Ignoring Senate Intel Report, White House Releases ‘Fact Sheet’ on ‘Iraq’s Links to Al Qaeda’
By on Sep 20th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Ignoring Senate Intel Report, White House Releases ‘Fact Sheet’ on ‘Iraq’s Links to Al Qaeda’
On September 8, the Senate Intelligence Committee — chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) — released a report examining Iraq’s pre-war links to al-Qaeda. Here’s what they concluded:
…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…Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin.
Days later, the White House has released this “fact sheet“:
When will the administration stop misleading the American public?
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“When will the administration stop misleading the American public?”
I’d say it’ll happen around the 20th of January, 2009.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:10 am“When will the administration stop misleading the American public?”
When the American public stops the administration. Shortly after January 20, 2007.
Impeachment will not be misleading but will be leading–straight to Leavenworth.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:12 amDear Judd – Thank you for the clarification and the link! I didn’t realize including an exchange between Senator Levin and George Tenent was “mis-leading”.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amPresident Bush went on to say that there is a definite link between the inability to understand facts and a low IQ.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:20 amThat’s an interesting, important and serious topic, I’m trying to think of something humorous to say.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:22 amIts not a fact sheet, its nothing more than a
BLAME “Freedom Medal” TENET DOCUMENT
September 20th, 2006 at 11:22 amThe Bush Regime are a bunch of criminal liars, so Bush and Cheney must be impeached ASAP by the entire House and Senate!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:22 amTenet said this, Tenet said that… Notice Tenet was given a medal and sent packing. His part in the defrauding of the American people complete, it’s time to disappear.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:23 amWhen will the administration stop misleading the American public? – - That’s rhetorical, right? No? Ok, they’ll stop misleading the public about the same time George Bush renounces Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:26 amFirst out of the box:
The Full Context Of The President’s Quote Shows That He Was NOT Drawing An Operational Link Between Al Qaeda And Saddam But Was Making The Point That Both Posed Threats To The World.
“And so it’s a comparison that is – I can’t make because I can’t distinguish between the two, because they’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”
Wow, thats neat. There is no distinguishing between the two yet he was NOT drawing an operational link. How does that work?
There is a pattern between food going into your mouth, then later coming out your ass in a different form. So to say there is no link between your mouth and ass is a complete lie.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:27 amHa! Thats funny.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:30 am“What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy – but they were there.”
Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Tom Kean, Republican
“I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor just said, we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.”
Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, Democrat:
September 20th, 2006 at 11:32 amcan anyone put forth a salient argument against insanity at the top?
if the meat puppet isn’t in charge, what are his dog dick’s real goals?
must be oil profits, and maintaining our dependence on oil. all the words say no, all the actions say yes
September 20th, 2006 at 11:32 amIs this the same Zarqawi? Hiding in northern Iraq? I wonder why he was not attacked when the Pentagon had ther chance – maybe because he became such a good boogeyman whose only purpose was to suggest an Al-Qaeda- Saddam link?
September 20th, 2006 at 11:32 amThe Clinton administration vigorously defended the strikes against the al Shifa plant in the Sudan. Bill Richardson, then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N., cited “Sudan’s support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX . . . and Sudan’s leadership support for Osama bin Laden.”
Sandy Berger suggested that al Shifa was a dual-use facility like those U.N. inspectors had found in Iraq. The Clinton administration had “information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and to the al Shifa plant,” he wrote in the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. He added: “We have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.”
September 20th, 2006 at 11:34 am“the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.”
September 20th, 2006 at 11:35 amMr Prezidunce, that is a lie. A lie. A lie.
Did thinkprogress actually read the released fact sheet? I just read it. The fact sheet never said that Saddam and AQ were linked operationally. It actually went very far in saying they were not connected, just simply equal threats.
You guys were on a roll of interesting and important pieces of news until this one. This isn’t even kinda news. This is just, well nothing.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:38 am“Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contactsand indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.”
Report of the 9/11 Commission
September 20th, 2006 at 11:38 amThe lame attempt to link them is still there. The administration is trying to save face by linking them in a different way.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:44 amEXELY – Six years of Bush’s disgrace and treason. Your still trying to pin it all on Bill Clinton. Your a goddam fool.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amThis will serve to keep the pot boiling until we get past the elections. It will be used to stifle those who opposed the war from the start, and it will lend a degree of support to the hawkish candidates.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amRegardless that there is no fact or evidence to support this new paper.
There has been distortion and disinformation from Bush&Co from the first day of their regime and as their power appears to be diminishing, there is no limit to the lengths they will go in continuing their deceptive behavior.
I can’t distinguish between the two… I can’t tell Saddam from Osama or Osama from Saddam… Boy Howdy that’s a tuff one!
It’s not that their very much alike really… or that they’re even working towards the same ends… it’s just that I’m an ignorant redneck and all brown people look the same to me… like terrorists!
- George Bush
September 20th, 2006 at 11:47 amThey’re entire case is based on “we never said that” and “Tenet’s fault”. It’s not like we’ve never heard those lame excuses before.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:47 amTesting…Not working
September 20th, 2006 at 11:48 amWow, Tom Kean said that? Well it’s settled then… Tom Kean is a lackey fixer. Like the rest of his ilk, everything issued from his wrinkled puss is pure bush-buttressing-bullshit. STFU Exley.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amFace it we are having to deal with a simpleton. No Rape-Public-Can can, including Exley, can refute the fact that Bush makes a historical collossal mistake in identifying DIFFERENT foreign relation hot spots as one in the same.
As an example in the last week Georgie lumps Hamas, North Korea, Al-Qaida, and Iran as a single entity. As if they have the same goals, idealogy, and objectives or history. This is direct proof this man is a retard. He can not conceptualize or understand the complex intricate details of each relationship so he throws them together into one “evil” entity.
Now refute that fact Conturds, this idiot is in way over his head and we suffer because of it.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:50 am#17 I just read the link and it does show the President drawing an operational link.
“Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert.
Concert according to Webster’s: agreement in design or plan : union formed by mutual communication of opinion and views.
The President is saying they had designs and plans working together.
That’s an operational link.
The other information provided by Tenet has been disscounted as coming from a single source (curveball) that bore no truth.
Zarqawi was operating in the northern part of Iraq which was not under control of Saddam.
The information provided on the link is nothing more than warmed up leftovers from past lies.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:50 amLook at all ya’ll Republican WAFFLERS struggling to hang on to this White House Lie
Y’all are truly sad… get over it. There was no Al Qaeda contact with Saddam.
What a bunch of losers!!!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:53 amMisleading the American public has been the Bush strategy for the past … oh… 7 years. They’re still in power, still not in jail, so it’s working for them. Why would they change now? Lies are the hallmark of the Bush Administration. It’s not them that we should expect to change, it’s their nature. The American public has to stop swallowing the swill! We are the only ones who can save us. Do not expect a bunch of nuts who are actively courting the end of the world to lift a single finger to save it or you.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:53 am“Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. “
So; they “work in concert” al Qaeda is “n extension of Saddam’s madness” and later “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror”.
But none of that suggests “An Operational Link Between Al Qaeda And Saddam”?!
What planet do these people live on?!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:56 am#19 Actually, MParker, I am giving the Clinton Administration credit for recognizing and acting upon the dangerous link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Are you claiming that the Clinton administration was lying when the destroyed the al Shifa plant, based in part on intelligence connecting the Al Qaeda-linked plant with Iraq????
We await your response.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:58 amWhy do you moon-bats only read the sections you want to read. Earlier in the report is states the following –
“The Senate Intelligence Committee’s July 2004 report concluded that the CIA’s methodological approach for assessing a possible Iraq-al-Qa’ida relationship was reasonable and objective.â€
So thanks for the link. Now I know Bush felt he was doing the right thing. Gee, I guess you are all going to stop screaming to impeach Bush now right? You are all twisted and blind.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:59 am#25, Eternal Springs
How amusing that you completely (and disingenuously) ignored Democrat Lee Hamilton’s remarks….
That was a very weak effort on yoor part, ES….You might want to try again.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:01 pm“The Senate Intelligence Committee’s July 2004 report concluded that the CIA’s methodological approach for assessing a possible Iraq-al-Qa’ida relationship was reasonable and objective.â€
So thanks for the link. Now I know Bush felt he was doing the right thing. Gee, I guess you are all going to stop screaming to impeach Bush now right? You are all twisted and blind.
Comment by Happy+Guy — September 20, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Bizarre reasoning there, guy. What do CIA methods have to do with Bush doing “the right thing”? Your comment following the quote is a complete non-sequitur.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:08 pm32# and 33# respond my comments from #27. #32 what your quoting is the process on how the CIA gathered the information which also has now come under scrutiny due to Curveball.
You have the right to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Drink the kool aid all you want and stroke your ego by throwing crap out here but make no mistake. You have not shown any substantial, formative opposing arguement.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWhy do you moon-bats only read the sections you want to read.
You are all twisted and blind.
Comment by Happy+Guy — September 20, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Dear Happy+Guy/Moonbat Patrol/I Hate Liberals/or whatever you call yourself now,
Why is it you complain about being called names and yet hurl insults like there is now tomorrow?
Have a nice day!
PS…I’ll call you on this every time I see you….Have you had any good gay-bashing posts lately? You know, like the “I’d pistol whip a homo” you stated a couple months ago.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:15 pmYou can run, you can hide (by always changing your comment name) but your writing skills will always give you away, and I’ll be there to pounce on your sorry homophobic, bigoted ass!
Take care
Congratulations Exley!
With your extraordinary powers of denial and your Herculean rejection of the truth… you’ve once again been able to successfully beat back the encroaching realities of the world.
At first I was nervous for you… I thought there was no way that you would be able to stand up to reality when the Army War College, the 911 Commission, and now a second Senate Intelligence Committee Report all came out with the conclusion that their were no real links between Al Qaeda and Iraq… but then POW… BLAM… BOOM… You beat that son of a bitch back with a fury!
Me and Karl are so proud of you Exley!!!
Keep up the good work… and don’t ever let reality win!!!
XOXOXOXO
September 20th, 2006 at 12:16 pm#32 Are you crazy? Your quote says that the methodology for assessment was reasonable, not that there was a reasonable connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Why don’t you read your own post? So I guess you know now what the rest of the world knows…that Bush did the wrong thing. I guess you are going to start screaming for impeachment now, right?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:16 pmI’m “claiming” that when faced with a lousy lying rotten failure and war criminal of a President you choose to ignore those charges and look 6 years into the past at Bill Clinton.
How very neocon of you.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pmAlright, how’s this; Lee Hamiton is an old fool who let the Bush administration use him like a whore. Almost every – Bush hand picked and vetted – member of the 9/11 commission is suspect as far as I’m concerned. I guarantee if they had bothered to look into something besides the straw-man “wall”, you republicans wouldn’t be gleefully quoting from the report.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#39 MParker
Nice evasion…Now how about answering the question as posed:
Do you believe the Clinton administration was lying when it destroyed the al Shifa plant, based in part on intelligence connecting the Al Qaeda-linked plant with Iraq????
I don’t think the Clinton Administration was lying.
Do you?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:21 pmNow the neo-cons are saying the WH never said there was a link. Fine. If there is no link, then there is no justification for invading Iraq. Can’t have it both ways, folks.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:24 pmOK, the French assisted in the American Revolution and gave U.S. the Statue of Liberty. So, they are linked, have an association. Therefore, this is proof that the French were operationally involved with the U.S. in the War in Iraq. Therefore, any questioning of the French (like “freedom fries”) is an unpatriotic attack on an ally. As sound of logic as BushCo. – and just as wrong.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pmWasn’t the President against the 9/11 commission before he was for it? #40 sums up nicely why he was against it. Exley, RRS, MA or any other of your ilk could you explain why was he against it, then for it and now disputes it?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:28 pmHere are some direct quotes from the “Fact Sheet:”
“[Y]ou can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.”
“…they work in concert.”
“al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam…”
“…you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.”
“Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network …of al Qaeda.”
“Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda.”.
“…provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates.”
“So these people (al Qaeda) have been operating there (Iraq)…”
“…that there’s a safe haven that’s been provided to this network(al Qaeda) in Baghdad.”
“…this large number of (al Qaeda) operatives are in Baghd (sic).”
“Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism…” and ” -…had contacts with Al Qaeda.”
If you would say that the above does not allude to an operational relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda then you would call an alligator a lizard.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:30 pmSheesh the neconservatives are still WAFFLING away at this?
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Oh well, carry on with your OBSESSION with Saddam.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:30 pmYou ask “When will the administration stop misleading the American public?”. This is Bush’s modus operandi–he cannot rule without it.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:34 pmExley, talk about weak… is your “argument” Clinton had some good intelligence, thus all of Bush’s intelligence is good also? Which hole are you barking out of?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:37 pmThe trolls are suddenly and inexplicably silent…..
September 20th, 2006 at 12:41 pmNow that was strange. Hey DRxJ I know you don’t like arguments with real facts, but calling me a gay basher is the strangest yet. I can promiss you I have never mentioned homosexuality on this website. But I would love to see your facts to the contrary? Or is this the usual liberal crap where if you think it and say it that makes it true. Please show me where this comes from. You say I said something months ago but I have never seen this website until the Drudge Report link about AAR (Anti-American Radio). Hmm, that was posted on 9/13/2006 and today is 9/20/2006. Yet you say
PS…I’ll call you on this every time I see you….Have you had any good gay-bashing posts lately? You know, like the “I’d pistol whip a homo†you stated a couple months ago.
You can run, you can hide (by always changing your comment name) but your writing skills will always give you away, and I’ll be there to pounce on your sorry homophobic, bigoted ass!
Well, let me see your facts! Once again a twisted leberal makes something up. I am glad to have found this site. I make sure to tell all my friends. It is the funniest thing since Jimmy Carter. You are too stupid to vote. Are you from Dade County Florida.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:48 pmQuite disturbing I must say. Countless humans – people just like your parents, siblings, sons, daughters, and friends – have been murdered in your name and you all decide to argue semantics with Exley.
Brilliant, actually, in that the level of denial has reached proportions unparalleled in world history. Hundreds of thousands are dead, exterminated by your hands, and completely innocent of the bogus charges used as justification for your abomination. Guilty only of being brown and different were they and you exterminated them for it.
There is the only absolute truth that this thread will see today. You want to argue about who was the bigger fool? I can settle that argument quickly and decisively – look in the mirror.
Oh yes, and “go mets”! Because, as I have learned from the intelligentsia here, in the end the bloodshed and murder and humanitarian travesties foisted upon the world by your country don’t really matter. What does, it seems, is whether your sports team achieves victory.
The Exleys and Roger-Rogers and their ilk are disturbed and pathetic. Yet many self-described “progressives” show only that they have progressed in the art of self delusion.
And now comes the inevitable “but just wait until the next election” in 5…4…3…
September 20th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#48
Eternal Springs, your answer implies that you believe the Clinton administration’s intelligence that linked Iraq and Al Qaeda. So do I….Thus, what is with this bizarre contention by John Podesta’s “ThinkPorgress” that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda???? Podesta is calling his old boss and colleagues liars.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#51 Have another drink
September 20th, 2006 at 12:59 pmOnce again, I ask that we ignore the trolls. We will never change their petrified minds. They believe everything Bush tells them, they think he has honor and integrity, they think he is doing a good job. They are unable to see what lies before their eyes and what has been wrought by the hands of Bush.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThey are irretrievably hopeless. Leave them to post alone, without response, until their boredom takes them away.
#51, Stating the Obvious….Lighten up, dude! Mets won last night, by the way. 100 victories are within our grasp!
September 20th, 2006 at 1:03 pmThere is no Liberty without Liberals
September 20th, 2006 at 1:10 pm100 victories are within our grasp!
Comment by Exley
So you praise a sport that was invented by italian immigrants and a sport where caribbeans (cubans! my god) are the dominating people?
September 20th, 2006 at 1:14 pmIm just messing around. :)
Oh yes, and “go metsâ€! Because, as I have learned from the intelligentsia here, in the end the bloodshed and murder and humanitarian travesties foisted upon the world by your country don’t really matter.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:17 pmcomment by Stating the Obvious
“your country”??? Is it not our country??? Or are you saying this because you are not an American. Or are you going to pretend (again) today that you served in the American Armed Forces?
Let’s see what have you done to stop the madness going on in this country… so far, a few posts on a political website, way to change the world big guy… Stating the obvious would be that you, my friend, need help!
It’s likely, with the Bush Adminstration’s extra-long track record of being wrong, lying and misleading (which Exley likes to ignore), there are a lot of lying quotes that have gotten in to mix up, confuse and undermine truth. Deliberately. Considering the Bush Adminstration’s loooooooooong record for lying and criminal acts, which little doggies like Exley and the Conservatives seem to have put out of their head to make room for insanity. Thanks boy.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:18 pmExley,
You ask me to lighten up while another commenter suggests that I pour myself a stiff one and solve the problems of the world by self-medicating myself into inebriation. Am I supposed to be amused by your cavalier attitudes and witless retorts? I’m not sure how that is supposed to work.
And I did look up the box scores to see that the mets baseball team did in fact win a game yesterday against the marlins baseball team by a score of 3 runs to 2. I also see that that yesterday in Iraq the number of people killed exceeds the combined total of players on those two teams.
This makes me wonder, if your government exterminated those two teams entirely yesterday, how would you be reacting today? Would you be beside yourself in anguish over the tragic and horrific loss of human life? Would you be enraged that you were denied the opportunity to see the game? Or would you just move on a pick a new team to follow?
I guess the true question is, am I too serious or are you too delusional? It’s one or the other is it not?
September 20th, 2006 at 1:19 pmThe Republicans Have a Katrina Foreign Policy
And the majority of Americans have finally figured it out.
Bye, bye, GOP… it’s going to be a long, long time before you crawl into power again!
September 20th, 2006 at 1:20 pmIs English a second language for the Bush Whitehouse?
What does “they work in concert” mean? The Whitehouse claims that the point they were making with that statement was that there was no “operational link”.
“In concert” means “link”.
There is no difference in meaning between “they work in concert” and “they operate in concert”.
If they had said “they operate in concert” the spin would claim that there was no “working link”.
How pitiful of them.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:21 pmStating the obvious would be that you, my friend, need help!
Comment by coachjason
Hey! Why are you so agressive? He made a great comment whether we like it or not.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:23 pmStating+the+Obvious: The Exleys and Roger-Rogers are conservatives, they are not progressives, the Republican ideology is to stop time or go backwards in time, this can be found in any encylopedia in the world. Progressives are Liberals. On my own take on it, Conservatives fear the future because the are already at a intellectual disatvantage now, so any progression into the future ultimately means more people will become smarter and Republicans will no longer exist because they will be seen by enough of the populous to be seen and understood as what some of us smarter people are already seeing, that these people are the ranks of the insane.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#62, Stating the Obvious…
Soooooo, you gonna have that drink that “Republicans are the fear and smear party” suggested or not????
And to answer your question: “Would you be enraged that you were denied the opportunity to see the game?” — Yes!
September 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pmRe:65
September 20th, 2006 at 1:31 pmIf you’ve ever read any of my previous posts, you’d know that, until yesterday, I’ve never been aggressive, mean, or angry. I realize I’m here sharing my views with people who seem to oppose those views on a regular basis. I’ve enjoyed friendly exchanges with a great many progressives, and have learned a great deal. In turn, I think I’ve shared much of the knowledge i’ve gained through experience and several have learned from me as well. Stating teh Obvious took me to task in a very demeaning and disrespectful way yesterday. He brought no honor upon either of us and my brothers serving in the military as we speak. I was so mad yesterday that I was actually shaking. I’ve had a few hours to calm down and am ready to take him to task on the many lies he used to try to discredit me yesterday. Sorry if that hijacks the thread, but he won’t get away with garbage like that with me again.
“Bye, bye, GOP… it’s going to be a long, long time before you crawl into power again!”
I believe, as time goes on, we will look back a the Bush presidency as a clear, stark, and globably-viewed example of what insanity really means.
And how our elderly can deteriorate into senility and such mental impairment that they start to claim reality is a “mirage”.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:35 pm“globably-?”
September 20th, 2006 at 1:39 pmSUSA,
I understand your point completely, but your logic has a serious flaw that I hope that you will understand that I am pointing out respectfully and not as an attack.
You see, if the progressives and liberals are “smarter”, then how come they are not in charge? And, more concisely, would not an intelligent being not allow themselves to be misled and fooled into actions which are contrary to everything that they believe in? And then, assuming that one got “fooled”, would not the intelligent being not only cease following a deception once it has been exposed, but as a matter of conscience then do everything within its intellectual abilities to not only cease the action but also clearly separate oneself from the action?
It is not by words that one is judged, but by actions. And the actions occurring now are not that of cease and desist, but rather that of to continue and enhance.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:41 pmWhat is the underlying purpose of putting out this doc from the WH? Are they trying to show a greater connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam but without stating they pushed an “Operational link”? It doesn’t stand well on it’s own It’s only a matter of time now before the media, sensing the pendulum’s swing, will want to openly point out the scrambled logic.
As for the comments from Stating the Obvious, don’t be lulled into thinking that this blog is anyone’s only outlet for their displeasure.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:46 pmExley,
I prefer not to drink from the fountain of foolishness. Labels are for the small minded and dabbling in them is a fool’s errand. The suit does not make the man, so being a “republican” or a “democrat” does not grant immunity to crimes nor establish inherited credibility. A murderer is a murderer, whether they wear a suit, a badge, a uniform, or a robe.
And your answer to my question appalls me to a level I did not think possible. Yet, it does grant me the perspective to see that you are in a state that I will not stoop to enter. I truly hope you find your way out.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:49 pmRe:70
September 20th, 2006 at 1:50 pmIf you think Abu Ghraib is a stain on every soldier, then you are a stain on every liberal. Fortunately for you, there are progressives who actually have and use common sense… Maybe you should try it sometime!
I was so mad yesterday that I was actually shaking. I’ve had a few hours to calm down and am ready to take him to task on the many lies he used to try to discredit me yesterday.
Comment by coachjason
Yeah, I read it yesterday. Im sorry for your losses but your emotions get in the way of reason. I hope you find some peace. I like your posts.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:51 pm72 Stating the Obvious
September 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pmI see you took that drink, or two, or three, or …
I can’t believe some of these Republican posts. There is propaganda in every “war.” Those of us with a brain sift through it to find out what it true and what isn’t true. Why do some people insist on believing every bit of Bush’s propaganda knowing that it’s propaganda? Wouldn’t that mean you are stupid? Why do you want to be stupid?
September 20th, 2006 at 1:54 pm#59,
So, you believe that the evidence of the Iraq-Al Qaeda-Sudan link posited by the Clinton administration was sufficient justification for the cruise missile strike against the al Shifa plant in 1998.
Wow. We agree. I fully supported Clinton’s strike against the plant in Khartoum. Allowing Osama Bin Laden to produce chemical weapons through the expert advice and materials provided by Iraqi nerve gas experts was an unacceptable security risk. Clinton acted correctly. I am glad we have been able to find this common ground.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:56 pmcoachjason,
You are “fuming” mad at me for two reasons: 1) I spoke the blatant truth. 2) I think differently than you currently do.
Name the crime that so infuriates you that you would, and don’t even bother denying the urge, like to bring dire physical harm to me? Can you do so without frothing?
I seriously suggested yesterday that you seek professional help not as an insult but because what you don’t realize is that your anger issues are not your problem, but it is the guilt. I truly hope you see that light soon.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:01 pmWhoa, didn’t RogerRoger just have a long post up, it ended with his list of favorite polititians? What happened to it?
Hi Exley!
September 20th, 2006 at 2:02 pm#74 Stating the Obvious wrote: And your answer to my question appalls me to a level I did not think possible.
I think I see what’s going on here…Are you a Braves fan? Is that the problem?
September 20th, 2006 at 2:05 pm#83
Hey Jane! How are you? How’s Wayne today???? How hard did you guys celebrate on Monday night?
As for R-R’s posting, I have noticed postings appearing and disappearing and then re-appearing alot over the past few days…Very odd.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:07 pmPoliticians. Geez, yeah, I know how to spell.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:08 pmDid anyone look through the REST of their “Setting the Record Straight” claims? It’s incredible.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#83 Jane,
By the way, Jane, how was Primary Day in New York last week? Weren’t you working the polls or something? Did your candidates win?
September 20th, 2006 at 2:19 pmNearly 200 bodies of Iraqis who had been tortured and shot have turned up around Baghdad in the past week, including three found Tuesday in an eastern section of the capital.
Most are found bound and blindfolded, apparent victims of sectarian violence. Both Shiite and Sunni lawmakers called Tuesday for the defense and interior ministers to take steps to stop the death squads.
Exley, MA and all supporters of this war.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:20 pmI want you to take personal responsibilty for these casualties and also let us know what your leader’s plan is to stop this carnage.
Please enlighten us.
#85, not too hard, but it was kinda late. It was more like “about f*ing time!” I guess Wayne’s been busier than I am today, but I’m sure he’ll be posting later.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:26 pm#58 – Juan – er baseball was invented in England…surprised? So was I when I made a biz trip to NW England and encountered evidence to back it up.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:29 pm…You are getting veeerrry sleeeepy…
-The criminal Bushite Junta-
September 20th, 2006 at 2:30 pmRE:82
September 20th, 2006 at 2:30 pmCaptain Obvious,
there has yet to be even suggestions of truth in anything you’ve said to me. You found some oath, probably a British or French servicemen’s oath, and touted as the one you took upon entering american military service.
You said that I needed help but gave no reasons why. You tried to say it was because I’m a war criminal for partaking in Bush’s war and following orders to a tee. Were you in an American service, you’d know that we don’t question orders, especially during wars.
You questioned my feelings of anger over watching my friends be sniped from a Mosque. That did, in no way, make me mad at Muslims. It made me mad at the ones allowing a Mosque to be used as a military base of operations, more exact, a sniper operation.
So I hold a little animosity towards the ones who killed my friends. Lucky for you, you never saw combat, and never lost a friend. Of course I wanted “revenge”, it’s part of my human emotions. What I wanted more was the ability to keep the murderer from killing more people. If that logic is flawed, then our whole justice system is flawed.
Thinking differently will never be something I get angry at others for, as you so suggested. I’m here conversing with several others who think different, and we’ve been able to do so on nothing less than a professional level. No shots fired, no questioning of ones patriotism or service. Honest talk with honest people. Of which you have proven to be neither. And until you can do otherwise, you’ll get no respect from the likes me. I know that means little to you, since you only value your own opinion.
If being in charge means that you’re “smarter”, then i guess that the ruling priest class in Iran is smarter than those poor dumb Iranians who want a real democracy, eh #72, “stating the lie”? If being the strongman who lied or murdered or cheated your way into a leadership role means that you’re “smarter”, then no doubt you love Bush. So when your precious GOP thugs are tossed out on their ears in Nov,.. do we get to claim that the DEMS are smarter because they’re in control, will you back up that statement too? Did you praise Saddam as “smarter” when he was in control of Iraq?
September 20th, 2006 at 2:34 pmBTW captain Obvious, I hold more guilt than you take breaths. But in no way did I wish physical harm on you. I just don’t understand a supposed fellow soldier questioning anothers commitment, service, or patriotism. I sounds like you are the one with issues, I’m doing fine dealing with mine thanks…
September 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pm#90 Jane. Yeah, I actually didn’t celebrate too hard either. Clinching the division is nice, but we have a looooong way to go before we can REALLY celebrate.
#89 RUCerious, I freely admit there may be no way to stop the Muslim-on-Muslim carnage going on in Iraq right now. It is a tragedy. The United States and its Coalition partners, by deposing the monstrous Saddam Hussein, provided the Iraqi people with a golden opportunity to create a modern, tolerant democratic society. Tragically, it appears the Iraqis are squandering this opportunity. Rather than creating a decent, civilized society for themselves and their children, they appear to be indulging in ancient tribal and ethnic divisions. In the run up to liberation, many of my liberal or “progressive” friends argued that democracitizing Iraq was impossible because the Arab-Muslim world was incapable of forming such a society. I, on the other hand, believed that given the opportunity, the Iraqi people would embrace freedom and tolerance. Perhaps I was wrong and my progressive friends correct. I am not yet sure. When I see the carnage you describe, I am pessimistic. When I see millions of Iraqis go to the polls to participate in the dempcratic process, I am hopeful.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:40 pmWithout Democrats there is No Democracy
September 20th, 2006 at 2:41 pmJuan – er baseball was invented in England…surprised? So was I when I made a biz trip to NW England and encountered evidence to back it up.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Are you for sure? Well, its very likely due to the cricket thing going on there, but at least who brought them to the US or the ones who happened to like it most were italians. I saw a documentary a long long ago. Not sure, I dont really like baseball. Thanks for the correction.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:44 pmThis just in from Captain Obvious:
Hey! I’m Captain Obvious.
(…no, I’m Captain Obvious – acknowledgements to Tony Curtis)
September 20th, 2006 at 2:47 pmExley, I’m a little confused, the al Shifa plant was in Sudan not Iraq. Could you please point us to your source for this so-called “Iraq-Al Qaeda-Sudan link posited by the Clinton administration” you’re rambling on about? My brief google search only found links to the usual suspects: free-republic, newsmax, weekly standard… Got anything legit?
September 20th, 2006 at 2:48 pmSolitare,
Interesting. I respectfully point out a logic flaw to SUSA and you go ballistic on me and then try to assign to me opinions and positions that I have never stated or even implied and then you strike them down with your keyboard warrior fierceness. Is that what is called a “straw man”?
Just to clarify something for you, I believe Saddam Hussein was a horrific and despicable man. I also believe that bush is a despicable and horrific man. The question I have for you is, why do you follow bush? How is it “patriotic” to support a murderer?
Although I would think that you will retort that you do not support bush, are you not enabling his crusade by not revolting against him?
Food for thought.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:48 pmWithout Democrats there is No Democracy
Comment by D.+Tree — September 20, 2006
actually democracy means “rule by the people”. So essentially you could have a democracy without Democrats (or Republicans), and still be a democracy… sorry for the correction
September 20th, 2006 at 2:50 pm#96, thanks for your honest response.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:51 pmI am among those who believes that the tribal mentality of the Iraqi social structure will not permit a democracy as we know it to take hold.
Voting, rather than being a measure of each individual’s preference for political will, is subborned to the clan and tribal leader’s fiat.
So even though “elections” were held, they were meaningless in the sense that you and I know them.
By removing Sadaam, no doubt a despotic ruler, we have allowed the chaos of political vacuum to unfold, and there’s no putting pandora’s box back the way it was.
Freedom, like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder.
Exley, MA and all supporters of this war.
I want you to take personal responsibilty for these casualties and also let us know what your leader’s plan is to stop this carnage.
Please enlighten us.
Comment by RUCerious
All supporters of this war see the world as monopoly game: I have to win, f*ck them all. If US troops are brought now, it will be seen as a defeat. It will be seen as: I have lost. It doesnt matter if winning takes us to kill the entire civilian population, no. It matters if I win or I lose. It will be seen as: the chinese are laughing at me, right now. It will be seen as: terrorists have won (although terrorists have already won if we restrain our liberties). It will be seen as a personal failure, because my government represents me. In my opinion, supporters of this war, have low self-esteem if they think that backing off from a fight is losing. The true goal of a warrior is peace.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#98 – yup. I ran into someone who is a member of this society http://www.sabruk.org I was shown a press cutting about the Spalding cup…
September 20th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#100 Eternal Springs, Your puzzlement…well…puzzles me…The information you seek is posting #15:
The Clinton administration vigorously defended the strikes against the al Shifa plant in the Sudan. Bill Richardson, then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N., cited “Sudan’s support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX . . . and Sudan’s leadership support for Osama bin Laden.â€
Sandy Berger suggested that al Shifa was a dual-use facility like those U.N. inspectors had found in Iraq. The Clinton administration had “information linking bin Laden to the Sudanese regime and to the al Shifa plant,†he wrote in the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. He added: “We have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.â€
September 20th, 2006 at 2:57 pmA few remarks here:
by deposing the monstrous Saddam Hussein Commet by Exley
First, this Walt Disney description of life helps you to retain in your brain the basics of fascists propaganda: good and evil. When you stop thinking in this terms (not just one but others that you have posted) you will be struck by a complex world. Second, Saddam Hussein was as a mass-murderer, just as Pinochet, Somoza, King Fahd, etc.
it appears the Iraqis are squandering this opportunity
September 20th, 2006 at 3:05 pmYou mean to get profit from its own resources? No, thats being arranged by US and oil companies. About democracy, maybe they dont want it, maybe theyre just not prepared, I dont know. Thats a choice they have to make. It is racist to think they can not solve their issues (throwing a dictator or managing their oil) by their own. Dont be a racist. Theyre not inferior.
#100….Eternal Springs,
There is also this from the 9/11 Commission Report:
This passage led [Richard] Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons,
to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq / Al Qida agreement.”
Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”
p. 128, 9/11 Commission Report
September 20th, 2006 at 3:07 pmROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL!!!
YOU ARE SUCH A PARODY OF YOURELF
REPUBLICANS ARE SO FUNNY!!!
ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL, ROTFL!!!!!
September 20th, 2006 at 3:07 pmEr – Al -Shifa? I thought that that was debunked as a pharma plant? My source is the BBC from 1999.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#100…Eternal Springs,
There is also this from a Jan. 23, 1999 article in The Washington Post:
Clarke defended the Clinton administration’s August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That
mission avenged al Qaeda’s demolition of U.S. embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. T
The Post quoted Clarke as “sure” that Iraqi experts there produced a
powdered VX nerve gas component.
According to the Post, Clarke “said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas
September 20th, 2006 at 3:15 pmexperts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”
106# and your point regarding the links that the Bush admin is (or is not) stating is?????????
September 20th, 2006 at 3:16 pmcoachjason,
So, this is what it comes down to, who feels the most guilt and who is the most loyal. Fascinating.
As with each and every person here who is a citizen of the United States of America, I am guilty of heinous and horrific crimes. None committed directly by me, mind you, but by my servants (the government) and my charges (the military). I acknowledge that guilt. And I will not rest until I find a way to stop the evil empire that this once great nation has become.
Then, you wish to imply that I have no honor when, in reality, I am honor bound to be saying exactly what I am. Your argument that you are free of sin because you were just following orders is bogus. Heard ye of Nuremberg? You should have in that part of the code that you swore to is based upon some of the realities exposed there in that a soldier is both legally and honor bound to NOT follow orders if the actions ordered are illegal. Murder is illegal. Genocide is illegal. Torture is illegal.
On this very day I have a young nephew who sits right smack dab in the center of the middle east. My conversation with him before he left concluded with me instructing him on something that you do not seem to understand, so perhaps my repeating it here will benefit you. I told my 19 yr old nephew that no matter what he faced, no matter what the consequences, first and foremost he was to do what is “rightâ€. Honor and conscience would accept no less and he would have to live the rest of his life with his decisions and the knowledge of his actions. I also explained that as a soldier, he had agreed to one of the most noble tasks a person could undertake, and that is to defend the defenseless, regardless of nationality, against all enemies, regardless of affiliation.
Each and every moment I live with the concern that my conversation with my nephew was our last. Each and every moment I carry the guilt of my country and do everything within my power to peacefully bring an end to our heinous ways.
So, my friend, if you wish to challenge the ground upon which I stand, look first at the swamp you have immersed yourself in.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:17 pmHey, ROTFL
I’d like to speculate to you that the rain that fell in Ohio yesterday is the direct result of Exley sweating while earning his troll money on TP recently. The H20 content of the rain is the exact chemical combination of hydrogen and oxygen.
Is any more proof necessary to conclude that Exley caused it to rain in Ohio?
September 20th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#110 – hmm OK maybe not.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#115…The point is quite clear. It is absurd to argue that the Bush administration created out of whole cloth the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection when officials in the Clinton administration, including Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, and Thomas Pickering also alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda connections in the late 1990s.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:23 pmJuan C
September 20th, 2006 at 3:25 pmThanks for your thoughtful contributions to my questions!
121 Exley
September 20th, 2006 at 3:29 pmPost 117 and Post 122, therefore, not so clear.
#118 Terry,
Moreover, Clinton administration officials, such as Al Gore and Richard Clarke, to this day stand by their decision to destroy the al Shifa plant and so testified to the 9/11 Commission:
“The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA’s assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-Shifa in 1998. The report also notes that in their testimony before the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-Shifa“
September 20th, 2006 at 3:33 pmFocus Exley focus. The ties that this administration had held so dear are not from past administrations. They are from a single source pushed by the OSP bypassing the CIA and DIA and went directly to the WH. These ties have already been proven to be false. I am not defending the Clinton Administration in any way. The intelligence gathered in the Middle East has not been accurate for some time.
There is a huge leap from what the intelligence Clinton’s admin had (and their measured responses) and the Bush’s with their blind leap of faith. And that’s just the start of it. In no way did the current administration properly battle plan for the conflict or it’s aftermath and I hold them accountable now. You want to keep believing Bush did the right thing then you should be screaming at the top of your lungs for the draft so we can properly combat the threat to our civilization, war on terror, global struggle against extremism, WWIII or whatever the latest panic phrase is. You have such a self righteous attitude in your statements but the logical conclusion is overwhelming force to combat the enemy of our lifetime. So your snotty little comments here without backing it up with facts pertaining to the current activities are hollow. You may be doing yourself a favor with an ego stroke but you come off as a no nothing blinded non elnisted mental masturbater chicken hawk
September 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pmAnd I stand by my conclusion that Exley uses pseudo-logic to support faulty premises to an immoral war started by an intellectually dishonest administration.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pmYou should have in that part of the code that you swore to is based upon some of the realities exposed there in that a soldier is both legally and honor bound to NOT follow orders if the actions ordered are illegal. Murder is illegal. Genocide is illegal. Torture is illegal.
If you are going to Iraq, or any combat zone for that matter, you’d better be prepared to murder. Unless you have another name for killing people…
I couldn’t agree more that torture is illegal, that’s why American soldiers don’t do it. The ones who do are punished, the ones who give the orders are court-marshalled.
Each and every moment I live with the concern that my conversation with my nephew was our last. Each and every moment I carry the guilt of my country and do everything within my power to peacefully bring an end to our heinous ways.
I do nothing but pray for your nephew. There is no pain in this world that matches losing a loved one. I also pray he takes heed in some of your words.
So, my friend, if you wish to challenge the ground upon which I stand, look first at the swamp you have immersed yourself in.
I only challenge your ability to tell the truth. As I doubt you served, and will continue to doubt it til you prove otherwise, I believe your story about your nephew. Only a sick twisted human being would make up a story like that to gain sympathy.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pmAs for the swamp I’m in… sure beats looking down to see who I’m stepping on.
Maybe someday I’ll make peace with my call to duty, hopefully you’ll do the same for misleading people on this website. At the very least, I know what I did carries honor, maybe even some respect. Of which I get none from you… hopefully when your nephew gets back you don’t treat him the same way.
Let’s see, Canada has ties with us. They also have ties with Cuba. Are we in concert with Cuba?
September 20th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#109….Juan
So, Saddam Hussein was, as you admit, was a “mass murderer,” (killed upwards of 400,000 people) but it is somehow improper to employ the adjective “monstrous” to describe him….
Oooooookay. Care to explain that one, Juan?
September 20th, 2006 at 3:43 pmHere is the source of Exley’s leap of logic from the MoonieTimes archive
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051212-094441-2149r.htm
If you read it you will see a one line reference to help Iraq may have given Sudan with plants. There is no reference to a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that bit conjecture is provided by Exley.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:45 pmJuan
I got this one (Exley 130).
Come on, your illogic about the Iraq/Al Quaeda connection is warping any other logic you have. Juan wasn’t calling the adjective “monstrous” improper. He was calling the deposing of Hussein and leaving other monstrous dictators in power inconsistent and, therefore, not justified.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:50 pm#126,
Actually, my posts have all been thoroughly documented and cited (9/11 Commission Report, The Washington Post, etc.)
Thus, your comment that I post messages “without backing it up with facts” is demonstrably false.
Your frustration at your inability to keep up with me in making factual arguments undoubtedly accounts for your rather childish tone.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:51 pm#131, Eternal Springs,
Actually, the “conjecture,” as you describe it, is from Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, and other Clinton administration officials in the 1990s.
You may wish to review again postings # 110 and 114, taken from the 9/11 Commission Report and The Washington Post, respectively.
We eagerly await your response.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:56 pmThat’s all well and good Ex, but that evidence came out shortly after and it was easy to find opeds like this to attack that. The evidence, despite Clinton admin assertions, still seems unconfirmed. The al Qaeda link is then even more speculative. The way Clinton and Bush responded to sketchy intelligence is still very different, with very different consequences. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9910,vest,4380,1.html
September 20th, 2006 at 4:03 pmTime for “Exley Logic Class”.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:08 pmFirst, students, find some facts that use words, phrases, and names that have something to do with your pre-conceived conclusion. Don’t worry about where those facts come from, who might have described them, and if those facts are themselves true. Second, arrange those facts into a sequence that suggests that they have anything to do with each other and with the conclusion you want to draw. Remember, they do not have to have any real connection. The facts just have to flow into each other. This is art, my dear students, not science! Third, state your conclusion, even if you already stated it at the beginning. Saying it many times gives it a “truthiness”. Finally, and most importantly, have a nice list of names to call people who disagree with you, your facts, and your logic. Now, students, remember to be artistic about your name-calling. Do not just rely on labels like “stupid” when “childish”, “frustrated”, and similar labels are much more useful. If all else fails, attack someone else’s facts, conclusions, or logic to give yourself time to enlist some help or regroup. Class dismissed.
coachjason,
Why you continue to challenge my honesty baselessly is just part of your problem. You cannot deny the truths that I put forward so you instead use diversion and deception. That is not a good thing by the way.
Yes, I did serve in the United States Army and have the Honorable Discharge and, for reasons I’m not sure of, I retain the original copy of my separation orders, also known as the DD214. Of course you will argue that I could have looked all that stuff up, because denial seems to come easy to you.
One quick point, killing in the act of true defense is not murder, nor is a “possible” threat a justification for murder. You have made comments contrary to these obvious truths so I wanted to address them quickly with you.
I thank you for the prayers regarding my nephew, as they cannot harm. How he conducts himself will all be part of his path to maturity. But he knows now what the military has stopped teaching, and that is that blind loyalty does not equal honor, and that he is ultimately responsible for all his actions.
I hope you find the peace that you seek. But do not think you will find it by projecting upon others that which disgusts you about yourself. I am not perfect, but I have not misled anyone here nor have I spoke any untruth.
Sadly, the truth is avoided with great determination by many in today’s political and social climates. Even though the ramifications of the truth’s avoidance are so incredibly dire. I’d say it is funny, but it is most assuredly not.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:09 pmI’ll look further into your sources, but for now remember I think that commission was utter bullshit. BTW, have attempted to set your prez straight with the “irrefutable evidence” you present here?
September 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pmExley, you use the 9/11 commission report to support what, that the intelligence Clinton went on is as sketchy as what Bush went on? You keep pushing the “Clinton did it” but have not come to the plate when discussing the source of the OSP intelligence. Curveball and the single source. I don’t have time to hunt down the legislative documents regarding this but it’s now out there that Bush went to war on faulty intelligence and you don’t even attempt to back this up. You still go on and on and on about the failings of the previous admin. Why not jump back one admin further and discuss why GHWB and Cheney and Rumsfeld strongly defended the decision not to go after Saddam all the while knowing how bad he is.
If your going to use the 9/11 report use the conclusion.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm#138,
My point is not to convince any one that the bombing of al Shifa by the Clinton administration based on its belief that the plant was owned by Bin Laden and was produced and run with the help of Iraqi nerve gas experts was correct or incorrect. I happen to think it was the right thing to do and supported Clinton on that decision (And as I noted, people like Al Gore, Sandy Berger, and Richard Clarke maintain to this day that their intelligence on al Shifa was correct and justified its destruction).
What I am pointing out that the Clinton administration, along with the Bush administration, believed and acted militarily on the belief that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allied. Therefore, it is disingenuous for people, including the publishers of ThinkProgress (such as John Podesta, Clinton’s former chief of staff) that the Bush administration was first to assert this link.
And while you are to some extent right when you say that “The way Clinton and Bush responded to sketchy intelligence is still very different, with very different consequences,” the fact is that 9/11 required a change of thinking.
I quote again Richard Clarke:
“We should have a very low barrier in terms of acting when
there is a threat of weapons of mass destruction being used against American citizens,” says Clarke, brushing aside suggestions that a preoccupation with bin Laden has caused errors in judgment, such as the decision to retaliate for the attack on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 by bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, suspected of producing chemical agents.
“We should not have a barrier of evidence that can be used in a court of law,” Clarke says.
Washington Post,
September 20th, 2006 at 4:21 pmApril 2, 2000
By the way here is the full 1999 Washington Post article in which Richard Clarke says the Clinton administration acted military based on intelligence pointing to Al Qaeda and the Iraqis working together:
Embassy Attacks Thwarted, U.S. Says; Official Cites Gains
Against Bin Laden;Clinton Seeks $10 Billion to Fight Terrorism
By Vernon Loeb
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama bin
Laden’s extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks against at
least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton dministration’s senior counterterrorism official said yesterday …
Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations that
he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in Africa and the Middle East. He would not say which embassies had been targeted,
although U.S. officials previously disclosed that they had foiled an alleged
attempt by bin Laden associates to blow up the U.S. Embassy
in Uganda.
Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire
Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum,
Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.
While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack
that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a
precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure”
that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was
produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence
exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi
nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.”
September 20th, 2006 at 4:27 pmAnd since then here are some quotes that I would like Exley to address:
30 Mar 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells This Week with George Stephanopoulos: “the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
“We found the weapons of mass destruction.” –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003
My answer is bring ‘em on.” —President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003
“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” –Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005
“F**k Saddam, we’re taking him out.” –President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion
“Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.” –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding “stuff happens,” April 11, 2003
“It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine.” –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003
“We know he’s been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” –Vice President Dick Cheney, “Meet The Press” March 16, 2003
“I don’t know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.” –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003
“Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties
So go on and vigoursly state your case but you ignore 5 years of missguided adventures by this administration.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:36 pmExley,
You are a very good lawyer, I must say. Yet, I should point out that such is not a compliment.
I can summarize your position quite succinctly, and that is that you cannot blame bush for thinking that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda because his predecessors believed so as well. Therefore, by extension, you cannot blame bush for invading Iraq.
I can illustrate quickly and clearly the flaw of your reasoning. Let’s say you have a teenaged daughter who dresses provocatively and who is not a virgin. Your daughter is then gang raped by the football team. In court, the team’s lawyer presents the argument that everyone believed your daughter to be a slut and felt that she was just begging for what she received. By your logic, the football team is innocent and your daughter deserved everything she got.
If that’s the world in which you wish to live, I hope that you do not have any daughters.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:41 pmExley, putting aside quibbling over the record, am I to understand that the right, now consider Clinton, Berger, and Clark to be pillars of truth and common sense?
Or, is this the handy republican technique of converting people whose every word and deed have been heretofore vilified, into experts and authorities when it suits your need?
September 20th, 2006 at 4:44 pm#142… hellinabucket, You wrote, “You still go on and on and on about the failings of the previous admin.”
You misunderstand me…I do not consider the Clinton administration’s destruction of the al Shifa plant to be a “failing” at all. I said that earlier. I fully supported that strike. And still do. The Clinton administration was right to act as they did — As Richard Clarke said in 1999, the conflation of Al Qaeda, Iraqi nerve gas experts, and a production facilitymeant President Clintn “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.â€
September 20th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#147 Eternal Springs,
As you may have guessed, I was not a huge fan of the Clinton administration. But my criticisms were mostly confined to matters of domestic politics…I frequently supported Clinton on foreign policy matters.
I supported his decision to expand NATO to include the former members of the communist eastern bloc. I supported the administration’s policies to stop genocide in the Balkans. I supported Clinton’s strikes against Afghanistan and the al Shifa plant (I wish those had been stronger, but the concept of attacking Al Qaeda was correct).
September 20th, 2006 at 4:51 pmEx – I’m still not convinced that al shifa proves that Clinton thought he was doing anything other than hitting at a perceived al qaeda target and not striking at some al qaeda iraq axis.. Can’t type much on the treo, but I’m finding old and new discussion by Hersh, Hitchens and others that muddies the water. The CIA on al shifa looks to have got it wrong to me – the soil sample is suspicious and inconclusive from a chemistry point of view. Ditto the British manager of the factory who states that it was a pharma plant full stop. Maybe Clinton did wag the dog after all…
September 20th, 2006 at 4:59 pmWhat I am pointing out that the Clinton administration, along with the Bush administration, believed and acted militarily on the belief that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allied.
But only after 9/11. If Bush believed in the link, and Clinton officials fully briefed them, why did Bush not attack Saddam before 9/11? Why did he spend so much time on vacation, if the threat was so great? This info from the Clintons should have set off alarms with the Bushes – yet nothing was done until after we were attacked on 9/11. Your logic falls apart when considering the actions Bush took pre-9/11.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:02 pmSo Exley… these are not recent positions for you? Back in the day when all your buddies were screaming about the aspirin factory and wagging the dog, you were shouting back “No no Clinton has this all right”?
Why don’t I believe you?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm#153,
Nope, I fully supported the strike. Never said “wag the dog.” What I did say at the time is that Clinton needs to step down because his credibility was so damaged that he was open to those kind of charges (i.e., that he wagging the dog) and that undermined legitimate actions taken to protect national security.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:14 pmStating the Obvious,
September 20th, 2006 at 5:26 pmIt seems we have come to a cross roads. I will admit that possibly I was wrong to assume that you did not serve your country. I hate to call anyone a liar. It’s easier to do so when you’ve been personally attacked, and that’s what I felt that you did. Please rethink your assertions about my character and my perfromance of my duties while engaged in combat. I killed no one out of fear. or revenge nor will I ever. I retract that, mess with my children and maybe we have an issue…
I have no more beef with you, as it is apparent we use different means to the same end.
AS I’ve done here in the past with a few others, I propose we wipe the slate clean of the name calling and questioning of one anothers actions, since it seems to be getting us no closer to solutions.
I was hoping to post on this site without ever having to bring up my service. I thought spirited debate in the quest for knowledge and understanding would help our differing views find common ground. Then some dunderhead told me to go enlist. I hated to point out what I had already done, seen, and felt in the line of duty. I still don’t like talking about it… unfortunately it seems to be the only way to be taken seriously by some. Then there are others who like to call me heinous, a baby killer, and anything else you can imagine. So, as you can tell, I get a little defensive when people try to drag me through the mud. I can tell that, despite our obvious differences, you are a thoughtful person. You tend to back up what you say, for the most part, with intellectual thoughts. For that you have earned some respect. Putting our differences aside for the common good, would gain you a lot more (not that you really need it from me). Please stop portraying me as some kind of mindless monster who gets off on killing people because they have different colored skin, and that I have some kind of issues. I assure you I have a mind, and it works well on its own. And I am no monster and hate no one because of who or what they were born as. I only hate actions… some of which are my own…
What I did say at the time is that Clinton needs to step down because his credibility was so damaged that he was open to those kind of charges (i.e., that he wagging the dog) and that undermined legitimate actions taken to protect national security
I’ll see your “wag the dog,” and raise you, with an Arkansas Project. They (republicans) were after Clinton’s downfall from the start. Richard Mellon Scaife; remember him, Exley?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:27 pmOk Exley now please refute, rebut, rethink and/or readdress the quotes in #145. There are arguments for and against the initial walk up to the Iraq conflict but since then there has been missjudgement and missmanagement in executing the Iraq conflict. This lies squarely on the shoulders of the present administration. House Resolution 114 stated the use of force because of WMD and Al Qaeda ties. The WMD has been proven false and we can pull up the numerous links to support that and the ties to Al Qaeda are largely from a single source (Curveball) that you have not yet admitted to.
Step up to the last 5 years and explain the rationale. Where are your facts on this?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:31 pmHere’s a question for you Ex: Did Bush consider the “terrorist threat” to be just Clinton “wagging the dog”? Does that explain his seemingly care-free attitude before 9/11? Since the ones with such a hard-on for Clinton were also Bush’s allies and contributors, did he have special insight into the situation, and consider the “terrorist threat” to be simply a response to his minions’ efforts at unseating Clinton? That would be a dismal prospect; that 9/11 had to happen, to wake him to the threat.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pmcoachjason,
Like you, I have no desire to harm anyone. Yet I still defend the defenseless, and I still hold honor above all else. And warrior to warrior I will tell you this, the truth will never fail you and is the only weapon for which there is no defense.
I will respect your request and attack no further. However, there is one last thing that I offer for you to ponder: How is it that I was able to identify instantly, without you bringing it up, that you were a veteran of this atrocity? I do not know you personally. I never read a post of yours prior to yesterday. So how did I know?
The past does not exist, the future is an illusion, but in the present is where we are and only those actions have real meaning. May you find the peace that you seek, and may the past serve to guide you in your decisions and actions of the present.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:46 pmWill you reserve a little outrage for republicans’ efforts, Exley? If they convinced Bush that “the terrorist threat” was just more politics-as-usual from the Clintons to distract from their attacks, who really is at fault?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:48 pmPeace and God be with you, and your nephew Stating the obvious.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:06 pmI think that the past does guide me… b4 this war, there is no way I would have ever been found on a liberal website. And it is even further from possible that I would have ever agreed with anyone on it (’cept maybe Mighty Aphrodite or Exley). Guess I’m a dreaded flip-flopper? (lol)
Since were into passing on advice to one another, don’t be fooled by what you read. As my dad says “believe none of what you read and half of what you see”… Don’t dismiss the experiences of others as trivial because you did not experience them yourself. You have more to learn from others then they have from you… hence the reason I’m here. An open mind knows no boundaries.
Thank you for the truce…
It looks as though Exley has cut an run.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:08 pmStating the Obvious, you have a similiar tone as an earlier poster. Humanist, is that you?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:10 pm#72.
“You see, if the progressives and liberals are “smarterâ€, then how come they are not in charge? And, more concisely, would not an intelligent being not allow themselves to be misled and fooled into actions which are contrary to everything that they believe in? And then, assuming that one got “fooledâ€, would not the intelligent being not only cease following a deception once it has been exposed, but as a matter of conscience then do everything within its intellectual abilities to not only cease the action but also clearly separate oneself from the action?”
Stating+the+Obvious,
I’m not really sure how you can think if your right or smarter you will automatically be in charge. Take Hitler for example, take Stalin for example. So right away I doubt there is any flaw in my logic, but your lack of insight. The smarter ones are not in charge because we do not have a democratic election process in the USA, Bush lost, the people did not vote for Bush, and furthermore the latin meaning of the word Democracy is “people rule”. Period. In addition, Bush is in power because there is a huge lack of education in the United States, so much so that some people are having a problem viewing their reality. Simply put, the 40% who support Bush must be brain dead.
You asked: “And then, assuming that one got “fooledâ€, would not the intelligent being not only cease following a deception once it has been exposed, but as a matter of conscience then do everything within its intellectual abilities to not only cease the action but also clearly separate oneself from the action?”"
So your point is Conservatives are not intelligent? That’s my point.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:15 pmcoachjason,
Excellent comment, and very sound advice. Your father is a wise man and I appreciate the reminder.
A very positive way to end my day, thank you sir.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:20 pmJanuary 20, 2009.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:37 pmwhen are you losers going to get jobs and be productive members of society?
September 20th, 2006 at 8:46 pm“W” is for Winner, too bad ya’ll are just sour-puss liberals…hahahaha
September 20th, 2006 at 8:47 pmWasnt that in response to the assasination attempt on Bush snr ?????
September 20th, 2006 at 9:01 pm“W” is for Widowmaker.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:04 pmHere we go again, twisting the facts to fit preconceived ends for personal interests. “W” is for Warmonger.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:43 pmAnn Coulter was seen exiting Condie Rice’s hotel early the next morning. Does that means that they spent the night together or that the hotel has excellant cheesecake available at all hours ?
September 20th, 2006 at 10:12 pm#173 No, I think ‘W’ stands for ‘Whatever’
September 20th, 2006 at 11:36 pmBush bad.. Rove no good, Cheney bad man…All Republicans evil.
Did I get that right? Do I get my “progressive” star now. No facts, just slander and hate towards the good ol U.S. of A
Gee, I wonder why AA is going BK. Luckily there’s not enough of you goofballs to keep that on air sewer alive.
I must admit, this is fun to read all your coments about how bad the administration is. Think for a nano-second if possible,, if you were to say these things about an Iranian leader in Iran. Can you say “haircut at the neck?”
Homer says D’OH!
September 20th, 2006 at 11:45 pmHmmm… I fear the question is ALSO “when will this site stop misleading people?”
I’d be very interested to know where you pulled the quote from Senate Intelligence… it’s not in either of the Iraq reports linked on the site you linked to here.
As far as the fact sheet, since you didn’t quote from that, you’re painting a completely false picture of the reality, based on what you want people to think.
Isn’t this exactly what bothers you about Bush?
Wow. Pot, meet Kettle. I believe you both have something in common…
September 20th, 2006 at 11:48 pm#159, Barfly….Please read again what I wrote — I DON’T and did not believe the “wag the dog” theories of the Clinton administration’s cruise missile attack against Afghanistan and the al Shifa plant in Khartoum.
I accepted, and still do, my president’s explanation of why he did what he did in 1998. As an American, I was proud of President Clinton’s actions in 1998 and fully supported his actions.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:34 am#161….Again. barfly, I fully supported President Clinton’s efforts against Al Qaeda, although I wish they had been stronger (especially, in retrospect, given the atrocity of the 9/11 horror). Same with President Bush…Obviously, in hindsight, I wish the new Bush administration had taken immediate and bold steps against Al Qaeda in the first seven and half months of its tenure.
Unlike many posters here, I don’t blame our presidents (past and current) for the horror of 9/11. I blame the murderous Al Qaeda terrorists for that atrocity.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:44 am#172, wmd,
No. The Clinton administration’s military response to Iraq’s assassination attempt against President George H.W. Bush came in June, 1993.
The military action taken in 1998 against Al Qaeda/Iraqi targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan were in retaliation for the two bombings of our embassies in Africa.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:40 am[...] why we were all wrong [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 12:49 am