9/11 and does today.”
Yeah and if Ann Coulter had nukes instead of a sharp tongue you can imagine the casualties, so I guess since that’s the threat we have to deal with…
September 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pmDammit, Harman! Cheney knows what he believes. Don’t go confusing him with things like facts. It messes up the “be afraid” narrative.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:00 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
Clinton, lying about Iraq’s WMD’s:
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.”
He asked Americans to not to view the current crisis as a “replay” of the Gulf War in 1991.
Instead, “think 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.”
September 12th, 2006 at 9:00 pmAnd the republofascist wackos are off and running…what about Farctus Garvey he said Clinton personally pumped Monica with Iraqi anthrax he had obtained from an Al Qa’ida operative while watching Saddam sign a blood oath with Osama all while being taped by Dick Cheney.
The massive stupidity it takes to get Bush and Cheney to play you for a fool, steal everything from you including your pension/social security/your son or daughter and you guys are still apologists for guys that wouldn’t think twice about screwing you right up your ass and then stealing your wallet.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:07 pm#72
September 12th, 2006 at 9:09 pmOh I get it. It is ok that the VP lied – Clinton and his adminstration
Lied. Never mind tens of thousands of innocent people died
as a result of the current Fascist lies. Never mind that hundreds
of American soldiers dies for nothing and thousands effectively have
had their lives detroyed for NOTHING.
you are simply evil – and I do hope you drop dead and
those like you before you complete the destruction of
our democracy.
someone needs to shoot him in the face…like, now.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:10 pmI’m guessing they aren’t kurds from Halabja
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Actually one of them is a Kurd. His brother was gassed by Saddam, and is now little more than a vegetable. He was for the war, and was thrilled when Saddam was removed from power. Shortly after that, he was ‘interogated’ by the FBI, even though he’s an American citizen with a steady job and family. His wife’s family in Baghdad was missing for weeks, and eventually, he began to realize that things could be worse.
Don’t get me wrong, he still hates Saddam and wishes he were gone. He just doesn’t think this is better. Because it’s not.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:11 pmGlad, damn Glad…
Excellent posts. Fully cited. Historical.
Hence, notice how no one here has responded to you?
Fcats are stubborn things.
Well done, GdG.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:12 pmUndisputed negative facts now. You can feel free to deny that this specific article is garbage or not. The article could have been informative and said ‘Jane Harman, wrote a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney and here is what she said. I have taken the time to get you links to the specific reports she referencedâ€. Instead this article claims something that is not written, of course several members take it as “true†and run with it (All the while thinking they are the educated ones). Keep drinking the Kool-Aid handed down and use articles like this for your “knowledgeâ€.
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
==========================
The Prague meeting never took place, plain and simple.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:14 pmGlad damn Glad , so you have produced statements from Clinton era officials that say chemical agents are deadly. OK we all agree. We also all agree, as the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking saddams hand during Bush I presidency shows, we also know who gave him the chemical weapons and the technology to make more. We also know the inspectors on the ground said there were no WMDs in Iraq. We also know Mr Bush II was on TV saying Saddam refused to let the inspectors into Iraq while I was watching the inspectors in Iraq on TV bulldozing Al Samud missles. We also know Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq in order to get the US involved in a war that would drive up oil prices and benefit defense contractor friends. So what’s your point?
September 12th, 2006 at 9:15 pmDo I get to be an American again?
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
How much cash you got? I mean that IS the American way, now isn’t it? ; )
September 12th, 2006 at 9:17 pm“Clinton, lying about Iraq’s WMD’s:”
Comment by Glad, damn glad — September 12, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
===================
Where in your post does Clinton claim that Iraq had weapons that he would use against us.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:19 pm#77…Unbelievable….I take you at your word. I have no reason to doubt you. I am sure that many Iraqis feel now that things are not better than they were under Saddam (which was nightmarish).
But does that mean it was wrong to try to improve the lives of Iraqis by removing Saddam? I will not deny that since Saddam was deposed, things have not gone as well as we all would have hoped, and that there is plenty of blame to go around — startinmg with President Bush.
But, as much as might criticize (and appropriately so) the way in which the liberation of Iraq has taken place, doesn’t your post show that the idea of removing Saddam was correct?
September 12th, 2006 at 9:19 pmFcats are stubborn things.
Well done, GdG.
Comment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
Yeah like “Osama Determined to Strike Inside the United States” and 3000 dead Americans 1 month later and still a big 16 acre bleeding sore in Manhattan – yeah FACTS are bitches.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:19 pmHow much cash you got? I mean that IS the American way, now isn’t it? ; )
Leave it to a hippy to try and take my money, so my conceince can be clear :)
September 12th, 2006 at 9:20 pmLook at that zombie-ass “I want Braaains!” mug.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:23 pm#80 Bones,
I will address only one small part of your posting…Hence, I will only look for one small concession: You are correct that inspectors were indeed back in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. But, will you acknowledge that those UN inspectors were only allowed back into Iraq at that time because of the buildup of military forces in the region in 2002 by the United States and the United Kingdom?
September 12th, 2006 at 9:25 pmBut, as much as might criticize (and appropriately so) the way in which the liberation of Iraq has taken place, doesn’t your post show that the idea of removing Saddam was correct?
See that’s where you get into trouble around here. I say well so sad to hear about Darfur, but not my problem.
Wham, I am an inconsiderate bastard (Not that I am not)
I say “So what if women in Afganastan are raped on a daily basis, not my problem”
Wham, I am an inconsiderate bastard (Not that I am not)
I say “Who cares that Saddam was putting people in wood chippers and gasing thousands of Kurds because they were not Arabs, not my problem.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:27 pmWham, I am a progressive
“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.”
Comment by Glad, damn glad — September 12, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
================================
-How does this prove there was an Al Queda connection?
-We need more information about the dates of contacts.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:29 pm#87 –
I would agree with that. And how many billions did that cost? And then
we would have discovered he had no WMD. Had we then redepolyed
how many lives and how many Billions would we have saved?
See we did not go in to make lives better for Iraqis – I submit that we
September 12th, 2006 at 9:31 pmwent there for the pursuit of PNAC. As if these a-holes gave a sh!t about
Iraqis. Do not insult our intelligence, we are much smarter than than
the averagre freeper.
Tundra, if Bush and Cheney had come to the American people and said “Saddam is torturing and murdering his people, we want to liberate Iraq” and the American people through their elected representatives choose to follow that course, then I guess that would be fine BUT that’s not what they did. They lied and said Saddam was going to kill them with model airplanes spraying anthrax, and saddam wa responsible for 9-11, and saddam was trying to build nuclear weapons to hit the United States. See if I lie and tell you there’s a guy who knows where you live and he’s coming to your apartment to kill you, and get you to let me in your apartment, then I kill and rob you it’s called a criminal act.Just like this lie is.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:33 pmspelling withstanding – as I am multitasking.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:33 pm“I say “Who cares that Saddam was putting people in wood chippers and gasing thousands of Kurds because they were not Arabs, not my problem.
Wham, I am a progressive”
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
===========================
Why do the conservatives go back 15 to 20 years for evidence that we need to remove Saddam now.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:36 pmI am sure that many Iraqis feel now that things are not better than they were under Saddam (which was nightmarish).
That depends on who you ask. I’ve heard different things from different people. There is no truth, only perspective. And the general perspective now seems to be that Saddam was a tyrant, but Bush is far worse.
But does that mean it was wrong to try to improve the lives of Iraqis by removing Saddam? I will not deny that since Saddam was deposed, things have not gone as well as we all would have hoped, and that there is plenty of blame to go around — startinmg with President Bush.
I’m more of a ‘choices and consequences’ person. Meaning that before you make a choice, you should consider the consequences. That’s what defines ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ most of the time – whether your consequences were acceptable. Based on the consequences, I’d say the choice was the wrong one.
But, as much as might criticize (and appropriately so) the way in which the liberation of Iraq has taken place, doesn’t your post show that the idea of removing Saddam was correct?
Comment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
Only if the consequences hadn’t been Civil War, mass-murder, etc. You know what I mean? The Bush Regime was careless about the consequences, therefore the action they took was in fact, wrong.
And honestly Exley, I don’t know if there was a way to remove Saddam that was realistically better. There’s a culture in that part of the world that has been violent for 5,000 years. If it were to change, it would take generations. Meaning, you don’t go from apparent Dictatorship to Democracy over night…
September 12th, 2006 at 9:38 pmLeave it to a hippy to try and take my money, so my conceince can be clear :)
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
You’d rather I be neoconish about it by just taking it out of your paycheck and giving it to people richer than you? :)
September 12th, 2006 at 9:39 pmUh oh…trolls are back with more blame Clinton. Talking points must be running low.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:42 pmWhy do the conservatives go back 15 to 20 years for evidence that we need to remove Saddam now.
Comment by Nat — September 12, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
Because there were no WMDs, and they can’t admit they were wrong?
Tundra’s not a neocon, though. He likes playing Devil’s Advocate…
September 12th, 2006 at 9:44 pmComment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
All bombastics aside, is this another way of saying “just because there is no proof of the occurance does not mean it didn’t happen” ?
Are we back to the intuition thing again without solid evidence?
September 12th, 2006 at 9:44 pmAnd if you wanted to topple Saddam, the military goes in topples his governmrnt and leaves. The job of the military is to break things and kill people. Korea, Viet Nam are prime examples of the folly of using the military to be a police force.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:46 pm#94 Unbelievable:
“There’s a culture in that part of the world that has been violent for 5,000 years. If it were to change, it would take generations. Meaning, you don’t go from apparent Dictatorship to Democracy over night…”
As someone who supported the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq from Saddam, I will admit that you are perhaps right here. I honestly thought that once removed from the brutal shackles of the Saddam regime (and I assume we are all in agreement that Saddam was a brutal, mostrous dictator), the Iraqi people (Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds), benefitted by modern communication methods (TV, the Internet, radio) would be able to set aside or, at least. minimize their ancient differences and work toegther to create a modern, democratic (or semi-democratic) society….Maybe I was wrong (I go back and forth on this — When Iraqis turn out in the millions to vote peacefully, I am hopeful. When I see the continued violence, I am pessimistic)…But I still maintain (and AGAIN maybe I am wrong) that the idea of providing Iraq with a free choice to create a democratic, tolerant society was guided by the best of intentions (and, yes, I know about the road to hell)…
September 12th, 2006 at 9:46 pmExley I responded to Glad earlier on boy.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:47 pm#99 And if you wanted to topple Saddam, the military goes in topples his governmrnt and leaves.
Again, Bones, you may be right. Taking out Saddam was relatively simple and painless…The vast bulk of casualties on the American and Iraqi side have occurred after Saddam was toppled. Maybe we should have just gotten rid of Saddam, stayed for six months, and then told the Iraqis, “Okay, it is your hands nows” and left. Maybe things would have turned out better for them and for us.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:50 pmI wish the soldiers/sailors/airmen stationed there never had to live through it.
I wish the 2670 deceased American troops were back here alive
I wish Saddam was still running his country the way he always did
I don’t much care about how the lives of the Iraqi people who stood up against Saddam
I wish that the innocent Iraqi’s who have been killed by American munitions were still alive.
Sadly it doesn’t change anything. The only thing I can say is in the beginning 70% approved of it.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:55 pmhttp://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
We can blame who we want, but it doesn’t change what is currently happening. I can stand here all day and say “Bush used false information to start a war” but the dead are still dead. Since I am not a religous person all I can do is try and help the living.
“#80 Bones,
I will address only one small part of your posting…Hence, I will only look for one small concession: You are correct that inspectors were indeed back in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. But, will you acknowledge that those UN inspectors were only allowed back into Iraq at that time because of the buildup of military forces in the region in 2002 by the United States and the United Kingdom?”
Comment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
=======================
Bush did not want the inspectors there; the inspectors were used as a fake diplomacy effort to say to the world “I tried.” Bush and his cohorts under-minded the efforts of the inspectors every chance they got and Bush had the gall to claim that Saddam was not letting the inspectors in when we all say on the TV that he was letting them in. The Bush administration motto during that farce was “if we can’t find it, he must be hiding it.”
September 12th, 2006 at 9:56 pm#105
Bush and his cohorts under-minded the efforts of the inspectors every chance they got and Bush had the gall to claim that Saddam was not letting the inspectors in when we all say on the TV that he was letting them in.
yeah, but Nat, you have to admit that the inspectors would not have even been back there if it had not been for the US/UK military buildup in late 2002.
Remember, the UN inspectors had been gone since 1998 when Bill Clinton and the UK launched Operation: Desert Fox to depreciate ….what? …Saddam’s WMD program. I bring that up to again remind fols that the Clinton too believed and acted militarily upon the belief (honestly held in my opinion) that Saddam retained WMDs. It appears that Bush II AND Clinton were wrong, but I guess I am just looking for people here to acknowledge that Clinton too believed in Saddam’s WMD programs and stockpile. This was not something conjured up out of whole cloth by the Bush II admin.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:02 pmAll bombastics aside, is this another way of saying “just because there is no proof of the occurance does not mean it didn’t happen†?
Are we back to the intuition thing again without solid evidence?
Comment by For Truth — September 12, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Honestly I just love to debate the word “facts”. Chenny has none, neither does Amanda. So pretty much they cancel out to me.
There was a time it was a “Fact” the earth was flat.
there was a time where it was a “fact” that noone could ever walk on the moon.
There was a time where it was a “fact” that “God” existed and could save you.
Medical science is full of “facts” of old.
I always look for the next step. Wouldn’t G.W. feel silly if someone found a tiny microscopic unicorn in central park?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:03 pm“As someone who supported the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq from Saddam, I will admit that you are perhaps right here.”
Comment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
===========================
The Bush administration cares nothing for Iraq and its people. They saw Iraq as a way to gain political power and line their pockets at the expense of the Iraqis. The so called liberation was doomed from the get-go.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:09 pmBut I still maintain (and AGAIN maybe I am wrong) that the idea of providing Iraq with a free choice to create a democratic, tolerant society was guided by the best of intentions (and, yes, I know about the road to hell)…
Comment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
That was really cool of you to admit that you have your doubts. So many people who supported the War in Iraq refuse to question their initial support for the war. I respect you for being able to do that. It’s a hard thing to do – especially on the right side of the fence (I know from personal experience).
And, yes, I do believe that many people did have the best of intentions. I just hope that those same people will learn from this what I’m repeatedly telling my students “Measure twice, and cut once. You can change your measurements, but you can not undo your cuts.” So that those who did die did not do so in vain.
So, I’m curious… How do you feel about the suggestions that we attack Iran?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:09 pmSo Cheney knows things are going on but just can’t prove it. His intuition tells him so. Ok I have a lot of intuition on things going on I can’t prove too, do I get to legitimize them?
Comment by For Truth
==
September 12th, 2006 at 10:11 pmStraussians lie with intent. Leo-cons aka lie-o-cons are Machiavellian Hegelians.
“Okay, it is your hands nows†and left. Maybe things would have turned out better for them and for us.
Comment by Exley
it’s interesting, I was against going in in the first place. But since we totally dismantled their infrastructure I feel we are under a obligation to get them as stable as we can before we leave. This of course gets me in worlds of trouble. We broke it we need to fix it. We can blame Bush, heck impeach him and his cabinet. Since we got involved though (Against my better judgement), I think we need to finish the task. I’m not happy about the money spent, but if my senile old father threw a hardball through a neighbors window, I’d have to fix it.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:11 pmYes but, the consequences would have been different if we didn’t screw up
Of course. It could have been a great (right) decision if the consequences had been favorable.
(If that is what you meant?).
Comment by ren — September 12, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
Pretty much. That people generally judge your actions by the consequences of them. In general – Lincoln – great President because of the Emancipation Act. Nixon – bad President because of Watergate. Of course Clinton depends on who you ask…. :) I think it’s why people want to be the one to choose the author of their own history… So that they will be judged favorably in the end…
September 12th, 2006 at 10:15 pmI think we need to finish the task.
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
What does that entail? And when do the sacrifices (human, dollars, resources, reutation, etc.) outweigh our integrity to ‘fix it’?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:17 pmComment by Exley — September 12, 2006
Under international law, yes.
From the United Nations Charter:
Chapter I, Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
…
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Now, Exley, will you concede that the arguments used to justify invading a sovereign country to depose it’s leader apply equally to Bush as it does to Saddam? If not, why not?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:19 pmI think we need to finish the task. I’m not happy about the money spent, but if my senile old father threw a hardball through a neighbors window, I’d have to fix it.
Comment by Tundra
==
Not if your a neo-con you simply lie and say it was those damn juvenile kids down the street, those godless liberal kids, I saw them and they said they hated you and the threw the ball thru your window because those kids are terrorists and they hate your freedom!
/sarcon
I’m kidding, of course, but this seems to be the main difference between those here and the GOP and many a politician, they have been hypocrites for so long they cannot stop lying and denying and spinning.
It’s nice to see honest people though =)
September 12th, 2006 at 10:19 pmWhat does that entail?
They have the ability do defend themselves and provide for their citizens.
And when do the sacrifices (human, dollars, resources, reutation, etc.) outweigh our integrity to ‘fix it’?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:21 pmAt what point would your integrity be outweighed if you caused extreme harm to someone (intended or not)? At what point would making it right be outweighed by your personal goals/needs?
“yeah, but Nat, you have to admit that the inspectors would not have even been back there if it had not been for the US/UK military buildup in late 2002.”
==========================
>>>>>>>>It doesn’t matter that they were there. The neocons were planning to invade Iraq since 1998 and they got their chance with Bush.
“Remember, the UN inspectors had been gone since 1998 when Bill Clinton and the UK launched Operation: Desert Fox to depreciate ….what? …Saddam’s WMD program. I bring that up to again remind fols that the Clinton too believed and acted militarily upon the belief (honestly held in my opinion) that Saddam retained WMDs. It appears that Bush II AND Clinton were wrong, but I guess I am just looking for people here to acknowledge that Clinton too believed in Saddam’s WMD programs and stockpile. This was not something conjured up out of whole cloth by the Bush II admin.”
Comment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
==========================
-Clinton attacked places in Iraq that the UN inspectors did not have access to and that could be used to manufacture weapons.
-Did you ever think that Clinton could have destroyed the remnants of Saddam’s weapons program with the bombings?
-No one knew for sure whether or not Saddam had weapons. Clinton chose the inspection route to find out and Bush said f–k that I need political capital.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:22 pm#109 Unbelievable:
So, I’m curious… How do you feel about the suggestions that we attack Iran?
To be honest: (1) I am not as confident about our intelligence as I was before the liberation of Iraq. Don’t get me wrong–I think the mullahs and the other Iranian leaders are bad news and potentially very dangerous; (2) I am a realist. I just don’t think we have the military capability of handling Iran right now. If someone else wants to carry that ball (i.e. the Israelis), go right ahead, but we just can’t do it right now; (3) Quite frankly, I agree with (And I never thought I would say this) I agree with Sen. John Kerry when he said in his speech last week that the best thing to do right now is send more troops to Afghanistan. That was the first battle of the War on Terror and we need to complete our victory there before we go off on our missions.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:22 pmComment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
I tend to agree with you. The rationale follows the principles outlined by the first “Progressive” president, Teddy Roosevelt; “Walk softly, but carry a big stick.” Bush asked Congress for permission to carry a big stick. This was the so-called vote for war. It wasn’t a vote for war. Congress was told Bush would use the stick only as a last resort. But Bush didn’t stay true to his word. He began bombing Baghdad the day before the UN inspectors report was made public which stated Saddam did not have the purported WMDs.
The “big stick” approach worked. Using it has only made matters worse, not better.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:26 pm#114 Briseadh na Faire ….
Yes, but there your forget 1) there are, under international law, humanitarian justificatiosn for military action; 2) there were a decades worth on UN SC resolutions against Iraq; and 3) Article 51 of the UN Charter was, arguably, applicable.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:29 pmAt what point would making it right be outweighed by your personal goals/needs?
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
I asked first… :)
I do think it is possible to do more harm with further intentions of doing the right thing – which was my point actually…
I just don’t see the neocons learning from their past mistakes by weighing tehir options and choosing wisely. This is my point of concern with what qualifies as ‘fixed’…
Oh well, great conversation all. Actually two conservatives and we all behaved ourselves :). Let’s do it again sometime… I have to go night night after I read Exley’s response above. Have a good one all!
September 12th, 2006 at 10:30 pm-Did you ever think that Clinton could have destroyed the remnants of Saddam’s weapons program with the bombings?
what intelligence would we have used to verify that?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:32 pmExley – well said. And I happen to agree with most of your observations… :)
September 12th, 2006 at 10:32 pmCome on, even if he hadn’t read the entire thing, someone must have at least briefed him on the fact this it disputes his prior talking points. What a bastard!
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — September 12, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Jane,
Probably did. But what we may be publicly witnessing here is just a continuation of the method of operation used in cherry picking the intelligence that led everyone to support the war in the first place. The information that went against their master plan simply got brushed to the side. They were so successful in pulling off the invasion that they think they can keep doing it.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:33 pmThat’s our Dick in the White House, shitting on America again.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:34 pmNight Unbelievable,
Of course you will miss the excellent post I would have wrote that would have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my way is right :)
September 12th, 2006 at 10:34 pmLet’s assume for a moment, that a madman, a mass murderer, was holed up somewhere in an American city, population 100,000. He even claims to be in possession of hidden stocks of WMD’s. Is it justified to level the city and kill every single man, woman and child in order to capture or kill this madman?
If not, what makes this different from attacking Iraq?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:34 pmRemember, the UN inspectors had been gone since 1998 when Bill Clinton and the UK launched Operation: Desert Fox to depreciate ….what? …Saddam’s WMD program. I bring that up to again remind fols that the Clinton too believed and acted militarily upon the belief (honestly held in my opinion) that Saddam retained WMDs. It appears that Bush II AND Clinton were wrong, but I guess I am just looking for people here to acknowledge that Clinton too believed in Saddam’s WMD programs and stockpile. This was not something conjured up out of whole cloth by the Bush II admin.
Comment by Exley
Why you guys still debating with Exley?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:36 pmHow old are you Exley if I may ask?
#124
Thank you, Unbelievable…Good night. It is late and I am going home now (Late night night at the office).
September 12th, 2006 at 10:37 pmSpell checking seems to be the only insight that anyone one that reads this site is capable of. No ideas, nothing! Get a life.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:38 pmIf not, what makes this different from attacking Iraq?
I care about Americans in that city. I would kill 10,000 foreign children to defend your child.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:41 pmComment by Exley — September 12, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. …
First, it is incorrect to say that Saddam committed an armed attack against the United States.
Second, Article 51 does not authorize a pre-emptive strike.
Third, would you want to justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children because Article 51 is “arguably, applicable?” Is that an excuse for mass murder? Because if you’re wrong on the application of an arguable point of law, and you go ahead and kill thousands of people, you are a mass murderer. If you’re going to kill thousands of people, you had better be right. Dead right.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:43 pm“-Did you ever think that Clinton could have destroyed the remnants of Saddam’s weapons program with the bombings?
what intelligence would we have used to verify that?”
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
==========================
All you need is common sense. These were places that the inspectors did not have access to, so if Saddam had any weapons or a weapons program they would have be there (this does not necessarily mean they were there).
September 12th, 2006 at 10:44 pm#26 A Real American (He says, trying to convince himself)
Why don’t you kook liberal wackos jump on the wagon and help support the winning team? (that’s us AMERICANS, but sometimes you traitorous dogs seem to forget which team you belong too).
You forgot “moonbats”. Kook liberal wacko moonbats. There are probably three or four more names you could tack onto the end of that, too. And it would really help get your important point across if you did.
So, it’s the thirty something percent of people in this country who still believe everything Bush and Cheney say that you’re referring to as “us AMERICANS”? And so the other sixty something percent who say we were wrong to go into Iraq, Bush lied to get us in there, and we’re not safer because of it are what? Latvians?
Take a good look around. You’re in the minority. People who voted for Bush in ‘04 are ashamed of themselves for it now. There have probably never been so many Republicans thoroughly disgusted with a Republican president as there are now. Wake the hell up.
Hundreds of thousands of US Servicemen are sick of your bitching.
At last count, over 70% of those servicemen and women in Iraq wanted us out by the end of the year. But what would you know about it anyway?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:49 pmAll you need is common sense. These were places that the inspectors did not have access to, so if Saddam had any weapons or a weapons program they would have be there (this does not necessarily mean they were there).
Ok, So the inspectors searched every possible place in the country that weapons could have been hidden except the places Clinton bombed? We can reasonably deduct that the bombs did their intended damage and anything there was destroyed?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:51 pmI care about Americans in that city. I would kill 10,000 foreign children to defend your child.
Comment by Tundra
Oh my god…no.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:54 pmjust back from the monthly meeting at local democratic headquarters… decided it was time to get back into it… these people are very concerned, rightfully, with the local races… i’m going crazy worrying about the fed…
anyone from s.central illinois here, 19th cong. dist.? i met danny stover tonight, running against one of the rubberstamp congress people, shimkus… stover needs to work on name recognition… i’m going to try and help with that…
September 12th, 2006 at 10:57 pmhttp://stoverforcongress.com/
…
Haven’t read any numbers on Lamont’s campaign in CT – he must be way behind Lieberman, cuz you would lie and say he is ahead by a point or two if it was anywhere close.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:59 pmOh my god…no.
Comment by Zooey — September 12, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
It was a hypothetical question, requiring a hypothetical response. Think about it though for a second. If there were 10,000 children heading to your house to poke zoo jr with a stick. You had 10,000 bullets, what would you do? If it was your nephew, your neighbors kid, a kid across town, a child from another state?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:01 pmTundra,
I could never kill children, even if it meant I had to sacrifice myself and my own child.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:05 pmThe Downing Street Memo, introduction:
- Also known as the “smoking gun memo”, contains an overview of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting among United Kingdom government, defence and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the war—including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time.The minutes were meant to be kept confidential and are headed “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.” It was first published in The Sunday Times on May 1 2005. Downing Street is a metonym for the Prime Minister’s office.
- It is important to point out that this memo was created eight months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
The Downing Street Memo, contents:
- “[Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.â€
- “The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. “
- “The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.â€
- “The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.â€
- “The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.â€
- “We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.â€
To read the complete Downing Street memo, go to http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
September 12th, 2006 at 11:07 pmJane Harman is so stupid she cant even find her own …… I really would like to see an original idea from ……. lil sockpupit.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:07 pmZoo,
Fair enough, that is also why you aren’t tasked with protecting us. It is a sad hypothetical question, but a fair one.
Of course, I am not defending the Iraq war, or even implying that there was a credible threat. But if there was, I want my children protected by someone who would defend them with everything they had. I would not sacrifice them to agression for any reason.
Ok, your whole family (extended and all) is in a deadend ally. A child comes around the corner with a grenade. You have the only weapon and just seconds to decide what to do. Would you still sacrifice your entire extended family as well?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:13 pmIt was a hypothetical question, requiring a hypothetical response.
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
Why the distinction “foreign children?” Is it ok to commit mass murder, so long as the 10,000 children are “foreign born?” If so, how are you any better than those now labled “Islamofascists?”
September 12th, 2006 at 11:15 pmThe troops are pissed off about being lied to. Support the troops my behind. How about not trying to sneak pay cuts for the troops into Iraq spending bills? How about not having a lone government paid psychiatrist suddenly pop up and claim there’s no such thing as PTSD? How about not underfunding the VA? Why doesn’t this administration stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of veterans? You flag wavers make me sick. The oath is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States not the current administration or the president (regardless of party). Stop using the troops as an excuse for your support of torture and mayhem. That is not what is taught in any military setting (or it didin’t used to be). By the way, who would Jesus lie to? Who would Jesus torture? Who would Jesus bomb? Christian nation my foot.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:16 pmThese neocons are hovering between faulty intelligence and no intelligence.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:17 pmWhy the distinction “foreign children?â€
You made the distinction in your question, Don’t blame me for answering a question you posed.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:21 pmWould you still sacrifice your entire extended family as well?
Comment by Tundra
It’s one child, with one grenade. I would sacrifice myself.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:21 pmIt’s one child, with one grenade. I would sacrifice myself.
A fragmentation grenade has an effective kill radius of 5 meters and an effective maim radius of 15 meters (Small alley)
September 12th, 2006 at 11:24 pm# 83
Exley
The answer to your question is “no.”
Now that I probably got “your dander up” a bit – that “no” is a “qualified” no.
The “no” to your comment has nothing to do with my feelings about the human rights of Iraqi’s ( of course they should have freedom ) and everything to do with the FEASIBLITY of the mission.
When you set the U.S. war machine into motion – an accurate an realistic assessment of the FEASIBILTY of the stated goal ( which we will just plug in here as “Iraqi liberation” – many others, of course, don’t buy that – and probably with good reason … ) RELATIVE to the PROPOSED STRATEGY and TACTICS is PARAMOUNT.
At this point, I’ll leave you to research the conclusions reached by the U.S. Army War College prior to the invasion ( approx. Feb. of 2003 ). Retired General Schwarzkopf was concerned about feasibility issues as well.
If freedom for the Iraqi’s was the true objective – please note that the Kurds flourished after the establishment of the no-fly zones. They had to look over their shoulder a bit while Sadaam was still around – but with the no-fly zones, they did well.
If freedom for the Iraqi’s was the true objective, different tactics should have been employed. The spectrum of ideas for alternative tactics to achieve “freedom for the Iraqi’s”
is too broad to get into here. But they would be nothing like what we did in 2003.
I know you post here frequently – so if you cannot find the US Army War College report let me know and I will post the conclusions for you.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:34 pm# 148
Candymarl
You are right.
Check out the movie ” The Ground Truth ”
http://www.the groundtruth.net
September 12th, 2006 at 11:38 pmIt was a hypothetical question, requiring a hypothetical response. Think about it though for a second. If there were 10,000 children heading to your house to poke zoo jr with a stick. You had 10,000 bullets, what would you do? If it was your nephew, your neighbors kid, a kid across town, a child from another state?
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
So I read this question out loud to my doggy sitting here she feels its a beautifully manipulative argument.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:38 pmAbout a half an hour ago CNN reported Cheney was sent in to break up the deadlock in congress over Bolty and the tribunals.
No time to continue arguin over this one, next.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:42 pmA fragmentation grenade has an effective kill radius of 5 meters and an effective maim radius of 15 meters (Small alley)
Comment by Tundra
The child is doomed, no matter what I do. I would shield my family as best I could.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pm#157
And the post will be waiting for him when he wakes up tomorrow.
Good Night, “Ren”
September 12th, 2006 at 11:46 pmWhy the distinction “foreign children?â€
I’m just trying to get a clearer understanding of where you stand. So, it’s ok to level an Iraq city and kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children to capture or kill one madman, but it’s not ok to level an American city for the same goal.
Again, how are you any better than those who are now labled “Islamofascists?”
September 12th, 2006 at 11:46 pmSo I read this question out loud to my doggy sitting here she feels its a beautifully manipulative argument.
Comment by For Truth — September 12, 2006
Of course it is. that’s the point. I hear on here all the time, Repugs are not for national security. The real party of protecting the country is the Democrats etc. But in a completely hypothetical situation, you can never get an answer of yes, under the worst conditions imaginable I would strike. I would do whatever I could to defend you and yours from imminent danger.
I’m not asking for anyone to say preemptive anthing. I’m saying If I was standing there and had my child behind me and I was being attacked by kids would you defend me and mine? You don’t have time to try and reason with them, you don’t have time to get a language expert or expert on religions of the world. Would you protect my family? If the answer is not a resonding yes, that explains how alot of people feel when it comes to national security.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:49 pmI’m just trying to get a clearer understanding of where you stand. So, it’s ok to level an Iraq city and kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children to capture or kill one madman
If you read my previous posts, I was against going in he first place. I wasn’t part of the 70% that said yeah do it. Personally i didn’t give a rats hairy behind about what happened over there. Let them live their lives in their country and do to each other whatever the hell they want to. You asked what the difference was. the difference was that I care about the American city and could care less about the Iraqi city (Pre us screwing it up), sadly now, it’s a matter of principal in cleaning up the mess.
Again, how are you any better than those who are now labled “Islamofascists?â€
I could care less what you convert to. I have no interest in attacking anyone. If you are christian/catholic/lutheran/hindu etc, it makes no difference to me. I don’t want to enslave/kill anyone. That’s the difference.
You are mistaking my indifference for other countries for aggression I can’t save the world, so I try smaller chunks.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:57 pmI got a lot of spare time on my hands. So, Sunday I got a bright idea. I taped cheney on MTP for about a minute and a half and downloaded it to my computer. The concept was to pause him on one his faces and draw a picture of him grimacing. I was stunned by the results. As I paused through the minute and a half I saw a parade of snide sneers, condescnding glances, and BINGO multiple grimaces. You all should try that at home. You would be amazed at the evil that exudes from this man. It is even more evident in stop motion.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:57 pmBy the way the part I taped happened to be the part were he was lying about the atta Czeck meeting.
You are mistaking my indifference for other countries for aggression I can’t save the world, so I try smaller chunks.
Comment by Tundra — September 12, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
The difference is, I care about all cities. American, Iraqi, even those in Darfur.
I note you would kill 10,000 foreign children if they were committing acts of aggression. Will you defend 10,000 foreign children if America is committing acts of agression against them? Can you stand up for what is right, regardless of nationality?
“I can’t save the world…” If you could, would you?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:09 amYup,yup,yup
September 13th, 2006 at 12:31 amThe difference is, I care about all cities. American, Iraqi, even those in Darfur.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
What a great human being you are. Thank you for your posts.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:53 amJust for the record, under Richard Clarke’s leadership as Czar of Counterterrorism:.
· CLINTON developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy,
and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
· Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through
preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
· Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
· Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it
occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively – and successfully
- to stop future terrorist attacks.
· Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats
and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911)
The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding.
It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking
of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
· Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
· Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
· Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
· Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
· Of Clinton’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism:
“Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”.
· Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as
he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
· Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office
having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration
to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”.
Clarence Swinney,
September 13th, 2006 at 1:41 amPolitical Historian
Why call out Cheney to criticize him? Dick is a liar and a criminal, so Harman should demand that he resigns, or call for his impeachment!
September 13th, 2006 at 2:47 amCheney is a dipshit.
September 13th, 2006 at 3:05 amwow alot of post here the point about the democratic party getting invloved was right on. i am starting to doubt the democrats more and more as time goes by. they have no backbone at all. they just sit there coasting along on cruise control. its obvious who wheres the pants in our government, or in our country. its almost time we the people take back what is and always has been rightfully ours. how much more corruption and lies will it take for the people to do something because nobody else will.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:27 amLooking for someone to call you dirty names, “HeWhoWanksAlot”?
September 13th, 2006 at 6:29 amI don’t believe that there was a meeting between Mohammed Attah and an Iraqi intelligence officer, but I know that yesterday an alliance was implemented between the Iraq PM and the Iranian president (a very sad day).
September 13th, 2006 at 7:58 amGood Morning All, Great post’s…..Blessings….Peace, for the children of the world.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:00 amMo Do sez: Vice Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:07 amThe Go-Ah-Gi Bu-Osh terrorist group’s theoratical views about foreign policy is, “if we want to rule or remove resources from a certain country (aka spread democracy), we can do so because I’m the ruler of the world and the constitution doesn’t pertain to someone in my billet, but first we must receive approval from allah or flip a coin.”
Stay the course,
September 13th, 2006 at 8:32 amDaryll
#154….Killer Whale,
I will look at the U.S. War College Report to which your refer (I assume it is online) and get back to you….
September 13th, 2006 at 8:56 amDick Cheney isn’t going to back down from anyone, no matter how many times he’s proved to be a liar…
…he’s in the process of pulling off one of the greatest heists in history…
…and he has over sixty million suckers who’ve got his back…
…you really can’t beat City Hall…
…and you certainly can’t beat the White House’s fear/war/profit mongering machine that is the criminal Bushite junta!
September 13th, 2006 at 10:57 am#179
Come on Big Papa – Where is your FIGHTING SPIRIT ??? !!!
Yes – you can beat City Hall.
And Yes – you can beat the Terror Pimps.
We just have to stay focused and organized and quickly reveal the truth after they attempt to ’spin’ their misdeeds into something positive.
Go to http://www.thegroundtruth.net
See the film.
When it is available on DVD – get it and let others check it out.
Bill Kristol has a “distribution” advantage by sitting in a FOX studio and talking shit which is heard instanteously. It is a difficult advantage to overcome.
But grassroots word of mouth is powerful, too. Especially in this case when the Troops Are Speaking For Themselves – not Newt Gingrich – or other chickenhawks pretending to be speaking for them.
No more “you can’t beat city hall” stuff out of you Big Papa !
Keep your head up.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:26 amHmmm. Such short memories:
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” – Bob Graham, December 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
-So, it was all a big lie? Guess we’d have to conclude that all these good folks were lying to the American people too then.
Oh I forgot, it was only a lie when the republicans said it.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:32 pmTom Noe, the GOP fund-raiser at the heart of Ohio’s biggest political scandal in a generation, was sentenced today to 27 months in a federal prison for illegally funneling money into President Bush’s re-election campaign.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:39 pm==
Oh I forgot, it was only a lie when the republicans said it.
Comment by The Mouse
==
That’s what happens when you listen to politicians who don’t read the intelligence reports. Beside Yes, it was a lie orchestrated by the GOP and the OSP and WHIG groups, so yes the GOP lied to the senate..
now what were you saying about short memories?
#181 Mouse
-So, it was all a big lie? Guess we’d have to conclude that all these good folks were lying to the American people too then.
Oh I forgot, it was only a lie when the republicans said it.
The information that Democratic senators were shown was the product of cherry-picking. All of the intelligence that didn’t agree with what the White House wanted them to believe had long since been removed.
So, if you want to say the Democrats were lying, when they were naive enough to think that the president wouldn’t provide them with false data to get us into a war and then based their decisions on that false data, you go ahead and do that. But, it doesn’t fit the commonly accepted definition of a lie.
Why do you suppose they don’t believe the president anymore the way you do? Could it be that they found out he really was low enough and sick enough to tell great big whopping lies just so he could get us into a war? Why do you suppose they don’t trust the president with warrantless wiretapping? Could it be that they realize that he’s so unprincipled and downright sociopathic that he would use warrantless wiretaps to spy on political opponents? That would be my guess. Hey, why not? We know for a fact that the U.S. had bugged the phones of the UN Security Council members when Bush was trying to start a war with Iraq and wanted their support.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:04 pm#154 Killer Whale, I am reading the Feb. 2003 U.S. War College paper on Iraq….Not done with it, but so far it is remarkably prescient.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:12 pm#184
Exley
Glad you were able to find it.
I haven’t looked at it in awhile – but if I remember correctly they stated their conclusions early in the discourse over about six or eight bullet points. Most of the points were dead-on. But I think the last few bullet points were like looking into a crystal ball.
When you are done ( or somewhat done ) with the current report – you may be interested in another article.
It is an interview of Ayatollah Bakr al Hakim. Bakr al Hakim was tortured by Saddam and his family members were killed and also tortured. He fled to Iran and formed a militia.
This is a man who has more of a vested interest in getting Saddam than any of the people mentioned in the post by “Mouse.”
I think you will find his February, 2003 opinion of the then upcoming invasion enlightening.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/resistance_2-25.html
If the link does not work, Google:
“Elizabeth Farnsworth” “Voice of Resistance” “online newshour” “bakr al hakim”
Let me kow what you think.
September 13th, 2006 at 6:50 pmKiller Whale,
could you provide a link? I would like to read it as well.
Thanks
September 13th, 2006 at 8:27 pm-So, it was all a big lie? Guess we’d have to conclude that all these good folks were lying to the American people too then.
Oh I forgot, it was only a lie when the republicans said it.
Comment by The Mouse — September 13, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
No, the good folks weren’t just that. what you think are “good folks” are craving a$$ hole lying cowards who would never risk their life for nothing–just like you. Mouse is a good screen name. Your a failure, a fraud, a chicken $hit, a turd, don’t bathe often, should brush your teeth more often, and licking lush limbals should ashame your family. On a positive note–your a complete $cum bag–no offense.
September 13th, 2006 at 9:57 pmHey mouse, whats that in your hair?, Ya gotta think about that. Don’t hurt yourself. I’ll give you a clue–left hand–right hand.. times up..dumb $hit like your leader. go figure.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:06 pm#187
Briseadh na Faire
This should do it:
“Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario” – U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf
They post their conclusions early in the write up on page 7.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:54 pmKW, Thank you.
Exley, I know that in the past, I have accused you of blindly supporting this Administration. I am curious as to your take after you finish reading the report.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:02 am#190
B N F
You are welcome.
Did you get a chance to visit the link mentioned in post # 185?
September 14th, 2006 at 10:49 amKiller Whale #180
thanks for the pep talk…
…but until we take back our airwaves…
…our message remains muddled…
…America’s too dumb to figure it out all alone…
September 14th, 2006 at 11:17 am#193
Big Pop
You are right – but I think that movement is starting to happen a little bit.
Go to:
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=42
Click to see the ad in the upper right hand corner.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:32 am#195
Killer Whale,
Saw that ad on Keith Olberman show, God bless those Vets…
…other than maybe Jack Cafferty (on CNN), Keith seems to be the only TRUE patriot left on television…
…have you checked out olberman’s “Special comments” of late?
…until we get more “reporters” on line like Olberman- and get rid of the Wolf Blitzer (Bushite apologists)…
…America is poised to be “fools” again come November…
September 14th, 2006 at 2:18 pmKW, yes.
What is more troubling is the War College Report. They knew. They knew exactly what would happen.
Exley, how do you feel about the choices this Administration has made vis a vis Iraq, knowing what is in the Report?
September 14th, 2006 at 7:07 pm#182-3
so Joe… you liked the comment?
September 25th, 2006 at 7:03 pmthis mean we’re friends?
Hi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! XWvEap8HPJi1
January 12th, 2007 at 1:27 amixdyk
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm