WSJ’s Paul Gigot: ‘We Didn’t Go To War Because Of Al Qaeda Links’
WSJ’s Paul Gigot: ‘We Didn’t Go To War Because Of Al Qaeda Links’
This morning on Fox News, Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot said the Pentagon report on Douglas Feith’s activities are irrelevant, claiming, “We didn’t go to war because of al Qaeda links.” Watch it:
In fact, the supposed Iraq-al Qaeda links formed the basis of the administration’s rationale for war. Here’s what the resolution authorizing force against Iraq said:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq
Gigot claimed again late in the show that “we didn’t go to war” for al Qaeda links, but rather for WMD. NPR’s Juan Williams correctly noted that the reason the administration proffered for attacking Iraq was to prevent Saddam’s alleged WMD from falling into al Qeada’s hands. Here’s what Bush said:
We’ve already found confirmation that the Al Qaeda terrorists are pursuing weapons of mass destruction. At the same time there’s a danger of terror groups joining together with the regimes that have or are seeking to build such weapons. In Iraq, we know that Saddam Hussein is pressing forward with these capabilities. He has used weapons of mass destruction both in his war against Iran and against his own people. [10/2/02]
Transcript:
So, Paul, what was going on here with Feith’s operation in the Pentagon? Was this an honest, good faith alternative analysis of the intelligence? Or was this a bunch of top officials in the Pentagon and the White House who were trying to build a case to go to war?
GIGOT: We didn’t go to war because of Al Qaida links. We went to war because of WMD, which was what the CIA said Saddam had, and that’s what they got wrong.
[...]
WILLIAMS: Look, I find this so unbelievable. It’s so tenuous, but it seems to me clear that there’s a need to somehow defend this idea that there was some kind of operational link when it’s clear there wasn’t ever any operational link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
And then you can say oh, yes, there might have been a meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague. Never proven. Oh, there might be Zarqawi visiting. You know, people visit all the time different places.
I don’t know that there’s any evidence that there was discussions about planning an attack on the United States. I haven’t seen anything like that.
What is clear, though, is that people are refusing to acknowledge the idea, even given that it’s a Pentagon report, that this was cherry-picking intelligence. I think if you saw that lady astronaut charging after the other one with a pepper spray, you’d say oh, well, it could be she just wanted to say hello.
I mean, it’s a clear case of someone manipulating evidence to build a case to go to war. And obviously, it’s led to tragic consequences for people. We’ve lost lives and money and time.
GIGOT: But we didn’t go to war for that. We went to war for WMD which the intelligence services got wrong.
WILLIAMS: But the reason we went to war over WMD is the fear that if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he would lend them to Al Qaida, strengthening Al Qaida, and that was just wrong, Paul.
GIGOT: Do you think that that was impossible? Do you think that that could never have happened?
WILLIAMS: No, but, Paul, that’s not what you just said. Paul, you said we went to war over WMD.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Whats this week excuse for going into Iraq?
February 11th, 2007 at 11:32 amThis guy is just a Bush Regime apologist and a phony journalist too!
February 11th, 2007 at 11:32 amJuan > Iraq Fiasco War has always been about controlling/stealing Iraq’s oil reserves. Everything else was/is just cover excuses!
February 11th, 2007 at 11:37 amI wish everyone in Washington wasn’t a buffoon. There was no one single reason why we went to war but a whole constellation of reasons. Since we have a sound bite culture , they decided to emphasize the WMD aspect about all others and they felt the WMD issue had the best traction in the UN. The degree to which a person is aware of the entirety of the justification is a function of how much independent research they put into it.
Of course if we had a President who could express himself properly there wouldn’t be this ambiguity in the first place.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:41 amSaddam giving weapons to Osama makes no more sense than Stalin giving Rasputin an armored division.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:42 amSo now they’re arguing over which imaginary “reason” was the one that sent us to Iraq?
[banging head on keyboard]
February 11th, 2007 at 11:42 amMaybe Iran should strike US pre-emptively. So iranians dont have to fight americans there.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:47 amComment by elucidator
February 11th, 2007 at 11:47 amHa ha!!
Vince P.,
February 11th, 2007 at 11:50 amYou are right. Numerous figures in the Bush administration have presented a variety os SEVERAL different reasons went into Iraq. From Al-Qaeda links to WMD, and everything in between. They have all been proven false. In our culture sound bites. In all cultures, Bush bites.
Hello. TP were is my post!
February 11th, 2007 at 11:57 amOf course if we had a President who could express himself properly…
Comment by Vince P
Then why did you vote for,and support, the dunce?
February 11th, 2007 at 11:58 amSurely it wasn’t his stance on gay marriage.
I think TP should list who is filtering through these comments. So I can know when the jerk who is doing this is working, I can know not to even bother to write anything.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:04 pmNo your right Paul ,I agree ! IT WAS FOR OIL !!!!
February 11th, 2007 at 12:06 pmIraq has the most untapped oil reserves left in the entire world. VP Cheney has always been a pal of Big Oil companies, so he promised them control over Iraq’s crude oil. Bush Senior has huge investments in oil stocks, so Bush Junior is being played by both Cheney and his daddy too.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:08 pmIt wasn’t his stance on gay marriage. And don’t call me Shirley.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:09 pm“Do you think that that was impossible? Do you think that that could never have happened?”
well, given that the weapons didn’t exist, the proper answer to that is,
February 11th, 2007 at 12:09 pm“Yes, that was impossible.”
The polls taken at the time indicated that a solid majority of Americans would not be willing to “do” Iraq to bring democracy, or relieve them from a tyrant. Even the administration called thiere action “pre-emptive”, meaning an implied threat FROM Iraq. Otherwise, what the hell else would we be pre-empting? The false connection to Bin Laden and WMD were the main justification. Of course, the media does thrive on sound-bites, and Bush & co. was more than happy to provide the best of the best (smoking gun mushroom cloud, greeted as liberators, slam dunk, Iraq’s resources will pay for the reconstruction, etc. etc.)
February 11th, 2007 at 12:10 pm# 7
Exactly , a not so unlikely possibility if things continue this way . But maybe it will be Russia and or China , if Putins speach in Munich is any indication ,or another Tim Mc Veigh type .
Unfortunately , this is probably what the administration hopes will happen,so it can just brush away this pretense of democracy entirely , for our own good naturally.
Neville Chamberland , where are you when we need you ?
Perhaps another non binding resolution will help ?
February 11th, 2007 at 12:18 pmCrap. Just when I get my LyingBastardometer completely repaired, the hole in the ceiling in the garage repaired, this snake oil salesman comes along and frazzles it’s frumpalyzer.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:18 pmCrap.
Getting damn hard to keep all those “compartments” straight ain’t it Paul?
February 11th, 2007 at 12:19 pmAt what point will the War Street Journal, NYTimes, Fox, AEI, and the Bush administration be held accountable for all their lies that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands?????????
They lie so much, they even lie about the lies.
Even Don Imus (of all people) told Mary Matalin the other morning when she called into his show, that she just couldn’t stop lying. He basically caught her in lie after lie, and he finally just said to her, you just can’t stop lying.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:29 pmIn fact, the supposed Iraq-al Qaeda links formed the basis of the administration’s rationale for war.
As opposed to the rest of the stated reasons in it? Talk about cherry-picking! What about this one Faiz:
Why isn’t this the “basis” for the rationale for war against Iraq? Stop cherry-picking and face the fact that there was a broad set of reasons and rationales for going to war in Iraq, not one here or one there that was the basis on its own. That is dishonest and you need to stop.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThe reasons for the war don’t matter. All that matters is winning. Even though there were WMDs but not nukes, look at all the good that happened in Iraq. We’ve killed literally thousands of terrorists and liberated 50 million people. Now if you liberals cared about winning and not cutting and running, we can win this war.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pmNot only did the Bush administration try to establish a link between Hussein’s regime and AlQaeda before the war, after the invasion Pres. Bush’s and VP Cheney defended that rationale against critics and in spite lack of evidence:
This is Pres Bush in July of 2004:
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week’s finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship
And this is VP Cheney in June of the same year:
Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were “irresponsible.”
Cheney blasts media on al Qaeda-Iraq link
Any time now, we can expect these sycophants to tell us that Hussein’s non-existing WMD were never a reason for the invasion.
And the 30%ers will believe it.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:34 pmOnce again firebreath shows up spitting all over the html pages. Wipe your spittle stained chin moroni!
February 11th, 2007 at 12:35 pmMan, this guy can’t even get the Administration propaganda straight! Hello!!!
February 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pmbroad set of reasons and rationales for going to war
Dream on Seixon. You can’t turn a bunch of lies, disinformation, distortions, and fraudulent statements into ‘reasons and rationales’ just by wishing.
The only reason and rationale is – they were hell-bent on taking over the middle east and would say anything and make up any excuse to cover their deceit.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:37 pmthe evidence is “overwhelming†that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq
Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming that Bush lies and thousands died. Cheney lies, the WSJ lies, the NYTimes lies, Rice lies, Rumsfeld lied, they all lied and continue to lie for money, for power.
It’s time a special prosecutor put a stop to the lying.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:40 pm#23 firehead,
Have you ever sputtered that nonsense in front of real people?
I mean people within arms reach? I’m guessing no. I’m going
to go out on a pretty sturdy limb here and suggest that the one
thing you do well in your insignificant life is duck.
…and duck often.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pmGigot might want to check in with President Bush on the Al Qaeda link:
“It [Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”
- President Bush, March 17, 2003.
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”
- President Bush, May 1, 2003.
“We went to war [in Iraq] because we were attacked.”
February 11th, 2007 at 12:43 pm- President Bush, June 28, 2005
Da Nile is not just a river in Egypt.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pmDream on Seixon…
they were hell-bent on taking over the middle east and would say anything and make up any excuse to cover their deceit.
Comment by ChildrenofLir
That’s obvious to every one except mouth breathers like this one.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pmDon’t feed him.
Where did Williams find his nads? Have they been at the cleaners like for about the past five years?
February 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pmface the fact that there was a broad set of reasons and rationales for going to war in Iraq,
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
All of which put together formed the basis of the administration’s rationale for war.
Formed the basis. Not were the basis, nor were the only rationale for the invasion.
As a matter of fact, you can follow the link provided so you can read the list of reasons that formed the basis for the rationale to invade Iraq.
Your complaints about dishonesty couldn’t be any richer.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:54 pmGIGOT: We didn’t go to war because of Al Qaida links.
well, yea – WE all knew that… too few people KNEW that…
but too many people were too gullible when these bozos lied to everyone that there WERE al qaida links…
gawd i hate these liars…
February 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pm.
…how come more of us haven’t been writing about Gen. Petraeus taking over command of our forces in Iraq? Did anyone catch the line of shit he was running from his isolated, borrowed palace? It basically came down to a Sinatra-esque, “Quit the fooling around, kunckleheads, and help these people stand up on their own. Ring a ding sing.”
In other words, Share the brown man’s burden.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:59 pmGigot might want to check in with President Bush on the Al Qaeda link
Gigot et al don’t rely on facts. They rely on lies and distortions. It is time they were held to account for lying us into the slaughter of hundreds of thousands. Blood is on their hands.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThere were many AQ links. katy and others are liars of the worst political sort when they say there werent
February 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pmThere were many AQ links. katy and others are liars of the worst political sort when they say there werent
VinceP
You lie. You can’t source your lie because it’s a lie. You lie and you lie and you lie, without shame
February 11th, 2007 at 1:05 pmSince Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq, was installed with the help of our CIA and since our CIA helped create the resistance to the Russians and the communist government of Afghanistan, which later evolved into Al-queda, there is a link of creation between the two.
Why doesn’t Bush come out and say that the USA CIA has been manipulating all “sides” of these conflicts in the Middle East for the last five decades, at least.
The western imperial powers (Britain, France, Netherlands, USA) have been helping themselves to Iraqi oil since about 1920, after the collapse of the Turkish Empire at the end of World War I.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pmLife was so much easier when the unwashed masses didn’t have Google and VCRs, wasn’t it Paul??
-
February 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pmLife was so much easier before Google, wasn’t it Paul?
-
February 11th, 2007 at 1:07 pmgigot should get run over by a peugot….let the french take care of it…
February 11th, 2007 at 1:08 pmpeugeot, never could learn that damn language of diplomacy.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pmjames k is a liar too.
Bin Ladin never received a cent from the CIA. The CIA helped local Afghan fighters and had no dealings with the Arab jihadis of whom Bin Ladin was one. The Saudi govt supported them.
Bin Ladin was just as disgusted at the US as an Infidel country as he was at the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet Union lost the war, all the Jihadists got a big head and thought they destroyed the superpower and then started to plot about destroying us.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:13 pmBin Ladin never received a cent from the CIA.
VinceP
February 11th, 2007 at 1:17 pmWhere’s your proof of this assertion? You have none. You make it up. You lie.
Life was so much easier when the unwashed masses didn’t have Google and VCRs, wasn’t it Paul??
Comment by Hank Essay — February 11, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Profoundly true.
You can only fool most of the people most of the time if they are ignorant..
Whenever I suggest my students should read something, even a few paragraphs, they act as if I am suggesting they poke their own eyes out… How better to keep them ignorant than to make reading an abomination? In fact, Jerry Falwell is probably adding that sin to his own version of the Bible, contradictions be damned…
February 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pmBin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,†bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.â€
In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.â€
There are many reasons to believe them. They knew where the money went. Both men have retired from the CIA; they have no motive to mouth an agency line. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports.
Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden.
This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves “Arab Afghans .†Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the “Arab Afghans,†possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: “I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden.â€
Even if the CIA wanted to pay “Arab Afghans†— which agency officials insist they did not — bin Laden would be a far from obvious choice. Bin Laden himself rarely left the safety of Pakistan’s northwestern cities and commanded few troops of his own. At the time, bin Laden was the Arab Afghan’s quartermaster, providing food and other supplies.
If a CIA officer tried to give money to bin Laden, he probably would not have lived through the experience. The arch-terrorist was known for his violent anti-Americanism. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from California, told me about a trip he took with the mujahideen in 1987. On that trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Laden’s camp. “If he hears an American, he will kill you.â€
February 11th, 2007 at 1:20 pmHmm, thats the first time I re-read that article since I had read a book called “Inside the Jihad” written by an arab in the camps in the 1990s.
In that book the only reference to Osama was the fact that he provided some money and also something about the food deliveries.
That agrees completely with Richard Miniter who wrote the article above where he says
“Bin Laden himself rarely left the safety of Pakistan’s northwestern cities and commanded few troops of his own. At the time, bin Laden was the Arab Afghan’s quartermaster, providing food and other supplies.”
Interesting.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pm“There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves “Arab Afghans .†Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the “Arab Afghans,†possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: “I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden.â€
Let’s break your quote down, VinceP, because within it is an example of your type of deceit.
Let’s call your first rebellion, rebellion A = Saudia Arabia & Gulf states = Islamic extremists, Arab Afghans, Bin Laden among them.
Other Rebellion, Rebellion B = US supported afghans
Now let’s look at Rebellion A group – Saudi Arabia, Islamic extremists, Bin Laden
Here’s just one example of Bush, CIA, Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden connection – Note the bolded text
This gives plenty of proof that the US played both sides as James Sayre indicated in previous post. Also shows that Bush family, oil industry, and the CIA overlap significantly.
“Is it a conspiracy or a coincidence? There is a long and tangled history between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia.
There are many business and connections between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia.
It begins in the 1970’s in Houston, Texas, when George W. Bush was just starting out in his family’s two businesses of politics and oil. The powerful – and very rich – Bin Laden family helped fund his first venture into oil.
The cozy friendship continued for decades. After a terrorist attack at a barracks in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a multi-billion dollar contract to re-build. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers.
Below is a timeline that details the relationship between the Bin Laden and Bush families that culminates in the tragic events of September 11th.
1968
George W. Bush joins the Texas Air National Guard, a coveted position that ensures he doesn’t have to serve in Vietnam. While a member of the Guard, Bush meets and befriends Jim Bath, a former Air Force pilot and budding entrepreneur.
1976
February 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pmGeorge H. W. Bush becomes director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). During his tenure, Bush helps provide training for the Saudi royal family’s palace guard, cementing a relationship that proves critical to the Bush family’s fortunes. Bush also privatizes various CIA assets, with Bath considered one of the beneficiaries because of his involvement in the aircraft business. Bath will later tell a business associate he works for the CIA and was recruited by Bush Sr.”
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
I wish everyone in Washington wasn’t a buffoon. There was no one single reason why we went to war but a whole constellation of reasons. Since we have a sound bite culture , they decided to emphasize the WMD aspect about all others and they felt the WMD issue had the best traction in the UN. The degree to which a person is aware of the entirety of the justification is a function of how much independent research they put into it.
Of course if we had a President who could express himself properly there wouldn’t be this ambiguity in the first place.
Comment by Vince P — February 11, 2007 @ 11:41 am
The Bush administration knew exactly what they were doing. They couldn’t sell a war to anyone without the WMD or Al Qaeda aspects.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pmvince is cracking up… truth overload…
he’d do himself a world of favor if he just stood aside and read and learn and not talk which exposes his lack of facts…
one can wish…
February 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pmDoes anyone have any twink or preteen sex videos for sale or trade?
My present collection is boring the hell out of me. Trades and cash?
I prefer young boy videos age 4-8 is my age range. Anyone?
I like to seduce them with Fudge Stripe cookies by Keebler.
Hence my name, E.L. Fudge_Packer_Boy. I like to play the role of E.L. Fudge, the Keebler elf.
The boys get transfixed with what I say and this is when I make my move.
Email me about your offers.
E.L. Fudge_Packer_Boy
> I have several for sale E.L. Fudge_Packer_Boy.
Email me I will get with you in the ThinkFast thread.
Shhhh!
Would you like one called †Johnny Cum Lately †?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmHow about one called †Preteen Incest is Best “
Bin Ladin never received a cent from the CIA. The CIA helped local Afghan fighters and had no dealings with the Arab jihadis of whom Bin Ladin was one. The Saudi govt supported them.
—–Jihadists were among the Afghan fighters and recieved funding and training from the CIA.
Bin Ladin was just as disgusted at the US as an Infidel country as he was at the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet Union lost the war, all the Jihadists got a big head and thought they destroyed the superpower and then started to plot about destroying us.
Comment by Vince P — February 11, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
—–The jihadists went about trying to overthrow the corrupt regimes in the Middle East.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pmkaty must be delusional if she cant see the “facts” I posted.
It doest even say “the facts he uses are wrong… or I disagree” no.. simply denies any are there at all.
how can someone knowingly type such a lie out with total sincerity.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pmchicken: go waste someone else’s time.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pmVinceP
You are the liar. And when you are presented with facts, you ignore them. And when you post distortions as facts, and are proven wrong, you ignore it. You are a faker and a poser. Alot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
You serve as a constant reminder of the Bush warped mind think.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pmWhat is so annoying is that all these Republican stooges that pontificate on Lehrer’s News Hour can be such liars. The current one, David Brooks, is the same. What’s more, their temporary replacements like Rich Lowry are as bad. I can’t recall Tom Oliphant sitting there lying in Lehrer’s face.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pmHedley
February 11th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThey have nothing but lies. Were they to start telling the truth, there would be a total melt down, so they keep lying, lies upon lies, heaped upon lies. It will take a major sweeping out of the liars, out of corporate media, or sweeping out corporate media entirely, to get this country back to some semblance of truth telling.
Next week from Team Terror!
We went to Iraq for the women!!
February 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pmHow did so many people in Washington rise to their Peter Principle — their level of total incompetence.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pmGigot is nothing if not an apologist for Bush&Co. He, like his cohorts, have placed their personal wealth, the power of their influence, their own egos above the nation and its citizens.
Marie: The Democrats dont do that too,, just the Republicans. LOL liars and hypocrites all of you.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pmVince is looking to start a fight — Did I mention party in my post?
February 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pmAfter all, Lieberman is a supporter of Bush&Co too.
I am not averse to criticizing the Democrats — it’s just that the pompous asses like Gigot and other Bushlovers provide so much to criticize.
Gregor,
That single rationale did not “form the basis” of anything, much less than any other single reason did. Why does Think Progress cherry-pick out one thing from that long list and say it “formed the basis” of the invasion of Iraq? The entire set of reasons formed the basis of the invasion, not on that alone. In other words, Think Progress is implying that we went to war based on links between al Qaeda and Iraq alone, and that nothing else mattered.
This is a continuation of the propaganda that we only had one rationale at any given time, and that it changed with time as the rationales turned out wrong.
If you read Bush’s speech to the UN on September 12, 2002, you’ll see him giving quite a few reasons to remove Saddam Hussein, not just one. He had WMDs, democracy, terrorism, all that stuff in there.
Yet the liberal propagandists constantly claim that they operated only on one of these at a time, and as time went on and some of the claims were shown to be wrong, that they moved to the next rationale. This is inherently dishonest and disproven by the historical record.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pmMarie; thanks for your nasty contribution to society.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pmVinceP is a perfect Bush supporter. He grasps at any distortion to support his prejudices. Win at all cost, no matter the cost. Cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands for personal gain.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pmIf you read Bush’s speech to the UN on September 12, 2002, you’ll see him giving quite a few reasons to remove Saddam Hussein, not just one. He had WMDs, democracy, terrorism, all that stuff in there.
Sexion – yes, he had all that STUFF in there. All those lies in there. Not one muttering of truth. Just a string of lies. Lie upon lie upon lie. Compounded by lies, supported by lies, furthered by lies.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pmAnd for lying to the American people and to Congress, he should be impeached, removed from office, and then incarcerated for crimes against humanity.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pmChildren: More Lies. I am not a perfect Bush supporter. I disagree with him on lots of things. liar.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pmVinceP – You intentionally distort someone’s words, and then condemn them. That makes you a liar. For that you are a perfect Bush supporter.
That’s not the same as stating a fact and then draw a conclusion. That is not a lie. That’s called reasoning.
You don’t even understand the difference between lying and reasoning.
That makes you a perfect Bush supporter, whether you want to be or not.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pmFor lying to the American people and to Congress, Bush should be
February 11th, 2007 at 2:22 pm>impeached
>removed from office
>tried and convicted for war crimes
>incarcerated
Why don`t you people STFU and let the military handle MILITARY operations?
Your second guessing attitude in general is telling. If we ever faced a massive terrorist attack in the US what would you do?
Go on TP and birch all about it I suppose.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:23 pmThank God for strong leaders who are not swayed by polls and public ” opinion “
#66
February 11th, 2007 at 2:26 pmyou make my point.
Hiram: thanks for your comments. I visited Israel in 98.. I support Israel and US over its enemies.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pmHiram the Builder, designer of the temple of Solomon, was from Tyre, which is in Lebanon, not Israel. Although Israel recently bombed Tyre and its beautiful harbor without cause or provocation.
Tell us Hiram about the military HANDLING operations. Tell us about the illegal and failed invasion of Lebanon last summer. Perhaps more second guessing of the military by Israelis would have saved lives on both sides and prevented Israel’s criminal military aggression against innocent Lebanese.
Prattle on Hiram about strong leaders. It’s strong leaders in Israel that are committing egregious crimes against humanity.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pmChildern only finds time to attack the US and Israel. The true evil in the world she supports 100%.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm“Mushroom Clouds over American cities”.
The Bush Administration USED the BOGUS THREAT that Saddam POSSESSED Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was going to GIVE to Al Qaeda and that was WHY it was necessary to attack NOW!
VinceP is a bot, ignore it.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pmIgnoring reality is what you guys are best at
February 11th, 2007 at 2:33 pmIt’s also those same STRONG leaders in Israel who while planning the invasion of Lebanon, were also busy raping their female subordinates. Appropriate I guess. While busying planning the rape of another country, why not rape your subordinates.
Israeli President Facing Rape Charges
February 11th, 2007 at 2:34 pmhttp://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061015/israel_rapecharges_061015/20061016?hub=World
Ignoring reality is what you guys are best at
February 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pmVinceP
You are describing yourself.
Childern only finds time to attack the US and Israel. The true evil in the world she supports 100%.
VinceP –
you are the one attacking the US. It’s your kind who are working to undermine our security with your lies and support for criminal aggression against other countries.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pmShut up Jew hater
February 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pmChildern only finds time to attack the US and Israel. The true evil in the world she supports 100%.
Comment by Vince P — February 11, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
He’s not attacking the US or Israel. He’s attacking the Bush administration (i.e. war criminals) and the extreme right in Israel who happen to be in charge.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pmVinceP
Ah now you are being more truthful. When you can’t win because you have nothing to say, you start throwing out insults.
VinceP, you lose hands down.
You are a weakling, who has nothing, absolutely nothing to say, except distortions masking hatred.
You are speaking into the mirror, talking to yourself.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:43 pmSEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
If there was no claimed lined there would have been no war!
February 11th, 2007 at 3:38 pmThe real issue is that Bush & Co created the impression that there was a link between 9/11 without saying it explicitly. On the eve of the war, the vast majority of Americans were convinced there was a link, because Bush kept repeating the words “terror” and “Iraq” in the same paragraph, and because the memory of 9/11 was still fresh.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:38 pmHe only created that impression in your small minds.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm“The reasons for the war don’t matter. All that matters is winning.”
The stated reasons are absolutely crucial in America, because that’s how we know when to stop our warriors from getting their asses mailed back to their families.
and yes, we have probably killed 100,000 terrorists, and in so doing we have recruited 200,000 of their younger brothers, and all of their chlidren (and maybe even their childrens children).
You act like Iraq looked this bad when we got there in 2003. It wasn’t. Stop trying to polish a turd.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThe real issue is that Bush & Co created the impression that there was a link between 9/11 without saying it explicitly. On the eve of the war, the vast majority of Americans were convinced there was a link, because Bush kept repeating the words “terror†and “Iraq†in the same paragraph, and because the memory of 9/11 was still fresh.
The only problem with this myth is that 78% of the American public believed Saddam Hussein was involved in a CNN poll done September 11-13, 2001. Before the Bush administration had commented on who was responsible. This sank to around 50% at the eve of the invasion of Iraq.
De-a-bunked.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pmThe terrorists create more of us on our side that want to kill them. So let them try again.. they wont know what they have awakened.
Stop being pussies.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pmBut we also have to address the question of where might these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. We know he’s used chemical weapons. We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.
Guest: Vice President Dick Cheney
Copyright 2003, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pmPLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO “NBC NEWS’ MEET THE PRESS.â€
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS
Sunday, March 16, 2003
GUEST: Vice President DICK CHENEY
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert – NBC News
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
February 11th, 2007 at 3:57 pmpussies?
Vince, why do you think so poorly of vagina’s that you would use it as a slur? Problems with the ladies, much?
Vince. if we’d stopped at Afghanistan I’d be in the Corps of Engineers today. Tested, qualified, never upped.
I’m only afraid of dying to line someone elses pocket, or hide their mistake, wheras I thought Clinton should have gone into Afghanistan the day the Taliban blew up the ancient Buddha statues.
You assume you know so much, you don’t know sh** about this crowd, punk.
now get off my lawn!
February 11th, 2007 at 3:59 pmSomeone owes America an apology, and their names are
the Legislative and Executive branches.
So far I’ve heard from Edwards and… um…. Kucinich???
y’all think ‘06 was a tough year to run as an incumbent or republican?? just keep this up and wait 2 years….
February 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#93: What do you think these quotations prove? None of this changes the fact that there were no WMD’s, that there was no operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, and that there was no plan for Iraq to attack the United States or its allies. In other words, there was no justification for war against Iraq.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:06 pmNo, we went into Iraq because they wouldn’t play ball with their nationalized oil production. We gave them technology, pipelines, but they shunned outside oil company investment. We warned Saddam once, then finished the job recently.
However, blowing people up, then strong-arming them into negotiating away the profits from their own natural resources (in exchange for their “freedom”), has created a feeding frenzy of murder.
“MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. He-heh, let them just kill themselves over there so they wont kill us here. He-he-heh!” GW Botch (I’m not really a Commander in Chief, but I play one on TV.)
February 11th, 2007 at 4:06 pmYou want to blame only Bush? Ok, I have more quotes
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
February 11th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#90: The only problem with this myth is that 78% of the American public believed Saddam Hussein was involved in a CNN poll done September 11-13, 2001. Before the Bush administration had commented on who was responsible. This sank to around 50% at the eve of the invasion of Iraq.
The only problem with this explanation is that the Bush administration repeatedly conflated 9/11 and its justification for war against Iraq. Even when the Bush administration wasn’t explicitly saying there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida (which it did repeatedly), it was using 9/11 and Iraq, often in the same sentence, to imply a connection.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pm#98: Again, friend, what do you think these quotations prove?
February 11th, 2007 at 4:13 pmStill cant figure it out?
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
February 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pmFunny that Russert interview, Russert does all the naming of potential weapons (anthrax, VX, smallpox), and Cheney pauses and moves on…. never saying yes… never saying no.
It really is very telling. as is Vince’s use of female anatomy as slur, as shown above.
You are aware that the harder you polish a turd the longer you stink like it, right?
Vince, you’ve been punk’d. The longer you take to get it, the angrier you’re gonna be when it hits you. Most of the world does not want to kill us – they do not want your stuff or your woman.
Mostly they want to live, eat, and avoid bullets.
What would you do in the shoe of an Iraqi man? Say its 1812 and you live in Washington D.C. The British are burning the Senate.
What do you do? Take up arms with your local milita (often organized by parish)? or act like a fraidy-cat and hide?
So stop telling me Iraqi’s are terrorists, because Washington D.C. and Baghdad ultimately have one thing in common – foreign armies can’t hold them.
Because of people like you and like me.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pmno, it’s that he’s losing so he’s going to flood out dissenting views.
What a tantrum
February 11th, 2007 at 4:23 pmNotice how the argument is whether or not Saddam had “links” to al Qaeda when the truth is that he very, very strongly SUPPRESSED al Qaeda. The CIA and the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations strongly supported Saddam and al Qaeda. Pakistan does today. Pakistan definitely does have many nuclear weapons–although not as many as Israel.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pmIf the true reasons for invasion were “links” to al Qaeda or WMD, then there would have been many places we would have bombed and occupied before Iraq—-Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Germany, Israel, Jersey City, Brooklyn, etc., etc.
Of course this is ridiculous and so are the many different reasons given for the latest (of the over 100) US invasion. NEVER believe the CIA or any administration when they give the reasons for any war or invasion. Read William Blum, Noam Chomsky, The Pentagon Papers, and The Downing Street Memo.
Scott Ritter quote in 98…. about ground conditions in 2003.
strong… real strong.
especially after what he said in 2002.
Scott Ritter, 2002
February 11th, 2007 at 4:26 pmI already disproved the fiction that CIA asisted Bin Ladin. Not that facts are your concern.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:30 pmTHE VERY DAY THE WHITE HOUSE ASKED CONGRESS FOR THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE IN IRAQ
February 11th, 2007 at 4:35 pmwhat strawman fiction is that??
February 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pm“No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don’t want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we’re learning more,” Rice said.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pmVince P,
I was going to jump in and help you with the debate however, being the very able debater you are, I will now just sit back and watch and learn from you. I learn something of your style and technique everyday here at TP.
You are doing a masterful job with these ingrates.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pmKeep up the good work!
Well done, Vince. You cherrypicked that quote as well as any others. You have ZERO intellectual honesty. None.
That quote doesn’t show that they were avoiding making links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. It, as the one quote that dealt specifically with 9/11 in an entire monologue about the connections between the two, demonstrates how close they were willing to go to suggest that any minute now the final piece of evidence needed to make that assertion could be found.
Nice try.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pm#101: You’ve shown a spectacular capacity for cutting and pasting. Now, perhaps, you can tell us the point.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#110: You are doing a masterful job with these ingrates.
Hey Scully, maybe you can explain exactly what’s so “masterful” about Vince’s cutting and pasting. And while you’re at it, maybe you could explain who is ungrateful for what, and why this is a problem.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:50 pmI’m not arguing about Rice. I’m arguing about you calling someone a vagina, and meaining it as a bad thing. You are no cunning linguist.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pm112-Comment by Luke — February 11, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
#101: You’ve shown a spectacular capacity for cutting and pasting. Now, perhaps, you can tell us the point.
Comment by Luke — February 11, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
>
The FACTS can be posted for you, however DO NOT expect someone else to interpret the meaning for you if you are to stupid to figure it out on your own.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pmLuke, here’s to you. -clink-
February 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pmANY Comment by Luke —
Why don`t you watch and LEARN something from Vince P?
Watch his style and prose in motion. A true thing of beauty.
Your drivel Luke, is just stinking up the house.
Watch the ” master of disaster ” ( for you guys, that is ) Luke in action.
An uplifting experience in my book. He is VERY able and an EXCELLENT debater!
He is VERY well read and has an uncanny ability to frame the debate with FACTS, not fiction like so many here.
Vince P, I would vote for you for congress, I will guarantee you that.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:01 pmThis is the new and improved rationale for the war/invasion/occupation/our continued presense in Iraq? Because we were afraid that al Qaida would come into possession of weapons that Iraq didn’t even have? You’ve got to be F* kidding me. It just goes to show ya: Not only do these skanks have thier heads up thier a-holes, they have thier heads up each OTHER’S a-holes and strongly suggest that you put YOUR head up thier a-holes, as well. Holy shit! Gimme a F* valium!
February 11th, 2007 at 5:02 pmYou make me so super glad to be American. Really.
we are that stupid.
Illuminate us with the point you were making above
I got
and
and that 5 year out of contect Scott Ritter quote that i mentioned above….
so.. yeah. I am just way too stupid to see the connection. Oh my gosh, I’m drooling on myself again, I am just so stupid I didn’t notice.
ewww, have you been turd polishing??I’m not that dumb
February 11th, 2007 at 5:08 pmawww. a cut-n-paste troll and his sockpuppet.
can I get a picture of you two?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:10 pmWSJ’s Paul Gigot: ‘We Didn’t Go To War Because Of Al Qaeda Links’
No, we went to war because of oil, Israel and imperialism.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:14 pmscully: Feel free to comment, I could use some moral support :)
February 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pmscully: I love when they say I dont provide facts, when almsot every thing I write has with it some support. This only drives them more nutty so they go all the way nutter by saying things that I haven’t shown any facts at all. Like the posts aren’t here , cognitive disssonance.. these people absolutely will not haev their worldview challenged even if it forces them to outright lie and deny what is clearly true.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pm#112 – Luke,
February 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pmMost of those quotes are lifted en masse from right-wing web sites. Example. This guy is lazy as a slouth.
Like it matters where they came from. they were said. look for any little way out dont you? democrats are congential liars
February 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHere is ABC News in 1999 CONNECTING SADDAM HUSSIEN AND OSAMA BIN LADIN
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186496.php
February 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pmhere are some comments that are supplied with the video:
The original ABC News report you linked to was from January 1999, I believe, and not 2000. The report was similar to numerous accounts in the worldwide press following Operation Desert Fox. That Clinton-ordered air campaign lasted from December 16 to December 19, 1998. Its purpose was to degrade Saddam’s WMD and intelligence capabilities. Reports from more recent years indicate that the campaign nearly plunged Saddam’s regime into chaos.
In any event, Saddam’s response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. As I and others have written, Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam’s most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime’s terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report, in “The Four-Day War.” Another, earlier piece also discusses Saddam’s conspicuous response to Operation Desert Fox.
The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam’s regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox.
The reports from late 1998 and early 1999 are tough for naysayers to explain away for a variety of reasons, but that hasn’t stopped them from trying. For example, last year’s Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda (the report was written, primarily, by a former John Kerry for President campaigner) unhesitatingly cited Hijazi’s testimony, in which he claimed that he did not meet with bin Laden again after a lone incident in the mid 1990’s. The Senate Intelligence report did not cite any of the voluminous reporting, by ABC News and other outlets, following the meeting in December 1998. Obviously, that reporting demonstrates Hijazi is a liar. I asked the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff about this after the report came out. They said they didn’t have any evidence that contradicted Hijazi’s testimony and that is why they cited it unquestioningly. I think that is a good demonstration of the ignorance or bias or both that clouds this issue.
Of course, at the same time that the worldwide media was reporting all of this, various CIA and National Security Council officials were watching as well. Thus, Richard Clarke worried in February 1999 about bin Laden’s possible “boogie to Baghdad.” A month earlier he defended intelligence tying Saddam’s VX nerve gas program to a suspected al Qaeda front company in Sudan. Michael Scheuer also at one time found it convenient to cite some of this evidence. In his original 2002 edition of Through Our Enemies’ Eyes he approvingly cited several of the media’s late 1998/early 1999 accounts. Of course, they both now pretend none of this really means anything.
Such is the state of affairs in today’s Washington establishment.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pmJews are liars that play America for fools.
The world doesn’t need the stare of Isreal. If some foreign power set up another nation in New York we would have kicked the shit out of them ages ago. If the Jews cared about world peace and anyone but themselves, and their money, they would have left the middle east years ago.
Screw those manipulative a-holes, and God Bless America.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pm#125 – slouth,
February 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pmThe problem is that most of the quotes can not be found in the MSM. Try the link, the sound effects delineate the scope of your brain.
To the Jews God said:
“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you, I will curse”
God will not bless America if America does not bless Israel.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:54 pm#117 scully
Why don`t you watch and LEARN something from Vince P?
Watch his style and prose in motion. A true thing of beauty.
What a nice thing to say, Vince…er…I mean scully.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pm#117: Why don`t you watch and LEARN something from Vince P?
Watch his style and prose in motion. A true thing of beauty.
Cutting and pasting without any sort of argumentation or commentary? Most high-school debate coaches would call this technique pretty shallow.
An uplifting experience in my book. He is VERY able and an EXCELLENT debater!
Really? It seems to me that Vince is only capable of the cut-and-paste, followed by gratuitous insults and phony claims of anti-Semitism.
He is VERY well read and has an uncanny ability to frame the debate with FACTS, not fiction like so many here.
Which “facts” are those, Scully? Does Vince agree with Paul Gigot’s formulation–that the Bush administration didn’t use the alleged connection between Iraq and al-Qaida as justification for going to war?
Vince P, I would vote for you for congress, I will guarantee you that.
Scary, but I don’t doubt your sincerity.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI dont go to unknown sites.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pm#128 – Vinny,
February 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmActually, DNA evidence shows that the present Israelis should return to Pakistan. They fled from there to Europe in front of Ghengis Kahn during the thirteenth century. The same evidence shows that they settled into the Indus region about 8,000 BC.
I dont go to unknown sites.
A Rumsfeldism if ever there was one. If you go to a site then it is known to you. If you never go to a site then it is unknown to you. Such statements are typical of VinceP. They seem to have substance, but actually say nothing.
The site he goes to most often is the hole wherein his head is lodged.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmWalt who gives a fck?
How do you explain the 1999 ABC video linking Osama and Iraq ? Isn’t that amazing how Bush manipulated the evidence?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmChildern: I dont trust my computer’s security against the honor of people here.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:11 pmI thought it was established in history that the Bible was the first propaganda book used by the ruling elite to control the masses.
The hebrews after fleeing egypt, brutally conquered their “promised” land though force of arms. The Bible was written after the fact, and is completely one sided. In a court of law, that type of evidence would be laughed at.
God said nothing, rather man said something, and if you believe that sort of thing, the jews blew it when they played a part in cruicifying their messiah … considering that, I’d hardly call them the chosed people anymore.
To think God would choose a small group of violent people over the rest of humanity is the height of arrogance and ignorance.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pm#127: The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam’s regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America.
I don’t at all doubt that the media was–and for all I know, still is–convinced that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. Policy decisions, however, shouldn’t be made on the basis of what the media thinks. Policy decisions should be made on the basis of what the intelligence community says. And the intelligence community repeatedly said that there was no operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. According to Saturday’s report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General, the information provided to the Senate by a “policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.”
So it shouldn’t be surprising that Congressional members on both sides of the aisle believed that Iraq had WMD’s, and that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. That’s what the bogus reports out of Douglas Feith’s office were saying. (Of course, why members of Congress blindly accepted anything out of Feith’s office is an open question.)
February 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmVinceP
February 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmYou are an ignoramus. Try to pull your head out of your ass, and come up for air. Obviously screwing yourself gives you alot of pleasure.
TYPO:
Sould read:
Watch the †master of disaster †( for you guys, that is ) Luke in action.
Should read:Watch the †master of disaster †( for you guys, that is ) Vince P. in action.
Should be Vince P. because he is the ” master of disaster ” for your party, in other words your party turns into EVEN MORE of a disaster everytime the “eloquent one”, Vince P. speaks and debunks your evil swill that you try to foist upon the masses.
Vince P. RULES you ingrates.
Vince P. you are very eloquent in your prose and beliefs and values.
There is no wasted movement in the way you speak and think and carry yourself. No brain synapses lost their my good man.
Unlike the democrats, their synapses reminds me of a 1.5 volt stuffed cute toy that talks and talks and talks while the battery is very low and just about to die out.
It hits and misses with parts of one sentence here and bits of another sentence there, in a hapless attempt to ( persuade? ) others into their snare and lair.
It is rambling jibberish that come out and sometimes, NO, ALL THE TIME- they get confused with their OWN LIES and the PROJECT that onto others.
It is very transparent, the way they operate.
Kudos to you Vince P.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmThe quote from Condi Rice proves my argument—-the administration was framing the argument as a question of whether we had proof then that Saddam had operational control of 9/11 when the truth was Saddam very strongly SUPPRESSED those who would have wanted 9/11 to happen !!! That is why he was the sworn enemy of al Qaeda and bin Laden called him a “a secular hedonist”. If you can’t understand this, then I cannot understand it for you.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pmThere is more evidence that those from The Project for a New American Century wanted 9/11 to happen. They spelled it out in black and white in the 1990’s. They said they wanted to take a big chunk of the Middle East because of the importance of oil and natural gas….but that it would take “A New Pearl Harbor” before the American people and Congress would go along. I am not saying they actually did 9/11. I am saying they would want it to happen, while Saddam definitely would not.
A quote from Le Figaro:
“Contacts between the CIA and bin Laden began in 1979 when, as a representative of his family’s business, bin Laden began recruiting volunteers for the Afghan resistance against the Red Army. FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered threee years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army.”
It is well documented that the CIA worked with bloodthirsty terrorist groups throughout the Cold War.
The CIA, the Reagan-Bush administration, Islamic terrorists, Latin American terrorists, and drug runners worked together in Iran-Contra. They all used BCCI. BCCI funded GWB’s Harken Energy. Salem bin Laden funded GWB’s Arbusto Corp. The bins Laden’s invested heavily in Carlyle (GHWB & GWB). GHWB made Noriega our man in Panama. GHWB helped plan The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Ollie North’s diaries say the Contras were bringing tons of cocaine into the US. The CIA aided drug lords in Burma, Laos, Colombia, and Afghanistan. The CIA overthrew democratically-elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. They interfered in elections in Australia and Britain.
These are not tinfoil hat conspiracies. These are historic facts.
What do you think The Downing Street Memo means when it says the policy for invasion is set (July 2002) and the evidence will be fitted around the policy later? Neither the Bush nor the Blair governments have questioned the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo.
VinceP aka Scully
Event the right wing sites must be sick of you.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pmScully
February 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmYou are too too funny.
scully : Thanks.
These folks think that when they are asked this question
“What will happen in Iraq if the US were to leave today”
that this is some sort of answer:
“BUSHED LIED IN 1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011 ,2012, 2013″
Their raving malignant party politics will cause untold millions of deaths around the world. AND THEY DONT EVEN CARE.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmVince P.
I thought I would post this for your enjoyment post # 143.
You are doing a masterful job with these know nothings.
I will observe for the time being and learn the way from you.
You are a shining example of what America and Americans SHOULD be.
Not like this rabble we find in the democratic party.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmEspecially liberals.
keith: please reconcile your cliches against the ABC video from 99.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmScully from muddyville
February 11th, 2007 at 6:19 pmCould you stick to the topic. Ranting about what a hypocrite you are is good and very very interesting, but it is off topic.
Children: I am not scully. Stop spreading lies about me. Is that the kind of person you are?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:19 pm#133 – Vince P said,
“I dont go to unknown sites.”
Comment by Vince P — February 11, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Why would anyone go to a site that he or she does not know about?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:20 pm#127: If your point is to say that Congress was relying on bogus intelligence to justify the Iraq war, then I think you’re absolutely right, and I think you’re correct to question their judgment in doing so. (I myself have been highly critical of the votes cast by Clinton, Edwards, Ensign, Frist, Kerry, McCain, and the rest.)
Another, and closely related, question is: where were they getting their information? The answer: from the office of Undersecretary of Defense Donald Feith.
The next question ought to be this: was Feith acting on his own when he “cooked” the intelligence? Did Rumsfeld order him to do it? Or did the order come from Bush himself? This is what Congress should be investigating.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pmBlah Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Oh and more blah blah blah.
here’s two pages of copied text don’t ask me what it says.
I just paste lots and lots of stuff that no one reads.
Scully Dee Dee and Vince Pee
February 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pmDRxJ,
February 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pmI’m done with the idiot troll.
>Why would anyone go to a site that he or she does not know about?
Thats not the issue…
That the site was recommended by someone from here is. You people have no problem lying about others, wanting to do violence on them , etc.. why should I trust it’s not a trick?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pmChildren: I’m ignoring you now. Grow up, idiot.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pmREconciling cliches.
Now there’s a mixed metaphor. Just what does that look like? Probably involves Vince placing his head in a dark hole whilst bending over.
Another gem from Vince Pee
Vince the Pee man
Vince, Vince o lator
The Vince o lator
Vince wants to pee
Vince likes to babble and spree
February 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pmVinceP
Ignoring me. Oh good.
Your are just ignorant you see. You ignore the truth
Vince the Pee man can’t handle the truth.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pmABC News video from 1999 showing links between Saddam and Osama in the aftermath of Desert Fox.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186496.php
February 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pmABC News showing links between VinceP and Al Qaeda.
Link to follow.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:29 pm#159: What’s this video designed to prove, there, Vince? That ABC News was wrong? I’ll certainly concede this point.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pmVinceP
February 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pmYou’re right, watch out, we might trick you into learning something. Be very very careful Vince. It’s dangerous here.
“Whats it suppsoed to prove”
It proves wrong the fantasy everyone engages in here that the links were a lie and invention of Bush.
Not that any of you will care about such technicalities.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:34 pmVince Pee Pee Head, don’t read this post. It’s dangerous. You might learn something.
“At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran,” Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari report for Newsweek.
The article continues, “‘They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,’” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi’s kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.”
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Newsweek_Hidden_war_with_Iran_Will_0211.html
February 11th, 2007 at 6:35 pmScully Dully wha wha wha. Quit whining. There are billions who think you’re an idiot. And they are right.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pmScully where aer you from
February 11th, 2007 at 6:43 pm#164: It proves wrong the fantasy everyone engages in here that the links were a lie and invention of Bush.
First, you can’t possibly think that a 1999 report from ABC News proves that there was, in fact, an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. As of 2003–the time when the U.S. went to war against Iraq–these claims had been debunked in the intelligence community. Whether or not they were still being peddled by the mainstream media, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
I can’t speak for other posters here, but I don’t believe that the alleged connection between Iraq and bin Laden was “invented” by Bush. For all I know, Bush sincerely believed all along that there was an operational relationship between Iraq and bin Laden (although he did at one point, when asked what this relationship, say, “Nothing”). It could have been someone else–Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney–who cooked the intelligence. And I’m sure that the fact that this alleged connection was reported by ABC News and others made it that much more believeable when Bush asked Congress for a resolution authorizing war. (Again, though, I think it’s reasonable to question Congress’s credulity.)
In any case, all of this speaks to the importance of investigating the pre-war intelligence in a thorough and rigorous way. I hope that Congress will take this responsibility seriously.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pm>First, you can’t possibly think that a 1999 report from ABC News proves that there was, in fact, an operational relationship
Putting words in my mouth. I never said operational.
I’m not even reading the rest.
When are you people going to discuss things honestly?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pm#169: Putting words in my mouth. I never said operational.
Oh, I see, Vince. You only want to argue with straw men. When someone forces you to confront the basis of your argument, then you just wither up and die.
If you don’t intend this video as evidence of an “operational” relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, what then do you think it means? I for one have never denied that there was a “relationship” between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Saddam repeatedly told his underlings that if Osama bin Laden was ever found in Iraq, he should be captured and put in jail. Sure, that’s a “relationship,” but it’s not exactly the kind of “relationship” one would use to justify war, now, is it?
I’m not even reading the rest.
Of course not. You’re getting your ass kicked. Does this mean, you’ll go away? Or will you instead focus your vitriol on some poor 13-year-old nitwit who happens to chance on the site and post something dumb?
When are you people going to discuss things honestly?
Poor Vince. You actually think people are stupid enough to think that you weren’t trying to imply an “operational” relationship by posting that video? And now you’re crying about “honesty”? Give me a break, fella.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:01 pmLuke,
You are guilty of what Think Progress and the rest have been guilty of for years: conflating a “relationship” with “operational” cooperation. Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda agreed to not work against each other, and Iraq offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq in 1999. They had contacts with each other. You hate this because this is what the Bush administration talked about, so you throw in the “operational” BS to imply something else.
The video posted here now shows that a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda was not an invention of the Bush administration. I won’t even start detailing the Clinton administration’s attempts at justifying their attack on a Sudanese factory…
February 11th, 2007 at 7:12 pm#171: It’s one thing to post a crazy, pointless rant once. A real measure of insanity, though, would be to post it multiple times, word for word.
Then again, responding to it or acknowledging it (as I’m currently doing) may not be a sign of mental health, either.
I’m going to the gym.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pmIf the reason for the illegal invasion, occupation, and selling off of Iraq’s resources was a link to al Qaeda——then the US created a fantastically horrid outcome——because we gave a tremendous boost to al Qaeda (according to the 16 intelligence agencies of the USA and every study in the world). Al Qaeda loves the fact that we opened up Iraq to them, gave them a tremendous recruiting tool, and training ground. We got rid of the strongly suppressive Saddam and made many millions of Muslims arund the world hate the USA.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pmIf the true reason for the invasion was a connection to al Qaeda, then we would have invaded Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Germany, Britain, Jersey City, San Diego, Florida, Detroit, and Brooklyn BEFORE Iraq.
It is not just that one reason was a known lie, it is that EVERY reason given for the urgent necessity of invading Iraq was a known lie well before they were given. The Niger document was known to be an extremely poor forgery eleven months before it was in the State of the Union speech. The “aluminum tubes are for nuclear weapons” was also a known lie eleven months before it was in the same State of the Union Speech. Ditto the meeting in Prague. Atta was in Florida at the time and the Czech police said the meeting never happened. The “shack in the North” (if it existed at all) was under complete US/British control and could have been taken out at any time. The drones were a lie. The “500 tons” (one million pounds) was a lie. The “32,000 liters” was a lie. The “28,000 liters” was a lie.
It doesn’t matter what Scott Ritter said in the 1990’s. It matters what Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, all the UN weapons inspectors, and the IAEA were saying in late 2002 !!! They were saying: “we have looked everywhere we can think of…we can find nothing…if you can tell us where else to look, please do”. The Bush administration could NOT tell them any other place to look. It matters that WMD “evidence” came from a sole, alcoholic, unreliable Curveball source—or someone who would say anything under torture and later recanted. If some Democrats or the NYTimes or WashPost fell for this B.S.—that doesn’t exactly prove it is true or that invasion was the correct action. (Can you understand this concept?).
If the last one hundred times the US has invaded a soveriegn country, a lie or lies were given as the reason———then why do you believe them this time when there is a mountain of evidence that they are lies and not a shred of evidence to support them.
“Remember the Maine” was a lie. The Lusitania story was a lie. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. We said Mexico attacked Texas first. Germany said Poland attacked first. Many historians believe we let Pearl Harbor happen.
What I am giving are facts. If someone thinks they are “cliches”, then there is something wrong with them.
#173: Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda agreed to not work against each other, and Iraq offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq in 1999. They had contacts with each other.
The whole point, which you seem to be missing, Seixon, is that the Bush administration justified war against Iraq by convincing the public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that there was a real danger that he might give WMD’s to al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations, thus resulting in, as Bush himself said, a “mushroom cloud” in an American city.
The video posted here now shows that a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda was not an invention of the Bush administration.
Like Vince, you’re arguing with straw men. As I said in post #169, I have never claimed that the Iraq-al-Qaida connection was an “invention” of the Bush administration. I don’t think it was. Obviously, it wasn’t. What does matter, though, is that as of 2003, when the United States began its war in Iraq, the consensus in the intelligence community was that Iraq and al-Qaida were not allies. This is important because this was one of the central reasons the Bush administration cited for attacking Iraq.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:23 pmOK, I’m really going to the gym now. I’m sure all of you care deeply.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:23 pmI like the gym
February 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pm#176 – Luke,
February 11th, 2007 at 7:40 pmI am sure that your will not drool in the men’s locker room. Certain others will leave a trail of slime that would draw envy from a slug.
ChildrenofLir,
You are an insufferable pedophile.
I sense some pedophilia attacks coming up for you.
Just sayin…
A †scullymania †in your honor if you will…
February 11th, 2007 at 7:53 pmLuke,
The whole point, which you seem to be missing, Seixon, is that the Bush administration justified war against Iraq by convincing the public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that there was a real danger that he might give WMD’s to al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations, thus resulting in, as Bush himself said, a “mushroom cloud†in an American city.
I remember Bush saying that Iraq could choose to give such technology to terrorists at any point, and that this was a danger. That’s not quite saying the same as would, now is it? You are also taking the mushroom cloud reference out of context and misrepresenting it.
Like Vince, you’re arguing with straw men. As I said in post #169, I have never claimed that the Iraq-al-Qaida connection was an “invention†of the Bush administration.
You might not have, but many other people have.
What does matter, though, is that as of 2003, when the United States began its war in Iraq, the consensus in the intelligence community was that Iraq and al-Qaida were not allies. This is important because this was one of the central reasons the Bush administration cited for attacking Iraq.
They were not allies, but had agreed not to hurt each other, and Iraq had offered bin Laden asylum in the past. Alrighty then. Moving right along…
February 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWalter is gay bashing now.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pmScully where aer you from
Comment by Vince P
Scully to VincePP
I am from ur anus.
I couldn’t resist. LOL LOL LOLLLLLL
February 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm#180: I remember Bush saying that Iraq could choose to give such technology to terrorists at any point, and that this was a danger. That’s not quite saying the same as would, now is it?
No, it’s not. So, are you then agreeing with my point that there was no evidence to support the notion that Saddam Hussein would have given WMD’s to al-Qaida? If so, then what justification would there be for going to war with Iraq?
You are also taking the mushroom cloud reference out of context and misrepresenting it.
I am? I included the link. Bush was arguing that we couldn’t “wait for the final proof” of Iraq’s WMD’s “that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Part of Bush’s argument was that even if Saddam Hussein didn’t use a nuclear weapon himself, he might give one to terrorists. I fail to see how this is misrepresenting what he said, or taking it out of context. Read the speech yourself–I linked to it.
You might not have [claimed that the Iraq-al-Qaida connection was an “invention†of the Bush administration], but many other people have.
OK, I’ll bite. Provide a link to a quote from a prominent progressive who has said Bush “invented” the Iraq-al-Qaida connection. This shouldn’t be too hard, since there are so “many” of them. And thanks for acknowledging that I, at least, have never made this case.
They were not allies, but had agreed not to hurt each other, and Iraq had offered bin Laden asylum in the past.
Of course, by the time the Bush administration started saber-rattling about Iraq, that “relationship” had long since fallen out, since (predictably) they didn’t share ideological goals. The Bush administration was making the case that the “relationship” between Iraq and al-Qaida was enough to justify war. The evidence that the intelligence community had at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq clearly shows otherwise. What part of this don’t you understand?
February 11th, 2007 at 9:45 pm#181: Walter is gay bashing now.
I thought he was making a reference to intelligence, rather than sexual orientation, but I’ll let Walt speak for himself on this one.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:47 pmWhen the hell are we going to force these Newspapers and corporations to remove these right-wing fools from their organizations?
When do we pull the plug on financing their contitued existance and put our money elsewhere?
February 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm#185: When do we pull the plug on financing their [continued] exist[e]nce and put our money elsewhere?
I don’t disagree with you, Mr. Rider. The problem, of course, is that the “we” that matters in this case–the people who subscribe to the Wall Street Journal–generally vote Republican and generally approve of what Mr. Gigot has to say, absurd as it may be. Even more important, the Wall Street Journal and the Bush administration share a range of ideological goals. Bush administration fiscal policies are good for Wall Street. They may not be good for the average citizen, but they are good for Wall Street.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:05 pmYou people are a threat to our speech rights.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:31 pmYou people are a threat to our speech rights.
Comment by Vince P
You’re a threat to yourself, and others, and you should have an intervention, soon.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:50 pm#187: You people are a threat to our speech rights.
Beg pardon? When did anyone here ever suggest stripping you–or anyone else–of your right to free speech?
February 11th, 2007 at 10:59 pmSee that’s how you should show the clip. Show the comeback. Show Juan Williams totally owning the stupid mouthpieces by simply explaining reality to them.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:26 pmIT’S ALL ABOUT THE OIL. always was. always will be.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:39 pm#193
…not to mention the war profiteering.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:02 amFrig TP!
Talk about 9-11 on the Iran thread above.
TP doesn’t give a sh*t about trolls, so why should we keep our end of the bargin?
9-11 was a conspiracy! Talk about it on the other thread.
Screw them.
Comment by trueblue — February 11, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 12:04 amSo, Saddam was going to give the WMD’s that he most definitely did not have (nor did he have a current nuclear program in 2003 nor the materials) to his sworn enemy who hated him because he had been strongly suppressing fundamentalist Islamists for decades. Thank you, right-wing trolls. You have made it perfectly clear to me.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:34 amBut, riddle me this: Why did we not attack Pakistan ?!?! Pakistan most definitely HAS nuclear weapons and the delivery systems. Pakistan had sold the technology to North Korea. Pakistan had for decades been strongly supporting the Mujahadin, the Taliban, and al Qaeda. The head of Pakistani Intelligence had been wiring money to those in the USA responsible for 9/11. Osama and his men DID flee to Pakistan from Afghanistan (with the help of the Pakistanis). They are still there today. Pakistan is headed by a strongly repressive dictator who was never elected.
The reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq is the same as the last 100 invasions by the US: we wanted to control that part of the world. We ain’t building fourteen permanent bases for nothing. A major reason we want to control that part of the world is the OIL. Any sixth-grader should be able to figure it out.
Frig TP!
Talk about 9-11 on the Iran thread above.
TP doesn’t give a sh*t about trolls, so why should we keep our end of the bargin?
9-11 was a conspiracy! Talk about it on the other thread.
Screw them.
Comment by trueblue — February 11, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Let`s stay on topic instead. And by the way, you are WAY off target and off the mark for insulting me and the staff here at TP.
So piss off!
February 12th, 2007 at 2:09 amI have a few legitimate questions I would like an honest answer to from the posters here at Thin Progress.
Here goes.
Why dont you folks leave the government up to the professional government?
Why dont you folks leave the military up to the professional military?
What do you folks strive for?
What do you strive against?
What is the goal here?
Define the goal?
Define US politics today in detail.
Define US geo-politics & policies today in detail.
What is an enemy?
Who is the enemy?
Why are there enemies of the US?
Why are there allies of the US?
Who is an ally of the US?
Why are they an ally.
What is Christianity?
Why is there Christianity?
Who are these Christians?
What are Jews?
Why is there the Jewish faith?
Who are these Jews?
Why does mankind have a common bond?
Does mankind even have a common bond?
What is that bond?
The answers to all of these questions and many more are available in the best-selling book of ALL TIME!
The Bible.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:21 am#196: Why dont you folks leave the government up to the professional government?
From the U.S. Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
It sounds to me that you’d prefer to live in a country where a religiously oriented “professional government” rules, and where citizens are discouraged from questioning their government and military. I can recommend plenty of such places, including Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Why don’t you try living in one of these countries for a while, and then get back to us?
February 12th, 2007 at 10:37 amextra troll attention on any thread is evidence of righty’s priority list. funny they think they can sway participants here the way they sway poll respondents with loaded questions and false choices. obviously they’re using the same pr companies that they’ve used in the past for direct-mail and cold-call operations.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:33 pmExplain to the people of Al-Anfal in the Kurdistan region of Iraq that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:50 pm#195: Explain to the people of Al-Anfal in the Kurdistan region of Iraq that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s.
First of all, “al-Anfal” refers to a verse in the Koran, and is another name for Saddam Hussein’s operation against the Kurds. It’s not the name of a region.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988. Do you actually think those are the same WMD’s that Bush used to justify war against Iraq in 2003? Or are you just trying to make yourself look smart? If it’s the latter, how’s that working out for you?
February 12th, 2007 at 6:42 pmRe: #195
February 12th, 2007 at 6:55 pmYou are referring to 1988 when, strongly supported by the Reagan-Bush administration and good buddy Rumsfeld, Iraq was in a war with Iran and the Kurds in that part of Iraq sided with Iran. Yes it is horribly wrong to gas thousands of civilians. Just as it is wrong to cause the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis by our illegal invasion and occupation.
Carter had sanctions against any WMD materials going to Iraq. When the Reagan-Bush administration came in, they quickly got rid of the sanctions.
When the killings happened in 1988 the Reagan-Bush administration blamed Iran. All Americans to the left of center and organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN condemned Saddam.
Everyone knows Saddam had poison gas in 1988. Rummy still has the receipts!!! That is not the debate. The debate is obviously: DID HE HAVE WMD IN LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 ? !!! Was there an urgency in March 2003 for an invasion of Iraq because “we could not wait for the mushroom cloud” or because he might give WMD’s to his sworn hated enemy al Qaeda?
The UN weapons inspectors were very effective in the 1990’s in disposing of the remnants of Iraq’s WMD programs and materials. By late 2002, they could find nothing and were begging the Bush administration to tell them where they thought they should look if they were so sure such WMD’s existed. The Bush administration could not. They did say we know he has 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX: and 38,000 liters of botulinim, and 25,000 liters of anthrax; and 30,000 delivery munitions. They just didn’t know where to suggest the inspectors look and we just haven’t found them the last four years we controlled the country. Probably buried in the desert somewhere, huh?
Chemical and biological weapons do not remain potent for fifteen years. Sometimes their “life” is only months. If the weapons inspectors had NOT disposed of them and if they WERE buried in the desert—they would be useless.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:59 pmYou know, ages ago I wrote a post somewhere, after we pre-emptively invaded Iraq, asking the rest of the world to recognize what was happening and to exert some influence. My rationale then as now is that we the people of the US are not going to be able to force the necessary course corrections ourselves. It is going to take the rest of the world — with whom we exist in some kind of reciprocal relationship — to give us a hand.
Come on, Europe. China. Russia. Far East. Down Under. Exert fiscal pressure. Use your bully pulpits, like Putin just did, to lay it on the line. The arrogant and foolhardy, supercilious stupidity perpetrated on the rest of the world by our own government must end.
Trade out dollars for something else. Blockade your ports. Sanction the US!
For God’s sake, don’t wait until it is too late to take action. We’re writing our congresspeople and marching and blogging and podcasting and there’s at least 70% of us now who know what the score is. If we raise arms, we are going to be cordoned off and thrown into internment camps, courtesy of Halliburton, and thanks to the un-Patriot Act, we’ll vanish forever.
Please lend us a hand. We the people who love our country and what it used to stand for beg you.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:17 pmGigot is right , Bush and the neonuts invaded Iraq for oil and to profit from this so called “war”in the process . Al Qaeda , Bin Laden and 9 11 were all they needed , their dream come true , the perfect vehicle to enable them to get away with the invasion . I honestly would not be surprised if one day we find out that Bush and the neonut gang knew of the 911 plot before hand or even had a hand in it . The lives of others are of no concern to these people, they are only numbers and statistics , collateral , they have proved that . Treason , sabotage … these guys are capable of doing just about anything to further their agenda , they have proved that too.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:26 pmI ain’t saying they did it—-but the Project for a New American Century did say they wanted to take a huge chunk of the Middle East because of its oil and natural gas—but that it would take “a new Pearl Harbor” before the American people would go along. It’s in black and white. You could look it up. What’s the average intercept time for a plane off course? Seven minutes? None were intercepted on 9/11 even though they had up to 100 minutes after the first hit the WTC. I ain’t saying they did it. Who was in charge of security for the WTC and Reagan Airport? Marvin Bush and a Dubai firm? I ain’t saying they did it.
February 12th, 2007 at 8:00 pm= honestly would not be surprised if one day we find out that Bush and the neonut gang knew ====
How can you say that? Just because the Bin Laden family is thick with the bush family and Osama is a son? Or just because Osama, sitting in a cave knew the date of a planned simulated attack on 911? And there was to be a stand down? Coincidence and pure dumb luck. Just because there was a quick hiding of and removal of all forensic evidence? Just because a Boing 757 would not fit in the hole in the Pentagon? Just because three buildings went down right into their footings? How can you say that?
And the Hinkley family is thick with the bush family and a Hinkley son shot Reagan a few months into his presidentcy. Coincidence and lightening striking twice is not unusual.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:51 pmCole must think the world trade center towers were designed to topple over intact. lol.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:58 pm