Ignoring Senate Intel Report, Snow Repeats Lie That Saddam Had A Relationship With Zarqawi
Ignoring Senate Intel Report, Snow Repeats Lie That Saddam Had A Relationship With Zarqawi
Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee — chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), one of the President’s most loyal allies — concluded that there was absolutely no relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Here’s the key quote from page 109:
Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.
Nevertheless, at today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow insisted Saddam that had a “relationship” because Zarqawi was in the country. Snow refused to “go into the vagaries of the Senate report.” Watch it:
This is the equivalent of saying that the United States government had a “relationship” with unibomber Ted Kaczynski because he was “operating” in the United States.
The White House’s insistence that Zarqawi had a relationship with Saddam — in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary — borders on pathological.
Transcript:
QUESTION: Do you believe — does the president still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or Al Qaida before the invasion?
SNOW: The president has never said that there was a direct operational relationship between the two. And this is important.
Zarqawi was in Iraq…
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) relationship?
SNOW: And there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq. Al Qaida members were in Iraq. They were operating, and in some cases operating freely. From Iraq, Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.
But did they have, you know, a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. You know, were they getting a line item in Saddam’s budget? No.
There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country. And I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That’s the relationship.
QUESTION: Saddam Hussein knew they were there. That’s it for the relationship?
SNOW: That’s pretty much it.
QUESTION: The Senate report said they didn’t turn a blind eye to that.
SNOW: The Senate report — rather than get — you know what? I don’t want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report. But it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that were Al Qaida operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV.
But we are simply not going to go to the point that the president — the president has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that’s the important thing, because I think there’s a tendency to say, Ah-ha. He said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff. There’s no evidence of that.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
118 Responses to “Ignoring Senate Intel Report, Snow Repeats Lie That Saddam Had A Relationship With Zarqawi”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The only thing left for the argument to go to war in Iraq is that Zarqawi was in Iraq. Is that it?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pmI guess it all depends on what the definition of "relationship" is.
(There's something faintly familiar about that, but I can't quite place it ...)
September 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pmBe Afraid
September 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pmCrazy right wing lunatics.
At this point, anybody that agrees with these lying scumbags is crazy just like them.
I wish the righties would sign-up for their own damn war, so they coul die for their own noble cause.
Too bad they are all a bunch of chicken sh!ts.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pmI am beginning to think Snow has a relationship with Bush, but not one with reality.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:47 pmSo, when UN inspectors were operating in Iraq, with Hussein's knowledge, they had a "relationship".
Clinton denied a "sexual relationship" with Monica. BushCo insists there was a "relationship" of some kind between Hussein and Al Qaeda but won't elaborate on the "vagaries". One of these is so horrible that it was impeachable. If you had made up a hypothetical question about these two situations and asked Americans twenty years ago which situation should lead to impeachment, does anyone doubt what the collective answer would have been?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:49 pmJudd: "The White House’s insistence that Zarqawi had a relationship with Saddam — in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary — borders on pathological." - - To get these guys to admit to anything is like chewing fog.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:51 pmBy Snow's logic, the US government "had a relationship" with the 9/11 hijackers. Given the Bush doctrine, the US should therefore launch an all-out assault on Washington, DC. We'll fight them here so that we don't have to fight them...here...? Wait a minute...
September 12th, 2006 at 2:51 pmif zarqawi was such a key part (only part?) of the invasion justification, why then did no less than clear opportunities to attack zarqawi in 2002/3 get turned down after the Pentagon begged to be able to take the shot? you can find that story on msnbc and elsewhere with a bit of effort...
September 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pmwhy do people put up with these glue sniffing idiots like this clown , bullshit is bullshit no mater how you hang it out to dry
September 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pmOh my! Now the Bush Administration is beginning to believe their own lies!
I guess it's because they've been repeating the lies over and over and they have no truth to compare their lies against anymore.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pmYou shoulda seen the whole broadcast. Comedy gold. Snow couldn't have spewed more shit if he were a manure pile.
It's so bad that I'm laughing at their press conferences. That's bad.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:54 pmTruth, Truth! We don't need no stinkin' TRUTH!
September 12th, 2006 at 2:54 pmYou should all read the actual truth on Cheney
The Senate intelligence report concluded that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."
What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, "had a relationship with al Qaeda." When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee "said that there was no relationship," Cheney interrupted and commented, "I haven't had a chance to read it."
September 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pmPerhaps he should before he talks about 9/11 and Iraq again.
QUESTION: Saddam Hussein knew they were there. That’s it for the relationship?
SNOW: That’s pretty much it.
The new low bar for justification on invading sovreign countries. And I mean low. I am sure the U.N. will enjoy to hear this.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:58 pmWell, I would have to say if Zarqawi had a relationship with Saddam, then Rumsfeld must have been doing Saddam. We don't have any evidence of Saddam and Zarqawi together, but we do have this:
http://www.diosa.net/art-net/RumsfeldHussein.jpg
September 12th, 2006 at 3:05 pmObviously, Snow is learning from the Democrats. Like Clinton, Shumer, Reid, Durbin, etc., it seems that the press sectretary has embraced the idea that if you repeat a lie enough times, people believe it is the truth.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:09 pmOur country is run by people who are insane. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge or accept reality.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:09 pm:...in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary — borders on pathological."
Tony S'no Balls knows what "Stay the Course" means.
WaPo here I come!
September 12th, 2006 at 3:11 pmSnow is simply embracing the Democrat's favorite tactic: Repeating a lie over and over until people believe it is the truth. It is Bill Clinton's legacy.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pmI knew Eric Rudolph was living in the SE US woods....what does that make me guilty of? The US government knew Boston was riddled with IRA men and Miami with anti-Castro hotel bombers.... oh my...
September 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pmIs he serious....Zarqawi was in Iraq so we went to war to ??????
WTF!!!!!!
So lets run this down:
- We spent 500 billion dollars
- Watched 70,000+ innocent Iraqis be killed
- Watched 2700+ US soldiers
- Watched 20,000+ US Solidiers wounded
- Lost respectability around the world
- Watched as Terrorism has increased 400 percent around the world
- And we are no closer to finding the OBL
all beacause Zarqawi decided to take a vacation in IRAQ
Thank You Republicans
Thank You........
September 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm#18 "i know I am but what kind of straw man are you?" yawn....
September 12th, 2006 at 3:16 pmA Real American,
You should get a job writing comedy, because I laughed my ass off when I read your post.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:17 pmDoes this mean Pakistan is supporting Al Qiada? How many Cubans live in this country? Are we supporting Communism? Padilla came from Chicago, are the White Sox Terrorists? In the words of another wingnut (Stossel) Give me a break.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:17 pmBush wanted to attack Iraq before he was President. During the "pass the baton" handover meeting between his administration and Clinton's it was made very clear to Bush that Osama and his bunch were the greatest threat to the security of the United States. Two hours later Condolizza Rice gave a speech and made the statement that the greatest threat to the United States was IRAQ!
They knew Zarqawi was in the Kurdistan which was under US control. They could have gotten him any time they wanted. The left him there to be used as he is being used now. As a proof that this was related to terrorism instead of the failed fascist attempt at empire that it is.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:18 pmIf the only reason Bush invaded Iraq was because of Zarqawi's presence...Going on this logic, I'm assuming the UK/Spain/France...etc, will be invaded in the near future...I'm sure a single Al-Qaeda member could also be found in these countries.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#23 lib - they could have bombed zarqawi in 2002 - twice. The Pentagon twice asked for permission and someone turned them down. Instead they invaded. I think we need to have a docudrama written for that scene.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:21 pm#18 - You actually believe what you just wrote, don't you?
There is no help for you...
September 12th, 2006 at 3:21 pmUsing republican logic:
George Bush knows that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan, so we should invade Washington DC.
Uh yeah.
How about:
George Bush knows Kim Jung Ill is in North Korea, so they have a relationship.
Freaking crazy nut bags.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#18 What is obvious is that Snow is the love child of Herman Munster and Elizabeth Dole. He was spoonfed "eggies" and Bullsh*t by uncle Karl and taken on long walks with Mr. Wolfowitz (still won't talk about it). I mean c'mon, its obvious.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:24 pmReal American,
September 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThat's pretty good. I may not agree with what you say but I am glad to see a real true American joining in political discussion not like us transplants. I have to ask again though, since you never answered me before. Which tribe are you from?
A Real American
September 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pmYou just keep "catapulting that propoganda" and telling us Democrats that we are the ones who are masters at lying. We need the humor.
Since hellinabucket started it -- thanks hellina, for once it's not me -- I only have two words:
Max Headroom
September 12th, 2006 at 3:28 pm#18, #21 you seem to have missed out on the fact that repeating a lie often enough to make it the truth has been the Bush administrations SOP since day one.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pmReal American: There is nothing real about from what I have read of your posts. To be real is to have feelings, to show respect to others who you would want to respect you, even if you don't share their point of view. It is to be in touch with reality, and not be the dupe of those who would mislead others or flat out lie to them. On these items you are an utter failure. Sorry for stating the truth. I suggest you try to find a home with the other dupes out there who are all too willing to be lead by the nose like a bull. Get a life!
September 12th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI think Bush has done his best at trying to explain things to people at every level of intellect, however some people just like to play stupid to prove their own point.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:31 pm1. The enemy is not Bush it is militant Islam.
2. Ben Laden claims to have declared war on us because we were in Saudi Arabia - enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq
3. The UN sanctioned Iraq for various reasons 14 times for 10yrs and we went to war to enforce the final UN resolution. The urgency of which was dictated by the potentiality of a nuclear threat and eroding support for sanctions.
4. Finally, Sept 11th was planned and in motion prior to Bush being ELECTED so Bush did not spawn the level of terrorism that inflicted 3,000 plus casualties on American citizens in a single stroke.
I hope this clarifies the need for you patriots to remain focused.
"Snow is simply embracing the Democrat’s favorite tactic: Repeating a lie over and over until people believe it is the truth." - - Ok, I'll bite. What lie have the Democrats repeated over and over?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:32 pmPLC (No. 7) - Surely, you're not suggesting Hussein and Zarqawi hat that kind of relationship, are you?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:33 pmDid anyone in the press conference actually challenge Snow on his inaccurate statement? I didn't see the conference, but I would not be surprised that the sheeple press corp just let it slide instead of pointing it out as inaccurate. Anther missed opportunity to make an example of these asshats.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:33 pmI loved Max Headroom, until the whole new Coke thing. Got turned off after that.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pmhowever some people just like to play stupid to prove their own point.
Comment by Huh? — September 12, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
wow, nothing could be made more clearer than post #39
September 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pmThank you
Snow: Must ... stay on script ... no matter ... how preposterous.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:39 pmAmerica's Least Wanted
OK... so Bill Clinton ended his presidency with a tasty cigar and a capitol blow-job. I guess that's why the MSM and the blind followers allow Bush to get away with deceit on top of outright lies, rampant corruption, partisanship like never before, disgusting campaign tactics (thanks especially to chubby butt Rove), even more lies (Tony Snow's new specialty), total disregard for the constitution to the point where it seems they actually despise it and last but not least a war in Iraq that has killed probably over 100,000 people based entirely, absolutely, completely and totally on unadulterated BULLSHIT!
Anyone that has the capability to lower themselves still to continue to support the Bush Administration is Un-American and Anti-American!
September 12th, 2006 at 3:41 pmI miss Hunter S. Thompson.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:46 pmJust more crap from an administration that seems to thrive on the law of diminishing expectations.
no wmd's
no al quaeda link (unless you're Cheney)
well, Zarqawi lived in Iraq.....Saddam lived in Iraq....
From deception to grabbing straws.
What's next? Bin Laden knew where Iraq was?????
What a Snow job!!!
September 12th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#39 -- And exactly which of the 50 or so changing reasons for illegally invading Iraq was enforcement of UN sanctions mentioned -- I fail to recall during the run-up to illegally invading Iraq that enforcing UN sanctions was ever mentioned until, of course, after the administration was wrong on every single count on the reasons to invade Iraq and the method of securing Iraq after Saddam's government fell.
So, do please, enlighten us all about when, prior to March 2003, that the UN principle was trotted out -- uh, it was never on the table for making the case for war until after the administration started flailing around to save face AFTER the illegal invasion. See, the righties hate the UN, so why would they ever expend national resources to prop it up by enforcing its sanctions -- or have you become confused on your talking points -- I know so many of them have become contradictory and inherently inconsistent over the past 6 long years.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:51 pmHowever Bush's moves against militant Islam have proven about as much of a success as Bill Clinton's (1 successful Islamic Terrorist Attack on American soil in both presidencies, a few foiled in both, both suffered attacks overseas) only Clinton managed to *shock* *Gasp* not allienate America's allies and unify America's enemies doing it, and Bill Clinton's mortality rate was far, far better then GW Bush's.
What did Bin Laden develop a wise uncle Ben some time? Did he really get started by getting bitten by a Radioactive camel? Joking aside, Bin Laden was upset about America having bases in Saudi Arabia, that those bases were enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq at the time, was kind of incidental. He was just upset about the bases being there, what they were doing was not really an issue.
Oh yeah, and Saddam and Bin Laden had a basically hostile attitude towards each other.
You cannot state that you were enforcing a UN resolution when the UN declared the war illegal. I seriously do not have to argue further then that.
9/11 actually happened 8 months into Bush's reign, so his inaction during that eight months means that he did, in fact, spawn the level of terrorism that inflicted 3000 plus casualties, by ignoring the copious warnings which were being sent to him. That the planning was started before he came to power is irrelevant, that the plan was pulled off while he was in power is really all that matters.
I do not see any of you guys out there arguing that the first WTC bombing was Bush Snr's fault, and that happened something like one or two months into Clinton's reign.
If you are going to accuse us of playing dumb, make sure that you aren't actually, dumb.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:52 pmActually, Judd, it's like saying that the US had a relationship with Mohammed Atta because he was in the US.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:54 pmDebating with these right-wing nutcases is like trying to slam a revolving door.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:54 pmIt is my hope that one of the Washington press corps would stand up to creepy Snow and tell him to "Stop giving us the Fox News point of view; the Fox News talking points; or the Fox News spin and start telling America the truth".
September 12th, 2006 at 4:11 pm#90
Bill Clinton did not "move" against militant Islam thus they were "emboldened".
We would not have been in Saudi Arabia if it were not for Iraq. Furthermore, cohorts need not be lovers to have a common enemy.
That's all the UN does is "declare" things. People with responsiblity have to take action.
True 9/11 happened 8 months into Bush's presidency, however the planning and the hatred for America existed long before that.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:15 pmOkay, I give up. There must be something in 'Opposite World' that causes this ability to deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what they are saying. And then Tony says he doesn't want to get into the 'vagaries' of the Senate report. I have a pretty good vocabulary, but I had to look it up. "Vagary": An odd or eccentric idea, a whim. Well he picked the correct word, he simply misdirected it. Name it, and claim it, Tony. They must be preparing for an 'Insanity' plea, just in case. They are riding on a runaway train, and the bridge has collapsed. This is going to get so ugly... just like it is in the 'Stalk & Stabs', (scary movies) the closer to the end it goes, the more the bodies start piling up. And BushCo is beginning to wig out, more and more every day.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:16 pmNo, Tony, you have to do as Bush does and say "Sadaam had relations with Zarqawi" - that gives it a sexual overtone and makes it much more interesting (we all know how sexually repressed these fools are). This is just such utter nonsense and makes absolutely no sense. As others have said, that's like saying that the US and Mohammed Atta had "relations" because he was living here. Why doesn't someone in the press corps call this idiot out on this insanity? We need Keith O. in there!
September 12th, 2006 at 4:18 pmWe don't expect anything better from Tony Snow, do we? He will lie to our faces for the Bush admin. That was part of the job description, wasn't it?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:21 pmWhat kind of "relationship" did Saddam have with Zarqawi? Rumor is the relationship ended when Saddam left Zarqawi for the Devil, (see South Park Movie).
September 12th, 2006 at 4:25 pmLooks like the Bush administration is down to the strategy of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La la la la la I can't hear you..."
Maybe they were shown the effectiveness of this tactic by Huh? (Good moniker, by the way. At the end of every one of his posts, I find myself saying the same thing: ...huh?)
September 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#55 -- So when Clinton fired the missiles in Afghanistan and blew up a factory believed to be used by terrorists to manufacture WMD in Sudan, and the chorus of rightwing lawmakers screamed "wag the dog" all the while pursuing an absurdly low standard for impeachment, he was not moving against radical Islam? Oh, I guess that is only true in the world of simplistic (and discredited) right wing talking points.
I am still waiting for you to provide proof that enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq was a cause celeb in the justification for invading Iraq prior to us actually invading -- cricket, cricket --
September 12th, 2006 at 4:36 pm#55. I love your "quotation marks" in that post. Classic!
September 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pmDoes Tony even get a script any more or is he just reich "winging it". I think he is is a thaw away from becoming a total flake. Lies and make it up as they go along, that's the republican way....Blessings
September 12th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#39
1. The enemy is not Bush it is militant Islam.
You're talking apples and oranges. Whether or not one wants to call Bush "the enemy", he is clearly a danger to this country. He has made us less safe by ignoring bin Laden (until lately) and invading Iraq. He is destroying our military. He is incompetent. I know that's not short and sweet like your little slogan, but it's not dishonest like your slogan, either.
2. Ben Laden claims to have declared war on us because we were in Saudi Arabia - enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq
First part correct. Second part irrelevant. He didn't care why we were in Saudi Arabia and he sure didn't care about Iraq.
3. The UN sanctioned Iraq for various reasons 14 times for 10yrs and we went to war to enforce the final UN resolution. The urgency of which was dictated by the potentiality of a nuclear threat and eroding support for sanctions.
No, we went to war in violation of the final resolution as well as the UN Charter. There was no threat. Inspectors were making progress. Bush was going to invade no matter what, and he didn't wait for approval from the UN Security Council. A majority of the Security Council members were against the invasion and against a proposed resolution that imposed a deadline. Bush's claims that Saddam wasn't cooperating turned out to be bullshit. There were no WMDs hidden, thus none for Saddam to reveal.
4. Finally, Sept 11th was planned and in motion prior to Bush being ELECTED so Bush did not spawn the level of terrorism that inflicted 3,000 plus casualties on American citizens in a single stroke.
I hope this clarifies the need for you patriots to remain focused.
That's a non-argument. Who ever said that Bush "spawned" the attack on 9/11? The attack had been planned well before 9/11 and Bush was warned about it. He ignored the warning. Cheney was supposed to lead a counter-terrorism panel to prepare for things like 9/11 and he never called a meeting. Ashcroft said flatly that he didn't want to hear about terrorism.
We're focused on the facts. Where are you looking?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:01 pmA gay relationship?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:07 pmBlather, rinse, repeat...
Blather, rinse, repeat...
;)
September 12th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#64 Republikkklans never liked Bubba because he was too smooth for them and he actually hung out with black people instead of doing photo-op’s …
Clinton (white trash Bubba) sitting on his ass while 500,000 Rwandans are slaughtered.
Here is his photo-op statement from Rwanda.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:22 pm"All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror," Clinton told the audience of several hundred assembled, including many survivors of the genocide.
#39
What do your comments have to do with the fact that the Press Secretary (The official White House mouthpiece) just declared that the only link between the people who commited the attacks (Al Qaeda) and SADDAM HUSSEIN was the fact that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the war....
There were no operational ties.......no handoff of nuclear weapons...nothing...
And let me add Al Qaeda was in Iraq AGAINST SADDAM's wishes-http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/iraqreport.ap/
Please excuse me....and expound for me how you go from a stroy that states NO REAL LINK between Saddam and Al Qaeda to questioning the intelligence and patriotism of Americans who disagree with GWB and his adminstration....
Could it be that yet another fabrication for this war has been knocked down and you have NOTHING to do but trash other Americans who rightly question the motives of this Adminstration in the lead up to the Iraq War...
If Republicans like yourself and others would DEMAND for a modicum of ACCOUNTABILITY from this adminstration this country would be better off....
September 12th, 2006 at 5:27 pmThat sounds an aweful lot like taking responsibility. Too bad the republicans don't know how to do that.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:30 pmlib4,
Don't let the numb nuts trolls confuse this.
AL QAEDA WAS NOT IN IRAQ PRE-INVASION. ZARQAWI DID NOT PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO OSAMA UNTIL DECEMBER 11, 2004. THERE WAS NO AL QAEDA UNTIL AL QAEDA IN IRAQ WAS CREATED. SADDAM DID NOT LIKE OSAMA.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:33 pmThanks for the clarification Spudge
Makes our case even stronger.......
September 12th, 2006 at 5:49 pmAnd Pakistan has a relationship with Osama Bin Laden, and therefore should be promptly invaded.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pm#70 Well said and #72 another fact aptly pointed out. It does make the case stronger. Come on trolls respond to these.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pmhite House Press Secretary Tony Snow insisted Saddam that had a “relationship†because Zarqawi was in the country
Oh I see, guilt by non-association.
So if I were to follow Snow Jobs' logic Bush/Cheney/Rummy had "relationships" with the terrorist because the hijackers were in America
September 12th, 2006 at 6:23 pmCRIMINAL AT THE BEST
September 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pmWhat, another lie? Are, we the people in charge here? Protect your rights and vote he lot out! Things will change most tick.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:50 pmWasn't the CIA in Iraq... I'm sure Saddam didn't want them in the country either, however, he didn't have a say in the matter. For christ sake, hammer these idiots who stand there a spout stupidity. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pmThat's like saying that Bush is responsible for the abortion clinic bombings because the people that tend to bomb abortion clinics also tend to be white, Christian, Republicans.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:16 pm#21 Real American: It was NOT a legacy of Bill Clinton, but of Adolf Hitler. The Nazi propaganda machine worked like this; repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. The Bush administration read Goebbels rulebook like a bible and worked it to perfection.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:16 pmClinton (white trash Bubba) sitting on his ass while 500,000 Rwandans are slaughtered.
Here is his photo-op statement from Rwanda.
“All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror,†Clinton told the audience of several hundred assembled, including many survivors of the genocide.
Comment by PJ
Horny Bubbas Foreign Policy was a killer wasn't it.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:17 pm[...] Watch the video at Thinkprogress.org [...]
September 12th, 2006 at 7:43 pm[...] … And rounding out the committee were Tony “I Get Paid to Lie” Snow, Dick “I Don’t Read Much” Cheney, Denny “I’ve Never Been to a Professional Sporting Event in America” Hastert, and everyone who hasn’t removed their “Bush/Cheney ‘04″ sticker from their SUV’s bumper. [...]
September 12th, 2006 at 8:01 pmCheney blames the war critics for abetting the enemy.
This of course is pure horse hockey.
I am Christian and in my view the GOP and it's evangelical base helps to inflame the middle east by it's continual Armageddon rhetoric that many many Christians don't embrace, such as myself.
Armageddon was a place of many battles of ages ago, and to try and recreate biblical Armageddon today is just goofy. If and when the end oof the earth comes it will be a natural disaster. A comet from the heavens, a huge earthquake, a giant volcanic eruption [Yellow Stone Park]
When the Arabs and the Muslims see their occupiers as Holy Crusaders instead of a peace force they begin to see the Americans as a nation that wants to oppress, enslave and kill them for the return of the Messiah. They also see Israel as a proxy of the American Zionists intent on retaking the Holy Land for other purposes than regime change.
As I said, I am a Christian but I don't follow this 'end times' Armageddon Scenario and I ask for those that do see this as some kind of second coming to cool their jets and keep their Armageddon return of the Messiah to themselves and off the airways because our Soldiers are depending on us. As is Democracy in the middle east.
To enagage in 'end times' rhetoric only exacerbates the problem of bringing about democracy in the middle east, if these people see Democratic America as a society of Christians that wan't to take over their country for a quixotic crusade to jerusalem the less likely a Democracy will ever form in the middle east.
Most of the younger generation doesn't realize that Iraq was a creation of the British;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_mandate_of_Iraq
Three important anticolonial secret societies had been formed in Iraq during 1918 and 1919. At An Najaf, Jamiyat an Nahda al Islamiya (The League of the Islamic Awakening) was organized. Al Jamiya al Wataniya al Islamiya (The Muslim National League) was formed with the object of organizing and mobilizing the population for major resistance.
This is not a 'new' war by any means and it certainly isn't the end times Armageddon that many evangelicals hope, oddly, that it is.
And as long as we are seen as occupiers, crusaders and Armageddonists that must destroy Islam for an Prophecy that pertianed to 70ad, and not today, we will likely never see democracy in the middle east come to fruition. Calling the Islamics Islamofascists, as Mr Bush and Cheney do, also incites more violence toward the troops. Hagee, the San Antonio evangelist, also incites more hatred and violence because of his Ideology.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pmClinton (white trash Bubba) sitting on his ass while 500,000 Rwandans are slaughtered.
Here is his photo-op statement from Rwanda.
“All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror,†Clinton told the audience of several hundred assembled, including many survivors of the genocide.
Comment by PJ
==
And who are we gonna blame for when Stalin killed millions of Christians? Who are we gonna blame for financing Hitler and the death of tens of thousands of jewish people? Prescott Bush? Hitler? Churchill? Who cut and ran from Beirut PJ? Reagan? Who cut and ran from Iraq Bush Sr? Who looked the other way and shook Saddams hand when the Kurds were gassed Rummy?
.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:11 pmWho are we gonna blame for the Inquisition?
#21: Snow is simply embracing the Democrat’s favorite tactic: Repeating a lie over and over until people believe it is the truth. It is Bill Clinton’s legacy.
Ah, I see. As long as it's possible to somehow indirectly blame a Democrat, it's OK for Republicans to lie, mislead, distort, and manipulate. Good one. Boy, you sure got us there.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:27 pm#82: Horny Bubbas Foreign Policy was a killer wasn’t it.
The Rwandan genocide was not Clinton's finest moment, agreed.
I'm assuming, though, that you're bringing this up to make a partisan talking point. Are you somehow suggesting that Bush's performance in Darfur has been an improvement over Clinton's Africa policy?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pmEr in all this discussion, I noticed noone brought up unconditional support for Israel by the U S. its the apartheid regime in the room noone in the us pays much atttenrion. I predict that my comment will not magically spark a reasoned debate about Israel and Palestine...
September 12th, 2006 at 8:36 pmIsrael as al al-qaeda causus belli - irrespective of bin laden's actual sympathies, like Saddam he knows it motivates his base. it works the same way gay marriage does here...flippant yes but accurate.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:39 pmHappened to see the Snowjob presser today - the man is a slick. He lies with a straight face. David Gregory and Martha Raddatz gave him a bit of a hard time, but he continues to spew the lies and distortions.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:53 pmHe can spin so completely, I think I will refer to him as a whirling dervish.
sorry ren blogging on a treo is not easy and american is not my first language. if you find my spelling so offensive - just scroll down
September 12th, 2006 at 8:54 pmSo by the same logic, I guess White House Press Secretary Tony Snow would also insist that Bush had a “relationship†with the 9/11 hijackers because they were in the United States?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:58 pmsphincter a little on the small side, Ren?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pmIf your going to debate that is critical!
Comment by ren
Check your own spelling and punctuation since "If you're going to debate, that is critical!"
September 12th, 2006 at 9:05 pmren loved the show - sorry you went all 'howard hughes' after the spotlight moved on.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:13 pmI've just had an ephi"phony". The bushites are taking away the freedoms that our forefathers so desperately fought for in our constitution and when they are all gone the terrorists won't have anything to fight us for because they're only hating us for our freedom. Now I understand what Cheney was talking about- No freedom- no problem!!!
September 12th, 2006 at 9:41 pmHey, remember what bush said, "The hardest part is connecting the
'war on terror" to Iraq."
LOL ... sure seems that way ...
September 12th, 2006 at 9:59 pmSaddam had a relationship with Zarqawi because Zarqawi was at some point in his country? Pathetic, self-serving bullshit only a fool would swallow.
So tell me, Mr. Snow, how close was the relationship between George Bush and the 19 hijackers? They were, after all, in our country, too.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:04 pmAnd who are we gonna blame for when...?
Comment by Trinary Suka
That's a good point as it seems everyone at TP blames Bush for 9/11, Katrina, terrorism, my cell phone not working etc. He is an evil genius always planning the next conspiracy for control of the world. This whole website is so full bullshit and half truths and more conspiracy bullshit.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:45 pmHell he is just one guy and a human at that. Treat him with respect. He is the President. Your attitude toward the President shows the kind of person you are too. Treat him the way you would like to be treated. Disagree respectfully.
Snow's credibility is totally shot! He's another Rethug bufoon....another "non-entity".
September 12th, 2006 at 11:01 pmJust realized we're "flaco'd" out with nincompoop trolls here tonight....
September 12th, 2006 at 11:02 pm#103 Flaco
This whole website is so full bullshit and half truths and more conspiracy bullshit.
Hell he is just one guy and a human at that. Treat him with respect. He is the President. Your attitude toward the President shows the kind of person you are too. Treat him the way you would like to be treated. Disagree respectfully.
I wonder if you'd be saying that if you were aware of even half of the stuff this guy has pulled and just how much you've been lied to.
Let's try this. You've probably heard people say that Bush was planning to invade Iraq all along but you figured it's just left-wing propaganda. Here's an excerpt from a piece by Patrick Lang, president of Global Resources, Inc. and former defense intelligence officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, that was published in the Middle East Policy Council Journal in 2004:
The signs of impending disaster were clear from the beginning of this administration. Insiders knew it all along. Statements made by the Bush administration often seem to convey the message that Iraq only became a focus of attention after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The evidence points in another direction.
Sometime in the spring of 2000, Stephen Hadley, now Condoleeza Rice's deputy at the National Security Council (NSC), briefed a group of prominent Republican party policymakers on the national-security and foreign-policy agenda of a future George W. Bush administration. Hadley was one of a group of senior campaign policy advisers to then-Texas Governor Bush known collectively as "the Vulcans." The group, in addition to Hadley, included Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and had been assembled by George Shultz and Dick Cheney beginning in late 1998, when Bush first launched his presidential bid.
Hadley's briefing shocked a number of the participants, according to Clifford Kiracofe, a professor at the Virginia Military Institute, who spoke to several of them shortly after the meeting. Hadley announced that the "number-one foreign-policy agenda" of a Bush administration would be Iraq and the unfinished business of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Hadley also made it clear that the Israel-Palestine conflict, which had dominated the Middle East agenda of the Clinton administration, would be placed in the deep freeze.
Dr. Kiracofe's account of the pre-election obsession of the Vulcans with the ouster of Saddam Hussein is corroborated by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's memory of the first meetings of the Bush National Security Council, which he attended in late January and early February of 2001. Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty, based on O'Neill's memory and notes, tells us of an NSC meeting, ten days into the Bush administration, at which both the Israel-Palestine and Iraq situations were discussed.
Referring to President Clinton's efforts to reach a comprehensive peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, President Bush declared, "Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. That's why we're in trouble. If the two sides don't want peace, there's no way we can force them. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of the situation."
Next, Condoleeza Rice raised the issue of Iraq and the danger posed by Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. A good deal of the hour-long meeting was taken up with a briefing by CIA Director George Tenet on a series of aerial photographs of sites inside Iraq that "might" be producing WMD. Tenet admitted that there was no firm intelligence on what was going on inside those sites, but at the close of the meeting, President Bush tasked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of U.S. ground forces in the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq to support an insurgency to bring down the Saddam regime. As author Ron Suskind summed it up: "Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq. Rumsfeld had said little, Cheney nothing at all, though both men clearly had long entertained the idea of overthrowing Saddam." If this was a decision meeting, it was strange. It ended in a presidential order to prepare contingency plans for war in Iraq. ("Drinking the Kool-Aid", http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp )
September 12th, 2006 at 11:18 pmpathological
haha - that's a good one!
now now, no namecalling!
September 12th, 2006 at 11:21 pmSometimes it seems like you hate Murka...The relationship between the Gubmit and the Unabomber is super-secrect doubleback classified...(thats what Dicky Aqrmitage sez in a "gossipy sorta way) I am just sayin The Terra ist win! LOL
September 12th, 2006 at 11:40 pmZarqawi was in Iraq. So Saddam had a relation with Al-qaeda. On similar lines, Bin Laden was in the US, the al-qaeda operatives were/are in the US. So al-qaeda has a relationship with the US govt.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:47 amSomeone teach this nut the basics of logic. Seems like he has grow old, but not grown up.
Flaco, pendejo,
Your pleading for tolerance of Bush's mistakes is ridiculous. "He's just a guy like me, like you, who occasionally get shitfaced and pisses in the closet. So what? Give the guy a break!"
It was no mistake. Chimpfuck invaded Iraq for his personal vendetta, not for the USA. This is Bush's war, not ours. He is the single most evil person in our lifetime, in our history.
To continue to defend that hateful bastard makes you the same anti-American. Move away please, all you religious freaks and populate another continent. Your ignorance is threatening the rihgt to life for the rest of us.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:49 amTest
September 13th, 2006 at 1:40 am#99 OK Ren, why don't you check 'causus belli' out - I'll give you a clue - its not english. The other stuff: yeah, bad shift key, small keys and dodgy space bar - Treo 650 nearing end of life.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:48 am#110 - Gregor - I see your test.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:48 amZarqawi was a made-up CIA creation, just the same as Osama himself!
September 13th, 2006 at 2:51 amFlaco
Bush is president of America right?
Hurricane Katrina happened when and where precisely?
9/11 Happened where?
Whose soldiers invaded a country which had thus far not proven to be a threat?
Who called an invasion based on an increasing list of things which have that far been just plain wrong?
Where does the buck stop? Oh yeah, with the nearest Democrat.
September 13th, 2006 at 3:58 amThere was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country. And I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That’s the relationship.
Ok...the 911 terrorists were in the U.S., some for well over a year. In many cases, one of the federal groups (CIA, FBI, INS) knew they were here. So should that also be interpreted as the U.S. "having a relationship" with them?
This administration has CONSISTENTLY tried to tie Saddam together with al-queda and the 911 attacks. Just as Bush's speech on Monday night morphed 911 and Iraq, so have they done for the past five years. Even today, according to a recent poll, 43% of Americans still believe that Iraq was involved in 911. Where the hell does the Bush administration think those people got THAT idea? (As if they aren't quite aware of HOW they got that idea!)
September 13th, 2006 at 11:53 amI still wanna know 'bout Zarqawi's peg leg. According to th' Bushwhacker, Zarqawi had his leg all amputated 'n stuff right there in Bagdad, right under Saddam's nose! Yet, when we killt him to death, no one ever mentioned the peg leg ... even though th' US performed an autopsy 'n all.
Kinda makes ya wonder whether th' President just makes stuff up.
September 13th, 2006 at 2:09 pmThe analogy with Ted Kaczynski doesn't even go far enough. The US Government's relationship with the Unabomber was even stronger, because he was operating in a part of the country that was under the US Government's control. Saddam's link to Zarqawi was even more tenuous.
September 13th, 2006 at 5:00 pmHehe, American had to repeat his lie (#18 and #21). Irony?
September 13th, 2006 at 7:10 pmIn that situation with Snow (and every other Repug that pushes this crap), how is it not one of the reporters brings up that Zarqawi was located in the Kurdish-controlled north where we ruled the skies, we knew where he was and the administration passed on at least 3 opportunities to take him out? These guys only play for the soundbite where they present the strawman argument ("we're not claiming they didn't share a corner office. . .") instead of being forced to answer the question honestly.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:12 pmWhat a reporter needs to say is "From almost all accounts, including the (REPUBLICAN-led) Senate report on the matter, this administration had a better understanding than Saddam of Zarqawi's exact whereabouts prior to the US invasion of Iraq - why didn't we at least attempt to take him out?
Oh, and when Snow talks about not wanting to get into the vagueries of the Senate report, they need to ask him what he finds to be vague.
2. Ben Laden claims to have declared war on us because we were in Saudi Arabia - enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq
That is rich...we aren't in the holy land anymore are we? Bunch of weasly little appeasers. That Ben really pulled one over on you.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:13 pmren, you are an idiot. Please...if you are going to attack others for their use of the English language you had better use it flawlessly. I won't use the word retard because...you are the type of scum to use it. I will just call you developmentally disabled.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:19 pmBern, I rarely wonder why a reporter doesn't ask obvious questions anymore. I do wonder why more people don't know that Zarqawi was being harbored by our nominal allies.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:21 pmWhat an absolute TOOL!
September 13th, 2006 at 10:17 pm[...] The other point about conspiracy theories is that the Bush Administration has perpetrated their fair share of them. From the constant “theories” about links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, Mohammad Atta’s Prague meetings, Zarqawi and Saddam, Niger uranium, and even their deliberately misleading exaggerations about Saddam’s WMD, they have hyped everything about the invasion of Iraq and the “war on terror” to the max. Dick Cheney is postively loony tunes about some of this stuff (but then again, he’s really a robot and I know because I know someone who knows the guy who designed the power source for his brain). [...]
September 14th, 2006 at 4:18 amTo: Flaco, Respect is earned not automatically gotten thru position.
You never gave and still don.t give President Clinton. He was a President.
Bush is a failure as a President. He has more deaths on his watch, than any other President since Johnson. Reality is a Bitch !!!!!!!!1
P.S. Plus he's STUPID 11111
September 15th, 2006 at 2:16 pm