CAUGHT ON TAPE: Administration Ignores Senate Intel Report, Misleads America About Iraq/al-Qaeda Link
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Administration Ignores Senate Intel Report, Misleads America About Iraq/al-Qaeda Link
On September 8, 2006, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a long-awaited report on “postwar findings about Iraq’s…links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments.”
The report concluded:
1) Iraq and al Qa’ida were enemies, not collaborators.
2) There was no connection between Saddam and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration has continued to make false claims about Iraq’s connections to al-Qaeda that were specifically debunked by the Senate report. ThinkProgress has it all caught on tape. Watch it:
Transcript:
Fact 1: Saddam Hussein “attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi” and Hussein’s “regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” [Page 109]
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship — there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. [9/12/06]
RICE: So he was a state sponsor of terror. He had terrorists operating in his country, including Zarqawi, who had a poisons network in the country. [9/10/06]
SNOW: What we have been unable to demonstrate or discover is whether they’re sitting around in the map room, spreading out the map, saying, okay, you bomb there. We just don’t have that kind of granularity in terms of the relationship, and therefore, we’re not going to go — we’re going to — not going to out-run the facts. [9/13/06]
CHENEY: You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third…
RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact…
CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. [9/10/06]
Fact 2: “The [Iraqi Intelligence Service] … actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.” [Page 109]
BLITZER: But Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein were in a battle.
RICE: I don’t think – well, first of all, let’s take with a grain of salt the notion that somehow Zarqawi and Saddam were in some kind of pitched battle.
BLITZER: That’s what the report concludes.
RICE: No, what the report concludes is that some have testified that Saddam Hussein did not trust Zarqawi and that he was trying to find him. [9/10/06]
Fact 3: Postwar findings, the report concluded, “confirm that no such meeting occurred” between 9/11 hijacker and Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.” [Page 110]
RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?
CHENEY: We don’t know. [9/10/06]
Fact 4: Saddam Hussein “was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to this regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.” [Page 105]
RICE: And we know that in testimony of the director of central intelligence at the time and as a matter of fact even in the 9-11 report that contacts between Al Qaida and Iraq had been going on, going back for more than a decade. So was Iraq involved with terror? Absolutely, Iraq was involved with terror. [9/10/06]
RICE: There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaida. [9/10/06]
CHENEY: There’s a separate–apart from that’s the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet’s testimony before the Senate Intel Commission, an open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al-Qaeda. [9/10/06]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hey, TP. Who cares? Soon will Exley come here with a copy of the 9/11 Comission Report and tell us that there was a link, so give up.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:31 amSeriously, after 9/11, US didnt want justice, they want profits and ignorant people wanted revenge. Perfect combination.
Cheney is beneath contempt.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:32 amComplete denial….no accountability.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:32 amNormally this would be big news, but the reich-wing spin masters will find a way to deny any wrong doing. By the end of the day, Bill O’Reilly will be blaming this on Bill Clinton some how. I think Stephen Colbert said it best when he said “I love the truth, but it’s the facts I’m not crazy about”. Karl Rove knows that information is nothing compared to brain washing propoganda. Rove and faux news will make this just another liberal conspiracy theory like the downing street memo, evolution, global warming, and the case for Saddam’s imaginary WMDs. We could uncover pictures of Bush eating puppies and people would still vote for him so they can uphold the veneer of loyalist patriotism. How can we fight the grand-daddy of all liars?
September 21st, 2006 at 10:33 amI think the key word here is CAUGHT.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:33 amDo politicians get some kind of frontal labotomy when they get in office?
It sure seems like a lot of well educated lawyer senators, chief executives, senators, advisers, the press secretary all seem to get a really bad memory once in office.
I suspect a gas leak, maybe it’s leaded paint chip snacks, in the White House that may be causing this. Either that or the Soviet ELF waves are getting thru and they will need to start wearing their tin-foil hats from affecting their normal brainwave, or lack of, activity.
I gather they want to fear factor the people into a ‘North American Fortress’
September 21st, 2006 at 10:38 amWhere can we get this video? Please make it available!
September 21st, 2006 at 10:38 amIf we had a real media the headlines on every newspaper would’ve screamed “AMERICA LIED INTO WAR…Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Refuse Comment”
But this story passed with barely a yawn. Joe Sixpack doesn’t even know about this report or the meaning of its conclusions. What a sad, sorry condition our country is in.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:42 amNormally this would be big news, but the reich-wing spin masters will find a way to deny any wrong doing. By the end of the day, Bill O’Reilly will be blaming this on Bill Clinton some how
Naw, I think just as you have wised up to the Faux propaganda others will too. BORe can only blame Clinton for so many things, like now, he comes off as an one track buffoon.
BORe has become BOReingly predictable as you noted above.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:49 amTP is lying by omission. TP has selected from only one assessment of the many described in the report. There is still conflicting information after the Committee studied all available intelligence. Here’s what the Committee also concluded,
The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that the al-Qa’ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa’ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam-mainly the al-Zarqawi network-and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas.
The intelligence community’s definition of safehaven…
Given the pervasive presence of Iraq’s security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa’ida to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:50 am#4- I agree. We live in a nation that’s half populated by blithering idiots to whom the truth is of no importance whatsoever. If that were not true this administration would have been impeached long ago.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:50 amdick the dog has nothing better to say, and certainly can’t say anything true in public, that would be….. well…. out of character?
September 21st, 2006 at 10:57 am# 8. The reason Joe Sixpack doesn’t know about the report, its meaning or its conclusions because Joe doesn’t watch Faux “News.” Thats part of the “vast right wing conspiracy’s” master plan. The less Joe knows the less likely Joe is going to squawk when reality comes out to bite him on the ass. Its disgusting what this country has become. Not only are we a nation afraid of its shadow (part of the plan) but the majority no longer possesses the ability to think. If Faux says its so, then its so. Now where’s my beer. Pretty slick plan the Repigs devised and implemented.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:01 amLast year Dole denied e coli was a threat in their prepared lettuce while at the same time the FDA said the opposite. And the story was forgotten.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:01 am‘False claims’….oh your being way to kind…LIES LIES AND MORE LIES.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:04 amIf we had a real media the headlines on every newspaper would’ve screamed “AMERICA LIED INTO WAR…Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Refuse Commentâ€
But this story passed with barely a yawn. Joe Sixpack doesn’t even know about this report or the meaning of its conclusions. What a sad, sorry condition our country is in.
Comment by Larry from C
Actually Larry, my view is just the opposite, many here have known about being lied into war and it’s because the Pundits as BORe work to marginalize the lies of Bush admin are just reaching the people.
They have alot of money and can\do pump out alot of propaganda marginalizing the truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that the al-Qa’ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa’ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam-mainly the al-Zarqawi network-and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas.
The intelligence community’s definition of safehaven…
“I never said they had an operational relationship” –GWB
September 21st, 2006 at 11:06 amSeriously, after 9/11, US didnt want justice, they want profits and ignorant people wanted revenge. Perfect combination.
Comment by Juan+C — September 21, 2006 @ 10:31 am
“they” being the bush cabal – i mostly agree…
add to that POWER.
just heard on SAMs show – sydney blumenthal, about how they are so unpopular with 2/3s of the people – “and yet they don’t care”…
it’s all about the POWER and they think they have it and will keep it.
…
strange listening to sam in the morning… not sure if i can handle so much passion so early in the day! …and now it’s even harder getting anything done in the mornings… just my opinion: he and rachael should trade places… she has a good moring voice… i don’t miss springer for sure!
out to the garden again… that snow in the mountains is due here as rain!
September 21st, 2006 at 11:06 amwe really need it too… g’day…
am i the only dude who thinks this cheney idiot should die of a violent death, like massive heart failure like the brain failure that happens everytime he open his yap
September 21st, 2006 at 11:09 am#10 you do realise that Kurdish controlled area’s were not under the control of Sadaam don’t you? You also realize that Ansar Al Salaam was battling both the kurds and the Iraqii government don’t you? You also realize that the Kurdish area in northern Iraq was under the US no-fly zone don’t you?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:10 am#10 – The report indeed does say Saddam knew Zarqawi was in Iraq, and it goes on to say he sent his intelligence agency out to capture him. That’s the key point: Saddam knowning he was in Iraq doesn’t mean there was a relationship. In fact, his order to capture Zarqawi shows Saddam considered him a threat, not a friend.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:10 am.. Bush had to say about all the attempts he’s made in the past to link Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda: “I never said there was an operational relationship.” …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
just heard on SAMs show – sydney blumenthal, about how they are so unpopular with 2/3s of the people – “and yet they don’t careâ€â€¦
it’s all about the POWER and they think they have it and will keep it.
They have obviously confused power with leadership. The might is right mentality.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:14 amBush and Cheney are nuts, but who in the Congress has the guts to stop those criminal clowns?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:16 amImagine if we never invaded Iraq. Saddam would still be in power. What do you think Saddam would do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program? Remember Iranians hate Iraqis and Saddam (and vice versa). Does anyone think Saddam was not a destablizing force in the region?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:16 amFa Kin Su Pa
That sounds to me like Saddam’s forces were aware that Al Qaida was in the country, attempted to find them and do away with their leader, but failed. IE no deception. Try again.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:21 amSo right wingers. We know your definition of relationship is very loose. We also know that your definition of threat is very loose too. There is a country in the world who possesses Nuclear weapons, and who has threatened their neighbors with them. Additionally this country is ruled by a military man who seized power and pretty much ended democracy in that nation. Some have said the ruler is unstable and unreliable. They have been the launching pad for numerous terrorists attacks upon their neighbors. They have been the site of multiple attacks against American interests. This country has been the source of nuclear proliferation in violation of international treaty and currently harbors the mastermind behind this nuclear proliferation. Who knows how soon it will be before this maniac is allowed by his handlers to give an atomic weapon to one of America’s enemies. Will we find out when we see the mushroom cloud over New York? They have been known to have safe havens for Al Queda in the past and still do to this day. In fact it is suspected that the 911 mastermind is living within their borders effectively being allowed to stay as long as he does not rock the boat. So where are the right wing calls to arms to invade and topple the government of Pakistan?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:25 amWally
By the sounds of your argument, you think he was a stabilising force in the region. With Iraq in place, there was a force which could actively oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons, but without Iraq, Iran can more or less do whatever it likes.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:25 amBORe is also a nut and hes back to his paranoid ‘they are out to get me’ delusions.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:27 am
Bruce+Gorton,
September 21st, 2006 at 11:34 amI do not. I would rather deal with one dictator than two at the same time. So is your conclusion that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power? A ruthless dictator with SCUD missles pointing at Israel (and Iran if he was still there).
So is your conclusion that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power? A ruthless dictator with SCUD missles pointing at Israel (and Iran if he was still there).
Comment by Wally
Let me answer your question, Wally. Yes. And not about to fall to Islamic hardliners as it is now.
And those flaky SCUD missiles you are talking about couldn’t hit broad side of a barn.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:47 amSo is your conclusion that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power? A ruthless dictator with SCUD missles pointing at Israel (and Iran if he was still there).
As you see Saddam is out of power and Iraq is still a disaster. So much for the remove the ruthless dictator logic and parades with flowers and smiling faces will greet you. You also forget that his Airspace was and has been controlled by US forces for a decade. Saddam was going nowhere fast.
It would have been prudent to keep Saddam under sanctions and taken out Al Qaeda first, then come back to Iraq and the problems within that country.
Israel has plenty of missiles [and nukes] pointed at other countries as many countries have pointing at each other today. It’s called defense and is a deterrent to war. All countries do it.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:48 amwhy when CHENEY says: “Well, I haven’t seen the report”
September 21st, 2006 at 11:59 amwhy doesn’t RUSSERT say: “Well you had better read it because everything you’ve been saying is BULLSHIT”
(perchance to dream)
Wasn’t the republican argument in previous administrations that we shouldn’t be the world’s police force? It’s all agreed that Saddam is a bad guy but we could have continued to squeeze that nut (as #30 points out) and focused on Al qaeda, Taliban and Afghanistan. To jump into Iraq the way we did and then to continually botch the restoration was piss poor policy.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:00 pmI would rather deal with one dictator than two at the same time.
Comment by Wally
mmm…you have to deal with a lot then. Plus the ones US is supporting right now.
So is your conclusion that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power? A ruthless dictator with SCUD missles pointing at Israel (and Iran if he was still there).
September 21st, 2006 at 12:10 pmOr chemical weapons sold by the US. Iraq would be better off without superpower messing with them. Probably, if the US hadnt supported the Shah in Iran to crush a democratic government, Iran wouldnt pose a threat to US. Probably if the US hadnt provided Saddam with weapons, you wouldnt be so worry about WMDs (and a lot of killed civilians would have appreciated that). Probably, if the US hadnt supported Pinochet in Chile to crush a democratic government, US would be seen with good eyes in South America. See, the definition of democracy changes according to american foreign policy. I dont see US spreading democracy in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan…mmmmm…I wonder why.
[...] The good folks at Think Progress have a video compilation of administration officials asserting an Iraq – Al Qaeda link. The clips are from the days after a Senate Intelligence Committee report refuted the connection. Sometimes you just have to watch and listen to these jackasses in order to spot all the hypocrisy and lying. Enjoy!read more | digg story [...]
September 21st, 2006 at 12:19 pmTwo interesting additions to this Zarqawi-AlQaeda-Iraq tale:
1. The Pentagon had two chances to attack Zarqawi in NE Iraq in the no-fly zone, in 2002 and 2003 but did not. Was he more useful as a causus belli after the invasion? That jives with the conscious effort to boost his standing in the US press until his death.
2. Suspected Al Qaeda operative, Abdul Rahman Yasin, escaped to Iraq in 1993, but was put in prison by Saddam. The Al Qaeda – Iraq connectors, like Chris ‘f-you’ Hitchens calls this being a ‘guest’ of Saddam. Abu Ghraib – a guesthouse?
Saddam liked to keep al Qaeda at the end of a long bargepole, it seems. Who says the man is crazy?
September 21st, 2006 at 12:23 pmIs anyone else annoyed that you can’t link to the video or embed the video on myspace or blogger or anywhere else for that matter? I’d like to share this video with people, but ThinkPrgross.org’s current video system does not allow me to.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:23 pmFAKT: Every terrorist you have named is from ‘the old staff’ of the KGB. Could you name someone from recent history?
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, here it is. The number two person in the terrorist organization al Qaeda, who they are crediting with the series of explosions in London, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an old agent of the FSB. Being sentenced to death in Egypt for terrorism and hunted by Interpol, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 1998, was in the territory of Dagestan, where for half a year he received special training at one of the educational bases of the FSB. After this training he was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once … penetrated the milieu of bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al Qaeda.
FAKT: Could you hint at least, where this data comes from?
A. Litvinenko: I can. During my service in one of the most secret departments of the FSB, top officials from the UFSB of Dagestan, who had directly worked with Ayman al-Zawahiri … were called to Moscow and received high posts.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:27 pmReminds me of the old joke about the guy caught red handed in bed with his mistress when the wife walks in on them in the act.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:32 pmHe says, What are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? (substitute ears for this story)
It’s like they are sitting around asking, How dumb are these sheep? How many cubic yards of BS can we shove up their arses without them wising up?
Wally:
2 Dictators can be kept from doing too much harm because they are more worried about each other then things like “Americanisation” and they have each other for propaganda tools in addition to “America.” 1 dictator all on his own, is more troublesome.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:39 pmAlright, we as a society are getting to the point where it’s acceptable to come out and say the administration was “wrong” about every single stated justification for invading Iraq. But there’s still very little public asking of the question, “If none of those justifications hold water, then why did we invade Iraq?” That’s the question I’d like to see the talking heads debate.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:51 pmCritics of the White House have settled on the notion that the Bush administration “lied†to the American people about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. A case has been made that American officials acted on imperialist impulses. Economic motivations, “corporate greed,†blood lust, etc. have been attributed to a clique of “warmongers†in Washington. Bush is allegedly the “puppet†of this clique. The cynics do not accept the simple explanation that the president was sincere in his declarations on Iraq. And yet, the simple explanation has the weight of the CIA behind it.
In 2002 President Bush believed what the CIA was telling him. As National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice explained to Bob Woodward, the administration felt it had few choices when it came to Saddam Hussein. As reported in Woodward’s book, “Bush at War,†Rice referred to the “nightmare†of an “aggressive tyrant … armed with a nuclear weapon.†This is what President Bush was left awake at night to think about in the wake of 9/11. Yes, there were people in the world crazy enough to attack the United States, regardless of the consequences to themselves. Saddam Hussein might be such a person. Rice further explained that the lesson of September 11 was clear: “Take care of threats early.â€
A close examination of the facts does not reveal a conspiracy to “lie†or “mislead†the American people. Whatever one thinks of CIA analysis on Iraq, the president did what he thought was right based on CIA information. It would not be reasonable to expect the president to act otherwise.
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2003/1029.html
September 21st, 2006 at 12:55 pmIn a word, bullshit.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:21 pm“This is what President Bush was left awake at night to think about in the wake of 9/11. Yes, there were people in the world crazy enough to attack the United States, regardless of the consequences to themselves. Saddam Hussein might be such a person. ” – nice cut and paste job Senja. I can do that too. I’ll leave others to discuss the OSP, the conflicting, weak intelligence that was ignored by the WH and hidden from Congress…. I want to ask a poser that this quote suggests. Here goes…
If Saddam had WMD as the WH believed and Saddam was crazy enough to attack the US with them, regardless of the consequences and the US was woefully unprepared for an attack as it was before 9/11, then why didn’t Saddam attack, BEFORE 9/11? Why would 9/11 make any difference whatsoever to Saddam’s means, opportunity and motive?
September 21st, 2006 at 1:24 pmAnd additionally, if the CIA is really to blame for the faulty intelligence and the president did what he thought was right based on that intelligence, then why does Bush and Cheney argue that even given what they know now, they would still have invaded? Renders your ‘blame the CIA’ argument irrelevant, doesn’t it? They would have done it anyway…..
September 21st, 2006 at 1:27 pmMisleading is the specialty of Bush/Cheney. You can identify it easily-if their mouths are moving they are misleading.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:30 pmhttp://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20060921/stt060921.gif
September 21st, 2006 at 1:37 pmwell if Rice say’s it, then it must be true.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:40 pmThis is the most intentionally dishonest administration our country has ever had
String up the liars before they do more damage to our great country!
September 21st, 2006 at 1:45 pmHated IT!
September 21st, 2006 at 1:48 pm#29
“Let me answer your question, Wally. Yes. And not about to fall to Islamic hardliners as it is now.”
So better not to give the Iraqis a choice to decide who leads them and just keep them under Saddam’s boot…right? BTW which Islamic hardliners do you think that Iraq is about to fall to?
September 21st, 2006 at 1:49 pm[George Tenet said] there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.”
~Dick Cheney
That’s a pile of horse dung even Sir Edmund Hilary couldn’t climb. Tenet himself went back bfotre the committee two months ago to claim he had been pressured to say that b the white house. Let’s see, though, who does have a documented relationship with Saddam?
http://www.philosophy.ubc.ca/faculty/russellp/thumbs/rumsfeld_saddam_small.gif
That was a relationship made in heaven! We sent him bio- and chem- weapon precursors for the next 6-7 years to whittle down the iranians a bit. It wasn’t until Dubya’s daddy’s friends in Kuwait got steamrollered that we started taking an active dislike for him. Le’s not forget that Al-Qaeda’s best were forged by our own CIA to kick some Soviet ass in Afghanistan. Funny how building permanent bases in Saudi Arabia would piss them off enough to attack us, huh?
Damn, this garbag is aggravating! But as long as spinach is more important than American’s dying for George’s foly, we’ll get nowhere with the people who take their news in pre-digested quickbites.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhy would 9/11 make any difference whatsoever to Saddam’s means, opportunity and motive?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
You got everything wrong, Terry. Saddam was a sane, pacific person, sweet with children, and a social drinker when he said hi to Rummy. He wanted peace with Kurds and iranians, a chemical peace (you know, strong bonds) we should say. But then, we are not sure if he talked to Clinton, the russians, Anakin, Chomsky or Michael Moore, he became the evil monster that wanted to destroy so much americans. US is a humanitarian country, we all know that, so US invaded Iraq for whatever reason Bushco. come across this week, leaving thousands of dead civilians with a useless piece of land (cause iraqis no longer manage their oil) that is, now, free.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:57 pmOk, Im gonna throw up now.
BTW which Islamic hardliners do you think that Iraq is about to fall to?
Comment by Tracy
I want to solve the puzzle:
September 21st, 2006 at 2:00 pmWhoever keeps the oil for the US. Thanks.
BTW, nice american embassy they are building in Baghdad.
An application of the Administration’s logic.
FACTS: Mohammed Atta and the 18 other hijackers lived in the United States. They obtained visas from the US Government. They attended flight schools in the US. They ate, drank and paid rent in the US. And they hijacked four airplanes that led to the 9/11 tragedy. George Bush was President of the United States at the time. The FBI and other US intelligence agencies ignored their own information.
CONCLUSION: George Bush harbored terrorists in the United States. Since the 9/11 attackers were “known” to be in the United States at the time, George Bush is in some way responsible for 9/11.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:23 pmTracy #50
The (Iranian britherhood) Shi’ite love train…
…and its backup band Sha’ria law…
…are rolling on through Iraq…
…and your god (Bushiva) helped…
NOW!
…my Mullah thanks you…
…my Fatah thanks you…
get it!
hahahahahahahahahahaha
you FOOL!
September 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pmSo better not to give the Iraqis a choice to decide who leads them and just keep them under Saddam’s boot…right?
Comment by Tracy — September 21, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Um, Tracy … did we give the Iraqis a choice to decide whether we’d bomb the crap out of them and their country?
When did the Iraqis ask us to come in and kill tens of thousands of their citizens so they could have “a choice to decide who leads them …”? Maybe if the Iraqis had made the decision to oust Saddam on their own, your argument might make sense. But since we forced that “decision” on them, your argument rings a litte, er, hollow.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:48 pmI would bet that at least 100,000 Iraqii’s would have preferred Life under Sadaam to death under Bush. Addtionally I’ll bet that several Million more prefer the stabilty of the tyrany to the death and destruction that Bush styled Freedom has brought the. But then again that is nto the issue here is it?
The issue is that in spite of evidence to the contrary this adminsitration keeps on repeating their talkign points, even when the talking points have been proven false from multiple sources. It all gets back to what was pointed out in comment #44. If there was an intelligence failure then why say yes even knowing what they know today they would still invade? Remeber war, we were always told, was the last option. Sane people knew back in early 2003 that it was the only option. Every time Bush and co say that they would still invade even knowing what they know today they aare essentially saying 1) The CIA and their intelligence are irrelevant to what we want to do. and 2) War is the only option, any pretext of negotiation/diplomacy is simply window dressing. Afterall who on earth believes that dictating terms is negotiating or diplomacy?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:56 pmNot only do the White House liars continue to ignore the truth, they even issued a paper this week and printed their distortions (In part, I assume so that their minions could more easily memorize them).
September 21st, 2006 at 3:09 pmWhen did the Iraqi shopkeeper and the bananna salesman ask tto be put into a lion cage and tortured by Americans for their “freedom”? When did the hundreds in Abu Garhib ask to be beaten, sodomized, and have their bones broken for Iraqi “freedom”? And now that they have been released, what’s the chances they are going to contribute to “Iraqi democratic reform” versus joining the terrorists to get a pound of American flesh as revenge?
September 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pmBush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war,
I will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term…
What a wonderfull country … when the people got the illusion that they are in control while they are lied to, jailed in a prison of fake terror and where their freedom is used, abused, raped by the day… Welcome to USA – under bush’s administration…
September 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pmLoved the Cheneyburton interview snippets…What a total veep-creep.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:46 pmYou know, I’ve watch the Administration’s spokespeople and I’ve talked with people I know but it’s so fustrating that facts don’t matter in Administration approach to the agrueing their case before the American public.
So it’s nice to see the Administration’s spokespeople all lying in one video at the same time up against the obvious facts.
Great job!
September 21st, 2006 at 5:20 pmRegarding the link between Iraq and Al-Queda: “Mr. Snow: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq.” and “Cheney: You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc.”
Well, if you follow that logic: the 9/11-terrorists were in the US, George W. Bush was in the US. Should we assume GWB was working together with Mohammed Atta & Co.? It spins right back at them…
September 21st, 2006 at 6:38 pmIt amazes me that because you folks may or may not have “left wing or liberal†views that it automatically means you are UNFAIRLY biased.
BS. Recently on Stephen Colbert Report he mused that John McCain should NOT be offered a view on torture because he was biased being tortured himself.
Left wing or right wing biased, who cares present the facts as you see them (with EVIDENCE), and let the people decide.
You have done that; well done.
I cannot believe that there is still an ignorance not seeing that the Bush camp and others related are purposely continuing the lies knowing they are lies.
Had they said (at any point) we have screwed up and but we are where we are there would have been some credibility to it.
But there hasn’t been that been there is now deceit and they (the government) cannot be trusted anymore.
I have voted republican most of my life now I vote the truth. The republicans should be aware their days are numbered, and we that think this way are not alone.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:49 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4AlmPyQ4IU
September 21st, 2006 at 11:51 pmHa Ha ha!!! Some Americans will eat anything LOL!!
If our politicians in Canada tried this we would tar and feather them. They would also be in jail. I am not saying we are a whole lot better now with our own new Neo COn gov but holy crap! Our Neo Con gov would not even dram of lying badly like this! LOL
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:08 amWith this video and the Patriot Act…
…the people should have Cheney, Bush and their worshippers looking like Mussolini and Ceaucescu…
…in no time…
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:29 pmThe Bush administration is trying to brainwash the American public by trying to convince us with their repeated lies. They think we will eventualy believe them saying white is black, even though our senses tell us it is white.
This is called “dumbing down” the American people.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:05 pm[...] Furthermore, here’s a video of the bush administration deliberately misleading America about an Iraq al Qaeda connection, just after a newly released Senate Intel Report stated otherwise. [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 2:21 pmFolks, let’s all ask ourselves one thing. Have the tax cuts worked? We have a near record DOW Jones why? more money to invest? Risk isn’t as big a factor in decision making when you can afford to risk more. We just recorded the largest revenue intake in US HISTORY. How can this be? don’t tax cuts mean less money comes in? Well, clearly not. This happened before..when was that…Oh yes, during the Reagan years, tax revenue increased.
You see liberals, when people have more money to spend, they spend it. This creates jobs, spurrs investment, and reducues the welfare roles. No wonder the dems oppose tax cuts. It frees people from having to depend on the big government the libs have championed for decades. The less the people need big government, the smaller it becomes. And liberals can’t have that.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:33 pmCrispian
Plant the seeds of expectation in your mind; cultivate thoughts that anticipate achievement. Believe in yourself as being capable of overcoming all obstacles and weaknesses
March 19th, 2008 at 6:22 amvideo rings
Image quality varies widely among different models of flexible borescopes depending on the number of fibers and construction used in the fiber
March 21st, 2008 at 4:00 amJody
Dream as if you’ll live forever, live as if you’ll die today.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 amPayday Loan Faxless
March 26th, 2008 at 6:36 amNo Fax Payday Loan
Payday loans no fax will help Americans close to Vermont worried about huge premiums, as guests are in a} season consisting of crisis.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:14 pmEric
Geat post. I added you to my blog roll!
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 10:45 pmRogelio
Apply yourself. Get all the education you can, but then, by God, do something. Don?t just stand there, make it happen
April 8th, 2008 at 2:20 amflowers canada
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:14 pmSmall Business Loans Gov
Hey, i should have been reading this earlier, it’s very informative in certain aspects for me. But i believed some of people here might disagree with some of your thought. Anyway, thank you for sharing. I would love to read your thought in the future …
April 13th, 2008 at 8:26 pmAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pmArbonne skin care products overview…
Arbonne International is one of the prestigious companies in the world when it comes to skin care. Its skin care product line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne International skin care products are manufactured in…
April 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am