Tony Snow Returns: ‘There Has Been No Attempt To Try To Link Saddam To 9/11′
Tony Snow Returns: ‘There Has Been No Attempt To Try To Link Saddam To 9/11′
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow returned to the job this morning and hit the ground running. In his first interview with CBS’s Early Show, Snow declared that the White House never tried to link Iraq and September 11.
Snow was asked about former CIA Director George Tenet’s remarks from 60 Minutes:
TENET: We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction, and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period.
Snow responded, “Wait a minute, Chris. The president has been saying exactly that all along. I don’t know what the headline is.” He insisted “there has been no attempt to try to link Saddam to September 11.”
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
Snow also claimed today that President Bush “made it clear before the State of the Union in 2002 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11.” Here’s Bush during his major Iraq policy speech, just prior to Congress’ vote on the Iraq authorization in Oct. 2002:
We know that Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
Transcript:
Q. The message is clear– the administration was not straight with Americans, not about W.M.D.’S, not about 9/11. There it is from the former C.I.A. Chief. Is it time for the administration to come clean, Tony?
TONY SNOW: Wait a minute, Chris. The president has been saying exactly that all along. I don’t know what the headline is. As a matter of fact, I can remember right after September 11 sitting here when I was a journalist and some of your colleagues, I believe Charlie Gibson may have been there at the time as well. The fact is the president made it clear before the State of the Union in 2002 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11. So Im afraid what’s happened there is that George Tenet may have been referring to something that has been misreported or at least twisted by people with political motives, but there has been no attempt to try to link Saddam to September 11.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Damn, it would have sounded sexier and funnier coming from pert Dana perino.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pmDoes Snowjob think we forget that fast? What a moron.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:23 pmThis guy is a smooth liar.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pmOh, well done Snowflake! Jump right in there with the whoppers.
**applause**
The follow up question was…..?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pmI guess a brush with death hasn’t opened his eyes much…
April 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pmNever say never.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pmWell, Tony’s month off did nothing to temper his ability to lie through his teeth.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pmHe’s been back for 15 minutes and he is already lying.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pmThe cancer in his ass has spread to his brain…not that far a journey.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm“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.”
Yes, Al Zaeqawi was in Iraq BEFORE the Iraq War began. He actually received medical attention from the Baghdad hospital after being injured in the battle fields of Afghanistan.
is thinkprogress.org willing to deny this fact?
anyway, besides this quote, no administration official has ever strongly made any type of connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
but here are what Democratic politicians said about Iraq’s WMDs before and after Bush took office.
Where Democrats lying? or where they speaking the truth? what do you think Democrats.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … 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 … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
“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.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
“[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.”
Letter to President Clinton.
– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
“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.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
“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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
“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 … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“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 … 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.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
“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.”
April 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Does ANYone trust these clowns anymore? Constantly speaking out of both sides of their mouth – their arrogance exists because of our ignorance, and the complicity of the mainstream media….
These, like virtually all politicians, shouldn’t be trusted.
An interesting read, “Politicians Lie? Say it Ain’t So!”
http://www.populistamerica.com/politicians_lie___say_it_ain_t_so
April 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmAs the Bush Iraq talking points show, there has been a continuous effort to link Saddam to 9/11 and Al Qaeda:
“We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”
- President Bush, May 1, 2003.
“That’s been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
Vice President Cheney, December 9, 2001.
For more details, see:
April 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm“Mission Accomplished: 4 Years of GOP Iraq Talking Points.”
Wow, just wow!
Don’t these idiots know that we can use the google to find the quotes linking 9/11 to Saddam on the internets?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmWhy didn’t somebody ask him why Cheney, to this day, claims that there was a connection between Al Qaida and Iraq?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmGood BOY, Tony!!
You “got religious” and you STILL won’t tell the TRUTH.
SATAN LOVES YOU, and
I’m PROUD of you, boy, and now I know FOR SURE that I’ll
See you in hell Tony (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo),
You have got to be kidding me, they take us for fools with very short memories.
I am comeon Snowjob, how can you lie like that with a straight face.
Hating the Repuke Mafia daily
April 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pmMore history of Bush talking points on saddam, Al Qaeda, and 9/11.
“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.
“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.”
April 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm- President Bush, September 17, 2004.
Valiant the Hater,
Looks like the Democrats were strong allies in the ‘war on terra’. Please tell your rightwing attack dogs to lay off with the waek on terra accusations.
You have offered up a bounty of evidence to the contrary.
-GSD
April 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pmIn more than one occasion the President said that the people we are fighting now in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11….the same words repeated by Cheney ,Condi and others.
Even now,in most of his speeches about Iraq war, the President always mentioning that Iraq is the ‘center of war on terror’,and leaving Iraq means losing the ‘war on terror’.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pmEvery word is implying that we are fighting the same people who attacked us…whether Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11 or not…the message is well known that we are fighting the Iraqis who are same people…..who attacked us. While this is not proven or put to the test..right after 9/11 the official message was Iraq was linked to 9/11.
#10, see #12.
Thanks.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pmFormer terrorism czar Richard Clarke related that on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, Bush “grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. ‘Look,’ he told us, ‘I know you have a lot to do and all … but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way…’” When Clarke protested that it was clearly an al-Qaida operation, Bush insisted, “Just look. I want to know any shred … Look into Iraq, Saddam.” According to Clarke, Bush said it “testily.”
April 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pmTony Snowjob hit the ground LYING.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pmDon’t these idiots know that we can use the google to find the quotes linking 9/11 to Saddam on the internets?
Yup. But the thing is, most of the regular-guy MORONS who support these WAR CRIMINALS don’t HAVE computers
My father and his Nazi wife, for example.
THAT is why O’Reilly audience has an average age of OVER 70…
Because the majority of those who HAVE computers know these people are LIARS and TRAITORS to the USA…
April 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pmHmm…polls show the majority of FOX News Channel viewers thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11, years after the invasion.
Now where did those right-wingers get that idea from? How about Bush — their God.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pmvaliantthehater,
With the old talking points already.
You’re right they were misled by the administration’s NEED to get to a war without end. And they should held responsible as well.
You throw out this argument as though it’s perfectly acceptable to hold the Pres responisble as long as these other leaders are as well. I’m fine with that.
Unfortuantely I can only my Reps and Sentaors responsible. So I’ll have to leave the rest up to everyone else.
Further, let’s not forget who trumpeted this thing Valiant. Unfortunately for the Republicans, this will go down in histroy as their war. Because even now, when the Dems have wisened up, the Republicans keep beating the drum. MAybe if they were to be part of the process of ending this catastrophe, then people would lay off of them.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pmHere in 2007, Duck Cheney is STILL spewing the Iraq-Osama lie.
Someone should get one of Cheney’s recent clips and put it with Tony Snowjob’s clip.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:39 pmHummmm,
April 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pmSo, Tony, er, please explain. Why was Saddam Loosed? why the hunt for Saddam?
Why the WAR in IRAQ?
no ties to OBL, no wmds, no er? Jesus?
#2 snowjob doesn’t care what we recall. He knows that his lord and master’s base is so deluded that 67% of them think Iraq is going well. He also knows that the complicit and compliant MSM will not call him on his BS so why not pander to the base. There will be no consequences.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pmHow Orwellian of him. If you say it, it must be so.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pmAnd this is why I never EVER wanted Tony Snow to get better. I hoped he would die a long, slow, painful death… I’m sorry that never happened, I really am.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pmApparently, God’s message with the hurricanes didn’t get through, so God had to give Snow cancer because of his continuing sin (being part of a fascist movement).
April 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pmWhat does this have to do with the hanging of King Saddam?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Lies = Truth
War= Peace
Bush = Piece of Shit.
period.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm“The hardest part of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror….â€
September 7, 2006. Bush, in an Oval Office interview with Katie Couric:
April 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pmJust three weeks ago, Vice President Cheney reiterated the demonstrably false claim “Saddam harbored Al Qaeda,” based on the pre-war presence of Zarqawi in Kurdish-held areas beyond Baghdad’s control:
“Just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated — after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He’s the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”
April 30th, 2007 at 12:52 pmOkay, now I have ZERO sympathy for this jacka**!!! Tony, you brought the cancer yourself. You’d think a near death experience would change this SOB, maybe mellow him out a bit, OH NO! (Then again there’s Cheney and his four heart attacks) Keep putting that poison back in your body Tony, if you’re eager to leave, your time is coming soon enough.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pmDo they not realize they are on camera? We’ve got it on tape, dumbass.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pmWhat is with the press corp? They absoluetly know he’s lying, and can prove it immediately. Yet, they just sit there and say nothing. That’s what really scares me.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:54 pmSo… the invasion… was… because???
April 30th, 2007 at 12:54 pmI thought his malady was below the collar…………..(?)
April 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pmI’m glad Tony Snow is feeling well enough to return to his job! I hope he beats his cancer. But at the same time… lol… what a tool!
April 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pmTHIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE NOTHING BUT CONFLATE IRAQ AND 9-11 CONTINUALLY SINCE THE ATTACKS ON NYC WTC!!!!!!!! AND THEIR HANDLERS IN THE AMERICAN CORPORATE MEDIA CONGLOMERATES LED THE CONFLATION!!! The best example of this I can remember is at the Academy Awards when Mike Moore received his Oscar for Farhenheit 9-11 and promptly ripped Bush a new one by exposing Bush claims about the war as “fictitious”. IMMEDIATELY following Moore’s speech, the producers aired video for the entire world to see of the burning crashing World Trade Center Towers. Message? Al-Qaeda attacks NYC, erego we are at war in Iraq! Constantly without exception major media outlets have reported Iraq stories either alongside WTC 9-11 stories or actually managed to include 9-11 propaganda inside the Iraw Invasion news!!!
April 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pmWilliam Randolph Hearst, Yellow Journalist
“The hardest part of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror….â€
September 7, 2006. Bush, in an Oval Office interview with Katie Couric:
Comment by Bewilderbeast — April 30, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
It that quote for real? Good one! The best part of his job is when he caught a fish.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:01 pmIndeed… Why is this classified by TP under “Incomptent Establishment”? It should be under “Ministry of Truth”. FOR GOD’S SAKE!
But no problem, this actually neatly falls into the right’s narrative:
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/linkconfirmed.htm
“Never before in this country’s history has a president ordered American soldiers into battle, without fully explaining why they are asked to risk life and limb. One would never know from the administration’s public stance that senior officials, including the President, believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.”
April 30th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThere IS a difference between claiming that Saddam Hussein was allied with Al Qaeda and claiming that Iraq was involved in 9/11. You don’t have to accept the latter in order to accept the former.
For example, the United States and France are allies. But that doesn’t mean the United States was involved in the 1985 sinking of Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior by French intelligence agencies.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pmWith the old talking points already.
You’re right they were misled by the administration’s NEED to get to a war without end. And they should held responsible as well.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — April 30, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
what you called talking points, I called the truth.
I could give you anything after Bush was elected, but what about the quotes and the letters written by Democratic politicians BEFORE Bush elected into office? Did Bush also lie to the Democratic politicians BEFRORE he was elected? wow, Bush is pretty powerful guy, eh?
and please, stop it with the whole, Bush lied to Democrats about WMD intelligence. Senators and Congressmen in their respective intelligence committees receive the same intelligence information that the President does.
anyway, I wonder what you think about what Pelosi, Clinton, and the other Democratic politicians said about Iraq long before bush was elected. That Iraq was a threat and that regime change was needed. You might want to do research on the Iraqi Liberation Act passed by ex-President Bill Clinton long before Bush came into office. Or was Bush secretly in office and Clinton wasn’t in power back in the 1990s?
April 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pmSo glad I graduated from a real school and not the university of NBC or any other let’s guide the sheep to the cliff org.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pmExley,
well put. this is something that Democrats can’t or refuse to understand. I think the problem is that if they understand this, that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies, then by default they must accept as legitimate the Iraq War and you know that they can never do this, why? Because this would give legitimacy to President Bush and we know that their hate for Bush comes before anything else.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pmExley, even the claim of an alliance has been debunked. Saddam was a secular dictator and Al Qiada are religious radicals. There was no operational (allied) activity between the two.
It’s more like they knew each other existed. Just like I know that you exist but I don’t claim any alliegence to you.
This administration had systematically pushed this falsehood onto the American people.
I forget the details, or the author but there was a report showing the qty. of times Saddam was mentioned to the build up before Iraq and after 9/11. OBL practically dropped off the map as Saddam was pushed 24/7.
We were forcefed what they wanted us to hear but it wasn’t the truth.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:19 pm#23 Comment by Mr. Bush Goes To Hell — April 30, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
The same with my parents, although they do have a computer. I have been sending them links to stories and websites ad nauseam for years. I think I’m making progress with my dad but he still tries to find excuses to cover for the crooks. There are four things working against them, they are over 70, they are Republicans, they watch Faux and they live in Texas. ;)
April 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pmIt’s funny,
Now Bush and Snowjob are now trying to claim that they never implied that there was a connection between Iraq and 911. Total lies!
And even though Bush is now claiming this, his authoritarian followers are still trying to maintain that Al Zaeqawi had ties with Saddam because he was in Iraq. BS! He was in a part of Iraq that Saddam had little control over.
If you look up the Iraq War on the Conservopedia (the lame ass alternative to Wikipedia for people that have trouble with reality), idiots are still trying to string together pieces of information that were debunked years ago.
“Zaekawi was seen in a remote part of Iraq, therefore he and Saddam must be working together to build a device that will make a black hole that will only suck up white people! We white people must be scared of the handful of evil men! We must sign away our civil rights!!”
Or something to that effect.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:22 pmLOL@valiant the heater
“something that Democrats can’t or refuse to understand”
Where do these Democrats come in?
“Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies”
Getting rid of the Saddam being Mr. Laden’s wet dream, there are some Strong Allies indeed.
“Because this would give legitimacy to President Bush ”
Yeah, he would need it. Bigtime.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:25 pmBRING BACK DANA PERINO!!
April 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pm#43
April 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pmExactly, Exley.
This, I’m sure, is how Tony is able to justify his statement which differentiates between Saddam, and Iraq.
Still, the statement is merely a convolution of the facts, as is your post.
Snow: “You don’t need to see my identification…These aren’t the droids you’re looking for…Move along….”
April 30th, 2007 at 1:29 pmConvalesence failed as Tony still lies through his teeth.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pmEl Tonno,
so, do tell, did Al Zarqawi ever receive medical aid from Baghdad hospital? yes or no would be fine.
was he being guarded and protected by Hussein’s personal army? yes or no would be fine.
While it is true that Al Qaeda and Hussein didn’t exactly like each other, they had form an alliance.
It wouldn’t be the first time in history (history not being a Liberal’s forte) that enemies became allies to fight against a common enemy.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but it was an ally of Al Qaeda.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pmSynapsis of Articles of Impeachment Against Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Artice I
The Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
(3) The Vice President’s actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002 vote to autorize the use of force. The Vice President’s actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intellgence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two federal agencies.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the U.S. invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decares of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
EVIDENCE:
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1A.pdf
April 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pmkucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1B.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1C.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1D.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1E.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1FG.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI1H.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI2A.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI2B.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI3.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI3.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI3.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo1.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo2.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo3.pdf
kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo4.pdf
valiantthehater,
I will agree that there were many in our government, and out of it (PNAC), who thought regime change was a quality goal for our overall security. What many fail to grasp though, is that MILITARY based regime change, rarely yields the desired results. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Nation building in the middle east has never been advisable. Britain tried it in Iraq and it didn’t work for them either. Just like it wont work for us. This isn’t a military problem.
People rarely accept democratic rule at the working end of a firearm. They must want it for themselves and earn it themselves. That’s where the Iraqi’s are. They have to figure out what it is they want. The main fallacy of this experiment was that if we “give” them their country back, they will simply want democracy. Then when elections happen, (like in Palestine) they seem to vote for theocratically based representatives. Then we get pissed and decide that we won’t deal with those governments, because a ‘terror’ group was elected as the majority party. We only want democracy when it benefits us. Otherwise, we just install dictators that will bend to our will for approximately 15-20 years, then we overthrow them and start all over again.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pmNot to mention the times it was implied in speeches with no claim being made.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:35 pmBush had links to Bin Laden through the Carlyle Group. Does that mean there was a whole support network or were they just allies?
So much false information has been thrown around for so long that even the definition of ‘imminent threat’ has had to be revised to retro-fit with the rhetoric.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pmMaybe Snowjob’s cancer therapy damaged his brain. I’m sure someone has transcripts and sound bites from this administration where they definitely linked it; in fact, just last week Cheney linked it in his speech – AGAIN! I hope someone is gathering up the prima facie evidence of precisely “how many times” BushCo. linked the two in people’s minds. It’s astounding to me that Snowjob didn’t learn something about truth and how the mind/body works in his last scrape with death – evidently, Tony’s disease and personal necrosis is too far gone.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:37 pmI cannot wait for this scumbags obit. How can some of you wish this person continued good health? Did you wish Jeff Dahmer well when he made his apologies and saw the error of his ways? No, you didnt. Just because this person has cancer does not absolve him from his continued criminal involvement with the bushies, and those of you who say its awful to wish him dead are either liars or hypocrites.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:37 pmhistory not being a Liberal’s forte
There are literally hundreds of times that rightwingers have come to this very site… posted BS… which was promptly debunked through links to history…
Saying something …doesnt make it so.
video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=The%20Power%20of%20Nightmares%20Part%201&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv
April 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pmOf course, Bush had links to Bin Laden – Mafouz, UBL’s brother, was Dubya’s first business partner in Arbusto Energy…..and then they worked together to bail Bush out of his Harken Energy stock after that.
It’s no shock that Bush 41 was meeting with the Carlyle Group of which UBL’s brother is a member on 9/10, is it????
Perhaps we need to subpoena the Shrub’s Dad who seems to be lurking just sub-surface in every cover-up in this country since JKF’s death……Is Pappy Bush the “small man at Oz”? I think so…..
April 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pmCrump’s Brother,
well, you seem to have changed your tune about only being Bush who wanted to get rid of Hussein because of WMDs. good!
As for democracies….
I had a professor in college who always said, “While democracies are great, their greatest weakness is ignorance of the people.”
this is what happened in Palestine. There is a huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge, huge lack of education in Palestine. Hamas, a terrorist group, has taken advantage of this. And I think the world was right in what it did. Don’t forget that in Austria, in the 1990s, a Nazi was elected to a government position. The whole world put attacked towards Austria the same way that it did towards Palestine, until Austria removed the Nazi from government.
Hamas is no different than the Nazis, than the Stalinist extermination groups, or Mao Tsung’s exterminations groups.
Yes, the people of Palestine elected Hamas, but it doesn’t mean that the world must play with Hamas, just like the world didn’t play with Austria when a Nazi politician was elected to their government.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:42 pm#29 and #30, please, this viciousness is totally uncalled for. I’m not a Snowflake fan by any means, but this is as bad as any right-wing hate speech I’ve heard.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm#46 – “Because this would give legitimacy to President Bush and we know that their hate for Bush comes before anything else.” Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Interesting point. It reminds me of the absolute hate that the right had for anything then-Pres. Clinton did! In fact, it made the right LOVE the rule of law when there was the whisper of a chance that then-Pres. Clinton might have been tarnished. Now they all HATE the rule of law now that it might possibly be applied to Pres. Bush for his numerous and documented lies.
Your example shines light on the fact that the right was the first to allow their hate to override anything and everything in their zeal to attack then-Pres. Clinton.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pmTony;
Pick One, and Only One.
1) You are a liar.
2) You are stupid for thinking you can lie and not be seen for the fool.
Well, OK, you can pick two.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pmkucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/clo4.pdf
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr — April 30, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
keep on dreaming! no Democratic politician has signed up to this suicide mission and none will. Democrats, it looks like, learned from the Clinton impeachmeant and what happen to Republicans. The country turned against the Republicans during Clinton’s impeachment hearings. Democrats are too desperate to get into power to shoot themselves on the foot with this bozo show.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm“did Al Zarqawi ever receive medical aid from Baghdad hospital?”
did bin laden ever receive financial or military aid from the c.i.a. to fight the soviets? you’re right though, hospital treatment is much more damning.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:48 pmAnd on and on it goes. Apparently Snow didn’t find it in his heart during his hiatus to stop lying for the Admn. What an asshat. You had a way out but you returned. Be prepared to hang with the rest you F%ckhead.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:48 pm#55 – ‘Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but it was an ally of Al Qaeda.” Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
And Pres. Bush had nothing to do with Sept. 11th (other than not doing one thing to try and stop it), but he’s more than happy to use al Quida for partisan political purposes.
If it weren’t for al Quida and Usama bin Laden, Pres. Bush would have been a one-term President. THAT is a fact. Facts are those inconvenient tidbits with which conservatives have not even a passing acquaintance.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:49 pmYour example shines light on the fact that the right was the first to allow their hate to override anything and everything in their zeal to attack then-Pres. Clinton.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 30, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
Say that you are right….does this make the hate for Bush that many Liberals have ok? does it make it ok that the hate for a politician trumps anything you do, believe or not believe?
c’mon, we all know tha two wrongs don’t make a right and I hate to disagree with you (well not really), but the hate that the left showed in the 1980s for Reagan and now for Bush doesn’t even come close to the hate that some right wingers showed for Clinton.
regardless, two wrongs don’t make a right and the fringe right wingers are as nutty and crazy as the fringe left wingers.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:50 pmWhen one has severe health problems, lying is about the worst thing one can do. There’s a subtle cause and effect link between one’s health and one’s words and actions. Good luck with that, Tony. You’re going to need it.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pmvaliantthehater,
“well, you seem to have changed your tune about only being Bush who wanted to get rid of Hussein because of WMDs. good!†– I never said this. I was furious with my Rep and one of my Senators for voting for this war. Unfortunately, they are both so entrenched in their spots that they did not have a primary challenger for me to support against them or I would have.
I never said we had to “play†with Hamas, I was trying to get the point across that, especially in this region people tend to not separate their secular and religious lives. So if you want democracy, you may not get the desired result. But do you really think that Iraq, being as strategically important as it has become, is going to be ‘allowed’ to fall under theocratic rule? This is exactly what is happening. Then what? Do we re-invade in order to insure a quality flow of oil? It’s easy for us to ignore Palestine, We’ve been doing it for decades. But Iraq is OUR mess. It would be seen as an absolute failure if they elect religious zealots to office. Which, when you look at their parliament, (which is very much controlled by Al Sadr) that’s what they have already done to a large degree.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pmWhy are fraud and other forms of misconduct that are anethema to public and private employees everywhere, accepted by the press and the public if it emanates from the Office of the President or Vice-President? Why are our leaders held to such low standards of conduct then the rest of us?
I guess honesty and integrity are for the peons, people who don’t realize that to getting to the top requires understanding that morals and ethics are tools to be applied to control subordinates and the masses, not principles of personal or professional conduct. People like Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Wolfowitz, Tobias, Haggard, et al clearly understand this.
This morning’s statement from Tony Snow was not “spin” (otherwise known as putting lipstick on a pig) but a flat out falsehood. Such statements do not belong in the public discourse and the press should be yelling loudly. But they’re corrupt also, so “corrupt establishment” is the right place to put this. Politics has a bad name, but why is it OK for blatant lies to be part of the public discourse. It just “muddies the waters”.
Remember the statement from Walter Pincus during Bill Moyers’ Program about the abdication of responsibilty during the run up to Bush’s War? He said that the Press stopped “fact checking” during the early days of the Reagan Presidency since he got the facts wrong so often and he was such a “lovable old man”. People complained about the Press harrassing him. That was the first step into the abyss that is the face of conservative government today.
However, my take on this is a little different. Frankly, after Nixon it was logical for the Press to engage in routine fact checking. But is not and should not be the responsibility of the press to “fact check” the President and his staff; it’s not the responsiblity of the Congress to do it either. It is the responsiblity of the President and his staff to ensure that they have their facts correct; part of their responsibility as leaders of our government is to provide honest government and to support the rule of law and the constitution.
When the Secretary of State is disputing the minutest details of a conversation that occured 5 years ago and the Harvard-educated AG can’t “recall” the details of meetings held 2 – 6 months previous, it is clear that honesty is not administration policy. Just the opposite.
I would challenge the Democratic Congress to pass a bill that criminalizes the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods by members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government. We need honest government not the corruption that is intimately associated with the lack of accountability in public discourse. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the Democrats are up to endorsing that level of honesty and integrity in government.
P.S. If Tony Snow worked for me, he’d be on the street looking for another job already. But he doesn’t and he isn’t and I’m not a political leader or Fortune 500 CEO. I suspect that among my many failings in this regard is a strong sense of personal ethics and responsibility. At the very least it prevents me from being a conservative.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pmAnd Pres. Bush had nothing to do with Sept. 11th (other than not doing one thing to try and stop it), but he’s more than happy to use al Quida for partisan political purposes.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 30, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
oh please stop with the talking points from the left. Clinton had how many months to stop 9/11? Bush was in office for how long before 9/11 happened?
don’t play this game and let us blame 9/11 on who it should be blamed, Al Qaeda and the terrorist monsters! get a grip and come back to reality.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pmI thought Snow said he had a sort of renewal of his religion — HA!
April 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pmOne can’t have religion (a belief in god, goodness or spirituality) and still repeat the lies of this most corrupt, criminal administration.
First the lying transcended mere pathology. Now it has transcended self-parody.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:03 pmMore shameless lying. And the bloody carnage continues.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:04 pmwhy was saddam loosed?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pmTony Snow is an overt LIAR. You know, these Republican hacks wouldn’t have to lie so much if it weren’t true that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN POLICY IN THE LAST 6 YEARS HAS FAILED OUTRIGHT.
For example, if the Bush supporters are so damn confident that we know how to win the Iraq War, WHY HAVEN’T THEY ALREADY WON IT? It was expected to take “less than 6 months” and be “paid for with Iraqi oil revenues.” You had unlimited support and funding for almost 4 years. WHY DIDN’T YOU WIN THE WAR??
April 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pmCrump’s Brother,
Well, I don’t know if we have ignored Palestine as you claim. you seem to forget Clinton meeting with Arafat and the leader of Israel during the 1990s. Despite the fact that the leader of Israel agreed to 99% of Arafat’s demands for Palestine, Arafat walked out without making an agreement. why?
Because most Palestinian groups are not interested in leaving in peace side by side with Israel, as it can be found in the Hamas chatter, most of these groups are only interested in causing another Holocoust and destroying Israel. Do tell, how do you negotiate with people that are only interested in one thing, your destruction? where do you begin? what do you give up?
Bush is also the first President to talk about creating a Palestinian State, something no previous President has talked about. Give more credit where it is due Crump.
as for Al-Sadr controling the Iraqi parliment, I don’t think so. I believe his people control about 30+ seats. Their parliment is composed of well over 100 people.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pmthe message is well known that we are fighting the Iraqis who are same people…..who attacked us. – tarazan
…by way of Syria, you mean…heh
April 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pmBush has had how many years to get OBL?
How many years since 9/11?
When Clinton tried to get OBL, he was mocked by the repugs and GW himself – remember the wisecrack about shooting as camel in the ass?
It was a “wag the dog” tale.
As I recall, Bush was told in January of 2001 that we had determined conclusively that OBL had been hehind the Cole incident. Bush did nothing.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pmWarnings occurred all summer long – Bush did nothing.
After 9/11, we went to Afghanistan, but Bush pulled the troops out and outsourced the capture of OBL to war lords, practically guaranteeing that OBL would be able to escape.
Too late to keep blaming this on Clinton — it’s Bush’s fiasco, all the way.
Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Why does this utter disaster of socialization keep spewing its vomit here? I suppose any attention is better than no attention, though I can’t personally relate to that phenomenon.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#72 – “but the hate that the left showed in the 1980s for Reagan and now for Bush doesn’t even come close to the hate that some right wingers showed for Clinton.”
I’ll agree with you. the hate for Fmr. Pres. Clinton was exponentially greater than all the hate for Fmr. Pres. Reagan and Pres. Bush combined.
“regardless, two wrongs don’t make a right and the fringe right wingers are as nutty and crazy as the fringe left wingers.” Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
I’ll agree with you again. The question I ask is why do the standards that are held to the fringe left so much less than the standards that the fringe right has held to them? Why do you hear more people giving the “Pres. Bush wanted Sept. 11th to happen!” much more crap than you hear the “Pres. Clinton wanted China to take over!” ever take?
Why are the fringe right folks far less likely to be remonstrated for their extremism than are the fringe left?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#73 Yes, what Tony doesn’t yet realize is that what we think is telegraphed to every cell in our body 24/7. It’s been proven that individuals who have stressful jobs become critically ill. No surprise there! Colon cancer is one of the worst diseases of man because there is absolutely “no cure” for it – it’s 100% terminal. The only distinction once diagnosed is what “stage” is determined, and according to the stage, time allotments are coordinated with the stage. I don’t know why anyone in their right mind, certainly someone aware of the intimate connection of our bodies and minds, would intentionally place themselves in a position which requires constant and continued lying?? It’s beyond me.
In that sense, it’s somewhat more difficult to feel very sorry for Tony since he chose this position, knowing full well that he would be lying or at least twisting the truth to fit the policy at every turn and in every interview. In this case, Tony opted and chose to have the visibility and prestige of the position and, in turn, sacrificed his life for it essentially.
Choosing to be a spinmeister of a corrupt administration is a “no brainer” in terms of stress….our bodies (guts) are our internal lie detectors so every time Tony fudged the truth or lied outright, his gut was sending the “lie detection” signal to every cell in his body….short circuiting each and every cell…..each and every time. Tony is evidence of how perfectly this mind-body connection works…unfortunately, he’s the “negative example” of the process.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm#76 Please inform yourself a bit and do your own fact check….go to 911truth.org and check out what scientists are saying, what other countries are saying, and what Bush knew and when he knew it (the documents are all there) and then come back here with one shred of credibility about 911. We all know you’re a pathetic, ignorant troll but it’s painful to watch you out yourself with each post. Do yourself a favor and become informed before coming on TP threads to spew pure bullshit.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pmValiantTheHater – your moniker is totally apropos as you spew hate each time you open your mouth. Be that as it may, why don’t YOU do yourself a favor and do some 911 homework before you make an unadulterated, blathering fool out of yourself again.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pmWhy does the reporter just let that bald-faced lie go unanswered? When is the MSM going to grow a pair & get in the grill of these dissemblers? Aaargh … so frustrating.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm#75 “Why are fraud and other forms of misconduct that are anethema to public and private employees everywhere, accepted by the press and the public if it emanates from the Office of the President or Vice-President? Why are our leaders held to such low standards of conduct then the rest of us?”
To authoritarians, their leaders need the leeway to “Get the job done.”
April 30th, 2007 at 2:14 pmRead The Authoritarians to get a grasp on why these 30%’ers are so easy to (mis)lead.
I think the problem is that if they understand this, that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies
Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
You make false statements and then base your entire post on the lie. Like Tony Snow you think any lie is fine as long as it meets your political agenda.
I’ve learned to look for names first and then read the post so I don’t waste time reading your lengthy propaganda posts.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:16 pm“Do yourself a favor and become informed before coming on TP threads to spew pure bullshit.”
Comment by veritas — April 30, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Veritas,
Please take your own advice. wow! never seen such great lunacy. Hey, where did you buy your tin foil hat? I heard there was a sale going in Wal-mart for tin foil hats. make sure you stop by a Wal-mart and get a few.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThere has been no attempt by this administration to promote the theory A=C.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pmWe only announced reliable intelligence sources that said A=B.
Later we said everybody knows B=C.
“We report, you decide”.
#80 “For example, if the Bush supporters are so damn confident that we know how to win the Iraq War, WHY HAVEN’T THEY ALREADY WON IT? It was expected to take “less than 6 months†and be “paid for with Iraqi oil revenues.†You had unlimited support and funding for almost 4 years. WHY DIDN’T YOU WIN THE WAR??”
Remember this lovely quote:
April 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pm“Six days, six weeks, I doubt six months.” Rumsfeld
valiantthehater,
“Bush is also the first President to talk about creating a Palestinian State, something no previous President has talked about. Give more credit where it is due Crump.†– I’ll give the credit to Jimmy Carter thanks.
“as for Al-Sadr controling the Iraqi parliment, I don’t think so. I believe his people control about 30+ seats. Their parliment is composed of well over 100 people.†– And guess what happens if he gets those people to walk as he has threatened to do? The Maliki government is done. Out of the majority. Then what?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm“Hey, where did you buy your tin foil hat? I heard there was a sale going in Wal-mart for tin foil hats. make sure you stop by a Wal-mart and get a few.”
even your attempt at humor is lacking.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pmso, do tell, did Al Zarqawi ever receive medical aid from Baghdad hospital? yes or no would be fine.
was he being guarded and protected by Hussein’s personal army? yes or no would be fine.
While it is true that Al Qaeda and Hussein didn’t exactly like each other, they had form an alliance.
Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
V – did Cheney sell weapons to Hussein. Did Bush meet with the Bin Laden family right before 9/11 and then shuttle them out of the country while everybody else was grounded. Seems like our President and Vp had stronger alliances with both parties than they had with each other.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pmCrump’s Brother,
Well sorry, Jimmy Carter is one if not the worst President this nation has ever had. From the economy to foreign policy our nation did terrible under Jimmy Carter, he was a joke as a President and now we find out that he is a Jew hater. Sorry, this man holds no credibility with me. When his own friends are saying that he is a liar, a Jew hater, etc, you start wondering how the hell did the American people chose such a joke as a President.
as for Al-Sadr, the sooner we caputre him and kill him, the better off Iraqis will be.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm#48
Linking alQaeda & Iraq demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the Sunni-Shiite split in Islam. Saddam tried to have some alQaeda members arrested. Doesn’t sound like they’re allies to me.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm“Hey, where did you buy your tin foil hat? I heard there was a sale going in Wal-mart for tin foil hats. make sure you stop by a Wal-mart and get a few.â€
even your attempt at humor is lacking.
Comment by pgw — April 30, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Not trying to be funny, just stating the truth, many on the left wear tin foil hats since they are terrirfied of Karl Rove, Bush, etc, etc. c’mon, you know this, you wear one.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:28 pmV – did Cheney sell weapons to Hussein. Did Bush meet with the Bin Laden family right before 9/11 and then shuttle them out of the country while everybody else was grounded. Seems like our President and Vp had stronger alliances with both parties than they had with each other.
Comment by Shane — April 30, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
wow, I take it you have seen too many Michael Moore movies, eh? did your tin foil hat fall off?
let me tell you, you are wrong on both accounts, but do keep on spewing ridiculous conspiracy theories from Michael Moore, they sure make you sound well “informed” and well “educated”.
wow, this site does have its lunatics, I see.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pm#57 — “It wouldn’t be the first time in history (history not being a Liberal’s forte) that enemies became allies to fight against a common enemy.”
Then WHY are most history professors/teachers LIBERALS?!
“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans – unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.” (Karl Rove)
April 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pmbut the hate that the left showed in the 1980s for Reagan and now for Bush doesn’t even come close to the hate that some right wingers showed for Clinton.
Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
You are a lying neocon Nazi who acts like an independent. And we don’t need to listen to any suggestions you make, period.
Oh, and you’re not a very good actor either.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pmIt’s painful and embarassing watching these confused trolls argue that Bush never tried to lie us into a war. The vast majority of American people now understand that that’s exactly what Bush did. The video and audio is all over the place. Just give it up, trolls. This just makes you look crazier than we thought you were and most of us already thought you were crazy.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pmGeorge bush
I know saddam hussein aids and protects terrorists including members of Al Queda
Listen to Neil young – Living with war – song – Impeach – the mass muredering liar
April 30th, 2007 at 2:33 pm“many on the left wear tin foil hats since they are terrirfied of Karl Rove, Bush, etc, etc. c’mon, you know this, you wear one.”
you caught me, clownpants; i’m wearing one right now. and i’m hanging out in my backyard with dan burton, about to shoot a “head-like object.â€
April 30th, 2007 at 2:33 pmvaliantthehater,
I wasn’t commenting on Carter’s administration. You said Bush was the first Pres to call for a independent Palestinian State. You were wrong. That’s all I was pointing out.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pmYou are a lying neocon Nazi who acts like an independent. And we don’t need to listen to any suggestions you make, period.
Oh, and you’re not a very good actor either.
Comment by Shane — April 30, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
yes shane, we all know how LIberals like you hate people that you disagree with. don’t worry, we know it. you, along with Howard Dean don’t read anything that disagrees with your point of view and if it were upt to you, you would kill anyone that disagrees with you.
can you say, “Shane is loca”. can you say this?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pmoh please stop with the talking points from the left. Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Says the queen of cut and paste talking points from her neocon leaders.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pmI wonder what MA does to come down after binging here with her pathetic lies. Wait, on second thought I don’t want to know….
April 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pmRegarding the “hate” for Reagan, by the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever. And, on top of that, Reagan was responsible for the largest tax increase on working people in the history of our country. So, maybe informed people had good reasons for not likeing Reagan.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThen WHY are most history professors/teachers LIBERALS?!
Comment by ProudCALiberal — April 30, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
well, if you call what they teach history, then you would ask this question. I guess you aren’t an educated man, eh? If you were you would know that Liberal professors do not teach history, but rather revisionist history. c’mon everyone with a college degree and an IQ over 100 knows this.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pmyou caught me, clownpants; i’m wearing one right now. and i’m hanging out in my backyard with dan burton, about to shoot a “head-like object.â€
Comment by pgw — April 30, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
well, at least you are honest enough to admit it. Careful, careful…..Karl Rove is behind you! BOO!
April 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pmValiant, I’m not hating you but the evidence supports that there were never any operational ties between Saddam and Al Qiada. Do accept this as a fact or not? Please just answer that.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm“Then WHY are most history professors/teachers LIBERALS?!”
Because reality has a well-known liberal bias.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pmvaliant, are you aware of the fact that a group of conservative corporate executives in 1933 tried to organize a violent coup to take down the administration of FDR? No? Then shut up about “revisionist history.”
April 30th, 2007 at 2:41 pmBluedog49,
I would urge you to look into the Clinton administration, it kills the Reagan number of convicted and indicted members of any Presidential administration. So, if the measure, for you, of a succesful administration is how many people were conviceted, indicted, etc, the Clinton administration was but a pathetic joke.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pmwow, I take it you have seen too many Michael Moore movies, eh? did your tin foil hat fall off?
let me tell you, you are wrong on both accounts, but do keep on spewing ridiculous conspiracy theories from Michael Moore, they sure make you sound well “informed†and well “educatedâ€.
wow, this site does have its lunatics, I see.
Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
You WOULD be funny if you didn’t believe the crap you spread here. Do you EVER look at yourself? And because you get a list of talking points doesn’t make them true. Poor thing.
And the whole foil hat thing, apparently that is some cute little phrase you learned from your neocon Nazi leaders. Nobody here know or cares what it means. But I’m sure we’ll see Limbaugh or O’Reilly using it soon enough. Your blind loyalty would be charming if it wasn’t so misguided.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pm“Careful, careful…..Karl Rove is behind you! BOO!”
yeah. still not funny.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pmJust think about it….Tony Snow is so anxious to attempt to exonerate the white house by saying that they never said, implied, or intimated that there was a connection between Iraq and 911….well, then the question needs to be asked: Why the hell DID we invade Iraq then? It makes it an even more agregious lie to try to cover up the original lie which only brings people to perhaps an even more indicting conclusion: There was no credible evidence of WMD’s (of the nuclear kind) so they HAD to spin some connection between Iraq and 911. Now Snow is swearing on a stack of bibles that they never drew that connection….so people who at least believed that there was some “terrorism” reason for deposing Saddam and illegally invading a sovereign nation are now left scratching their heads.
I absolutely DO believe that the cancer therapy Snow is receiving has already damaged his brain cells. I’d be real careful about how he’s drawing subsequent logical implications now with the american people about this pretext for war. Can’t have it both ways, Snowjob!
The people are all asking now why the hell we ever invaded Iraq! Oops, I know….Haliburton (Cheney/bush crime family offshore accounts) and war profiteering….that’s why.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pmValiantTheHater is doing precisely what the he-she desires – infuriating intelligent, logical individuals with hate-filled regurgitated troll spew…and not even good troll-spew.
IT’S TIME TO FREEZE OUR VALIANTTHEHATER. OF COURSE, WE’LL THEN SEE JAKE, FIREHEAD, AND A CADRE OF OTHER DEMENTEDS FLY ONTO THE THREADS.
FREEZE THIS SICKO TROLL OUT.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:46 pmyes shane, we all know how LIberals like you hate people that you disagree with
Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 2:34 pm.
Frankly I hate LIARS. I live in a strictly Republican district and so lots of people disagree with me. But they don’t show up and repeatedly LIE to me. You come here and post LIES almost every day. And so if you and Tony Snow were to disappear I wouldn’t miss either of you.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pmvaliant: “I would urge you to look into the Clinton administration, it kills the Reagan number of convicted and indicted members of any Presidential administration.”
See, now this is just strange. I know of one member of Clinton’s administration indicted and convicted as compared to 138 from the Reagan administration. Where does a troll like this get his ideas? He seems to truly believe that the Clinton admin had more corruption than Reagan’s. Very bizarre. Historians recognize Reagan’s as the most corrupt administration since the repub administrations in the 20’s.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThe hate for Bush comes from things like him joking about WMDs under his desk, his untimely and just plain offensive smirks and grins when discussing serious events, his complete lack of sincerety, his oafish, unsophisticated frat boy ways, and his LYING to you and me.
It’s the fact that he is so clearly out of his league and the level toadies will stoop to kiss his ass.
Mostly it’s the fact that neither you or I are his “base”…unless you are one of the “haves or have mores” The evidence is all around but you, Ostrich American, refuse to see it.
20 years from now you’ll still be scratching that boulder on your shoulders asking “what happened?”
Why don’t you ever post some proof of links to your bullshit “facts” and claims, ValiantLiar? Where’s the proof of Zarqawi and Baghdad Hospital. If a republican says it it is a lie. Plain and simple.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pmSnowjob is human evidence for being hoist on one’s own pitard. He’s so mired in lies and cover-ups that he can’t remember what he’s said and when. Thankfully, there are archivists who can remind him by posting direct quotes, sound bites, talking points, and video of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, and Snowjob. I do feel sorry somewhat for Snowjob – not because he has cancer – but because he’s a demented, twisted lying neonazi.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pmLiberal professors do not teach history, but rather revisionist history. c’mon everyone with a college degree and an IQ over 100 knows this.
Comment by valiantthehater — April 30, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
veneral theater, it’s a good thing you know what you’re talking about. Tell us, you’re about 20 so who taught you your history. Who told you about Jimmy Carter?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:50 pmVeritas, there were no WMDs, period. Saddam already used the ones Rummy and Raygun sold them in the 80s on the Kurds.
Fact.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pmFreeze out this deluded troll. Of course, Bush lied to us and continues to do so about why we went into this genocide of our military and the iraqi people. There is video – plenty of it and clips of speeches, interviews, press conferences, etc. This troll is obviously as sick as they are and delusional enough to believe his/her own lies as well as theirs. Feel sorry for this troll (ValiantHate) and do them a favor by ignoring them. Don’t give away your personal power to one as sick and demented as this neo-nutcase.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pmSomebody should send Snow a DVD of Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War”. Apparently he was on another planet back when Bush was tying Saddam and 9/11 together. And Cheney’s still doing it.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pmBlueDog, the criminals in this admin are gonna blow both former admins right out of the water…..Raygun’s admin will look like the paragon of virtue compared to these shit stains….
Everday.Another.Criminal.Scandal.Involving.Another.Criminal.Bushie.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pmA “brush” with death? How about a heaping helping of eternal damnation for his sorry enabling through lies and deception? Are they really stupid or just so evil, that they don’t know any better? Smirkey’s psychological profile is one thing,but all of these men and women cannot possibly have the same disorders. The Republican party is cooked for many, many years…
April 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pmIf we freeze out ValiantTheHater I wonder who will surface?? Jake?? Firehead? Frank Matthews?? Patrick1? Which other names does this sick troll utilize?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pmchimpeach: Cheney did it just last week. Does anyone have the url for the video of it? Let’s get it posted here if we can.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:54 pmperhaps it’s time to storm the bastille if the dems don’t go for the jugular and impeach these sick, twisted liars soon?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pmSickofitall – You got it! What a bunch of lying hypocrites, eh?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm#57 valiantthehater claims that “Iraq…was an ally of Al Qaeda.” As Richard Clarke, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay and others have taken pains to point out, apparently to no avail, nothing could be further from the truth. Saddam Hussein represented a secular government while Bin Laden’s motives were based on religious ideals. Having Bin Laden in Iraq would have been anathama to Saddam Hussein, as Saddam Hussein would always have felt threatened by Bin Laden and would never have received the support of Saddam Hussein. Wishing that these two rivals were friends is a far cry from making it a reality.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pmIt’s clear that, not unlike Adolph Hitler, these pathological individuals running this country actually “hatched this plan” well in advance of 911 and then smirked that it would take “another pearl harbor” type of incident to pull it all off. Voila – 911! And, the use of the 911 itself (the numbers) which are well known to all americans as the symbol of an emergency – how cute, indeed! Was it all planned? You can bet the ranch on it – and the facts are coming out all over the place.
There will soon be a reopening of the 911 commission to take an updated look at all of the conflicting evidence, scientific reports, and eyewitness accounts of things other than what was accepted as the “official version” which will make people’s skin crawl.
It’s horrendous, yes. It’s reprehensible, yes. It’s unconscionable, yes. As yourself now with all of the ongoing evidence of this administration’s pathological lust for power over the people and world dominance, if it’s still “improbable”…..and the answer to that right now has to be “not improbable”. This is the only conclusion one can draw from the new evidence, the stealing of two elections to place this puppet at the top of this new regime and to coup this democracy (google PNAC and Federalist Society both for more info).
April 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pmIt’s definitely the hypocrisy that makes me sick.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWe all know that Saddam kept AQ out of Iraq – case closed! We all suspected that once Saddam was deposed, AQ would come in by the droves – case closed! We also knew that Saddam was no friend of Iran – case closed! We also know that now that Saddam is gone and we’ve failed abysmally in any type of order in that country, Iran, being their neighbor, is entering the scene. How could we NOT have predicted all of this? How stupid are these guys in Washington?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWhat I would like to know is did any of the White House correspondents challenge Tony on this lie? I suspect they did not since they seem to be incapable of asking hard questions or calling them on their lies. David Gregory used to do it, but he bas become a Bush poodle lately. And Helen Thomas would call him on his bullshit if they ever called on her, which they don’t.
What are they afraid of? The truth.
I really didn’t expect Tony to have gone through any kind of a crisis of conscience. If he had, they would not have allowed him to return.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pm*
#141 Lying is a sick enough evil….to hypocritically install oneself as the “savior or Czar” of something and then to engage in it yourself is the worst kind of psychiatric illness possible.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:05 pmBy the way. Hater may be the dumbest yet. We’ve had dozens before you, but you don’t have enough game to play here with the adults. As the thirty percenters head into the teens, it will get worse. I mean DUMBER…
April 30th, 2007 at 3:06 pmIt is VERY clear that this admin. is full of felony offenders.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pmIt couldn’t be any clearer.
WHY IN THE H*ELL ARE THEY NOT IN JAIL BY NOW ???
Dick first.
Next up, Junior.
#78
You’re the one who needs to stop with the hypocritical talking points.
You Bushies want to give Bush a free pass for 9/11 because he was only in office 8 months yet Clinton, who was barely in office for a month gets all the blame for the first WTC attack.
What a load of garbage you spew in your posts. You claim OBL and Saddam were buddy buddy yet the truth is that they hated each other. There are facts out there to prove that point should you choose to do some research and not count on the likes of Snow and Bush for your information.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pmIt’s the continued denial of this administration and the complacency of this country that turns my stomach. The ease at which lies are created and the large appetite this country has to be spoon fed from the liars is what burns.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pmYes, Al Zaeqawi was in Iraq BEFORE the Iraq War began. He actually received medical attention from the Baghdad hospital after being injured in the battle fields of Afghanistan.
is thinkprogress.org willing to deny this fact?
This is pure insanity. By this logic USA and Al-Queda are allies because one of the 9/11 terrorists had his appendix removed there.
Never you mind that Osama used to reffer to Saddam warmly and fondly as “the apostate” and “communist criminal” and that Saddam in kind tried to destroy Al-Queda affliliates such as the Ansar al-Islam fi Kurdistan but was prevented by the US-allied Kurds and the aggresive enforcement of the no-fly zones.
Your detachment from reality is reaching monumental proportions.
I think the problem is that if they understand this, that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies, then by default they must accept as legitimate the Iraq War and you know that they can never do this, why?
Actually this is the core reason why ignorant, deluded neocon converts like you are so desperately attempting to create an “alliance” where none did (and could not have) exist.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pmUnfortunately America has been doing this for the last 50 years…do as we say, not as we do.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pmOsama and Bush are buddies Bushes and Bin Ladens, sittin in a tree….
That is fact.
Oh yah, don’t forget the Saudis too, you know, the country that supplied most of the 911 hijackers, along with good allies Egypt and UAE.
It’s the cognitive dissonance that the US engages in as official policy that makes me sick.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pmThe criticalthinker cannot take the 9-11 lie any longer!
I once saw an episode of Columbo where DISPROVED that man died of natural causes, because his shoe laces were not tied from the man’s perspective, but from the perspective like that of a mother tying a child’s shoes, therefore no spin doctor nor lying expert can convince CRITICAL THINKING people that the man tied his own shoes before dying.
h t t p : / / 9 1 1 r e s e a r c h . w t c 7 . n e t / w t c / e v i d e n c e / p h o t o s / s t r e e t s 1 . h t m l
The 50 micron 45% silicon fine powder in the above link DISPROVES that the WTC was demolished by gravity energy, because there is no other way than explosive energy to created such a fine silicon powder from intact concrete and glass in the less than 15 seconds that the WTC towers went from whole to pieces, therefore no spin doctor nor lying expert can convince CRITICAL THINKING people that the WTC was demolished by gravity energy.
Everyone is familiar with shoe TYING, so the DISPROOF cannot be ignored, while only people educated in engineering such as myself are familiar with material MILLING, so the DISPROOF is ignored.
If you go to an engineering school or concrete manufacturer and watch them fail concrete an INTACT piece of concrete, you will notice that it breaks into sand sized particles, and in order to turn it into a 50 micron fine powder you would have to MILL those particles.
Even if you drop concrete from 30,000 jet crusing altitude, it will still fail into sand size particles, just like you cannot make flour from wheat kernels by dropping them off a tall building!
Even if you put more tha X pounds of weight on a cubic inch of concrete that has a compression strength X pounds per inch, it will still fail into sand size particles, just like you cannot make flour from wheat kernels by setting them under a heavy rock!
The reason you cannot make fine powders simply by dropping material, is that the material’s collision with the ground results in the small particles recoiling upward instead of them being breaking into smaller and smaller pieces, no matter how much FORCE they hit the ground with.
The reason you cannot make fine powders simply by setting weight on material, is that the surfaces are not perfectly even, so small particles lay in the hills and the valleys between the surfaces, therefore they CANNOT be broken into smaller particles because NO FORCE is being applied to them, no matter how much FORCE is being applied to surfaces.
MILLING can be done by the scraping of abrasives which chew off one fine powder particle at a time, or done by the crushing of surfaces that are SMOOTHER than the desired fine powder particle size.
Since the environment in the demolished WTC towers was not like a MILL, and MILLING always takes more than 15 seconds to generate an appreciable amount of fine powder, WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE 50 MICRON 45% SILICON FINE POWDER THAT IS GIVING THE FIRST RESPONDERS SILICOSIS LUNG DISEASE HAD TO BE CREATED BY EXPLOSIVES, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR THAT POWDER TO BE CREATED IN THE TIME AND ENVIRONMENT OF A DEMOLISHING WTC TOWER.
I will give my house, car, money, clothes, and every worldly possession to the first person lying expert or otherwise who can turn an intact piece of concrete or glass into a 50 micron fine powder in less than 15 seconds without explosives, even though they would not need my money, because they will have won a Nobel prize and would have a zillion dollar patent for making milling obsolete!
So if you choose to believe the official LIE, and ignore the TRUTH that the WTC towers were brought down with explosives, by IGNORING the IRRFUTABLE evidence that the critical thinker has given you, it simply means your emotions overrule your logic, and your psyche cannot handle the ramifications of this IRRFUTABLE evidence, so you close your eyes and keep believing that it was not an inside job when the evidence OBVIOUSLY says otherwise to CRITICAL THINKING people like Columbo.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pmAQ Khan, known WMD black market proliferator, gets a pass from Bush and Musharriff….swept under the table.
Anthrax….American Military grade Anthrax mailed to Senators and media, nothing….swept under the table.
It’s the inconsistencies of the whole “get the tarra-ist” thing that really makes me sick.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm‘valiantthehater claims that “Iraq…was an ally of Al Qaeda.†As Richard Clarke ha[s] taken pains to point out, apparently to no avail, nothing could be further from the truth’
And yet…
A January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration’s August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on
April 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pmthe El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda’s demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as “sure” that Iraqi experts there produced a
powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke “said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”
by the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.
Comment by Bluedog49 — April 30, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Wanna bet that the current administration will break that record?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pmI think Tony is holding out for the Congressional Casket of Freedom.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm10. ? You did this last night as well, mr. cut and paste. Based on cooked intelligence from the CIA and the Whitehouse these people voted based on what they thought was real intelligence. The Dem’s on the Senate Intelligence committe according to Dick Durbin put two and two together, but where afraid of leaking it. Depending on how you look at it, personally I think they should have leaked the information. But I’m not in thier shoes. The NeoCons are very sick minded people that cooked intelligence to promote destablizing that region. This was done to hopefully pull Iran into war, then America could come in and take over the regions oil.
This was all for money. Now if you re-phrase the question and the President would have went to the Dem’s and the American people and said that we were going to invade Iraq for oil/money? No one would have voted for it.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pmMore from Richard Clarke in the 1990s:
‘Clarke was nervous about such a mission [in Afghanistan] because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.â€
Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not
Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible†to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134
Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even
this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s]
intel[ligence service] is in bed with†Bin Ladin and would warn him
that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.â€135 Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.’
9/11 Commission Report
April 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pmBut…but… CLINTON!
April 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm155. NeoCons, the whitecollar criminal!
April 30th, 2007 at 3:24 pmdid they operate on his brain? Bush has said time and time again that there was a connection, even in the face of evidence to the contrary… Tony forgets there’s this thing called “tape,” which you can put sound and pictures on… sometimes you can use those sounds and pictures to remind people what they say or did in the past… I think some people will be doing that for Tony soon…
April 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pmComment by criticalthinker
Why does 9/11 so attract all these wacked-out far-out conspiracy kooks with their lunatic “IRRFUTABLE” (sic) “evidence”? And must they post their spittle-covered rants on every thread at once?
Oh never mind, screaming at a street corner at all passer-bys was always their standard behaviour, now websites give them a much bigger corner and more passer-bys to annoy.
Sigh.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pmOther intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not
Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible†to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134
Exley.
“Other intelligence sources.”
I smell a Chalabi.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pmWell, apparently Snow is back and in full form.
Cancer and surgery don’t seem to have had any effect on his capacity to lie with a straight face.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pmJTitor – The neocons “cooked intelligence”? You mean the same intelligence different intelligence agencies around the globe were relying on?? You DID read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, right?
IF Dick Durbin was SO certain his info was superior – WHY did HE SIT on it??? The entire goal of Dick, Chuck and Harry was to use the Dems historical distaste for national defense and the wish to avoid war at all costs. With their willing accomplices in the majority of MSM, they SOUGHT (and vocalized!) their desire to use the war as a political wedge in the country. Dems appreciate your continued support deceminating misinformation…Good job!
April 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pmBarfly,
“I smell a Chalabi.”
Possibly…But Richard Clarke apparently believed it.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pmGrgrrr – Nice of you to extend Tony a warm “welcome back!!”
April 30th, 2007 at 3:37 pmComment by Exley
Yes Exley, we all knew that all of these “national security experts”, both Clintonian and Bushite are all so full of shit that a sloshing sound is constantly heard when they move. Anybody with a grain of competence is instantly fired from those rarified circles.
The point is that Clinton had at least enough common sense not to surround himself with a band of neocon cultist crazies who were polishng their big plans for Iraq as a stepping stone for world domination ever since they formed their little mutual-enrichement club, and subsequently he did not end up pulling the US into this current epic fiasco based on their delusions.
As to evidence of hostility and lack of any co-operation between Al-Qeda and Iraq, one does not depend on any self-serving US “security experts”. Basic data, gathered by a large number of reporters and non-governmental organizations in the Middle East for the last few decades is quite sufficient, thank you.
Not to mention wee little other things such as video tapes put out by Osama wherein he calls for Saddam’s head.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pmvaliant the heater:
Don’t forget that in Austria, in the 1990s, a Nazi was elected to a government position. The whole world put attacked towards Austria the same way that it did towards Palestine, until Austria removed the Nazi from government.
I thought it was liberals who had big problems with historical accuracy? When exactly was Austria bombed? Those Nazis are still there, of course. They are an integral part of the Austrian political spectrum. Also, are you talking about Bundespräsident Kurt Waldheim or Georg Haider of the FPÖ (like here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s98414.htm)?
Austria was like “World attacks? LULZ!”. Indeed, it was unresolvable conflicts with the liberals in the government that lead to early re-elections.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pmBut Richard Clarke apparently believed it.
Ask him now.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:41 pmAnyone know the current percent of the American public that thinks that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?
From the USA Today – as of Sept ‘03:
“Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda.”
snip
“President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq.”
snip
“Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
April 30th, 2007 at 3:43 pmPossibly…But Richard Clarke apparently believed it.
Comment by Exley
“Possibly”
So, are you admitting your cut-and-paste isn’t so cut-and-dried?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:43 pmTerrorists in Iraq-yes
Sadaam and al Qaida hate America-yes
Sadaam has supported terrorists-yes
Is that the same as saying Sadaam was repsonsible for Sept 11? No.
“Why the WAR in IRAQ?
no ties to OBL, no wmds, no er? Jesus?”
Comment by Free Dominian?=freedom — April 30, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Because Sadaam repeatedly refused to comply with UN requirements that he prove that he didn’t have WMD. Remember that? After he invaded Kuwait? The UN required certain things of him to help insure that he didn’t invade other countries UNPROVOKED? The UN just kept setting new deadlines every time he missed one. After Sept 11, should we not have been a little more suspicious of countries that we knew supported terrorists in the past, had used WMD on their own citizens? Any of this ring a bell?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pmBecause Sadaam repeatedly refused to comply with UN requirements that he prove that he didn’t have WMD. Remember that?
You mean he obstructed the UN. Despite of which the inspection regime progressed apace and the verdict was that Iraq had no viable active nuclear weapon programs, as per Al Baradei.
After he invaded Kuwait? The UN required certain things of him to help insure that he didn’t invade other countries UNPROVOKED? The UN just kept setting new deadlines every time he missed one.
Because the UN knew that Saddam had no viable programs going on, despite his posturing and bullying theatrics. That is the main reason why the security council refused to authorize miltiary action (no matter how much spittle you are going to waste whining about this and pretending otherwise), thus forcing the neocon infested US government to go with the laughable “coalition of the dupes”.
And of course with predictable results: no WMD programs found (as the UN had said) and a complete, steaming pile of a violent mess in place of what used to be Iraq.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:06 pmHow about a couple of links right in the Joint Resolution?
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;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
April 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm“Because Sadaam repeatedly refused to comply with UN requirements that he prove that he didn’t have WMD. Remember that? After he invaded Kuwait? The UN required certain things of him to help insure that he didn’t invade other countries UNPROVOKED? The UN just kept setting new deadlines every time he missed one. After Sept 11, should we not have been a little more suspicious of countries that we knew supported terrorists in the past, had used WMD on their own citizens? Any of this ring a bell?”
Saddam used WMDs WE PROVIDED nimrod. We basically told him we had no interest if he were to invade Kuwait – then feinted shock when he did. At least the 1st Bush DID have a real coalition and knew better than to create the clusterfvck we have now.
UN NEVER gave us the green light to attack, the UN wepaons inspectors DID not and were not finding WMD – AND said so – and wanted to continue but W told them to get out.
what rings a bell is that you are one either disingenous Bush boot licker or stupid. Spew your BS on RedState.org, there they will eat your b.s. – not here.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pmSadaam and al Qaida hate America-yes
Sadaam has supported terrorists-yes
There is no linkage. Saddam did not support terrorists.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pmBecause Sadaam repeatedly refused to comply with UN requirements that he prove that he didn’t have WMD. Remember that? After he invaded Kuwait?
You mean after Bush 1 gave him the go-ahead to invade?
April 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pmHow about a couple of links right in the Joint Resolution?
Comment by Terri — April 30, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
I am not sure what you are trying to claim. Do you mean that just because a bunch of daft politicos “resolved” that something is true, such an act makes the thing “resolved” automatically become true?
So then, for their next trick, let them “resolve” something useful: declare gravity optional and sickness banned.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:22 pmI see Tony has been refilled with bullshit, and is again ready to dispense it…
Now Dana Perino will have to undergo a refill procedure.
Sure is great to watch Democracy failing because the companies our journalists work for won’t let them do their jobs properly.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm#172
Barfly,
No. My “cut-and-paste” is taken directly from the 9/11 Commission Report and shows that Richard Clarke was indeed concerned about a Iraq-Al Qaeda connection and indeed believed that Iraqi experts had assisted Al Qaeda in developing VX gas in the Sudan. When I write “possibly,” I am simply ceding the point that one of Clarke’s intelligence sources during the 1990s may have been Chalabi. Since I cannot categorically deny that he was and since you cannot categorically affirm that he was, the only rational response in “possibly.” But the fact remain that the 9/11 Commission Report shows that Clarke believed in some type of Al Qaeda-Iraq connection during the previous administration.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pm> had used WMD on their own citizens?
that WE sold him asshat….. irony not register with you much, does it?
bush quotes:
“al queda attacked us on 9-11″
“saddam harbors alqueda”…
what hes trying to imply is obvious….”saddam was involved with the people who were involved with 9-11 therefore sadam was involved with 9-11″
you can imply something without directly saying it.
an no the only “terrorists” saddam gave money to were related to palestine, and honestly calling them terrorists is arguable.. as has been verified by reliable sources over and over, saddam and al-queda were enemies.. saddam had a history of gassing religious nuts like al-queda in fact, which frankly i think is a great idea…religious wackos of any religion, actually…you can’t reason with them, you can’t compromise… give em the gas and open the gates of paradise to them..
April 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pmThere is no linkage. Saddam did not support terrorists.
Comment by barfly — April 30, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Actually he did support different set of terrorists, i.e. Palestinian suicide bombers, mostly secular Al-Aqsa Brigades affiliated ones (by sending money to their families after the fact).
Baathist movements were ideologically aligned with PLO and Al-Aqsa Brigades but hostile to Islamic ones, such as Hamas as Baathist phillosophy was a socialist, secular, pan-arab one, while Al-Queda is a fundamentalist Islamic organization violently hostile to any form of secularism (they frequently, with disdain, described Saddam as an Apostate Communist).
April 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pmBecause the UN hoped that Saddam had no viable programs going on,
Comment by FactsOnly — April 30, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Fixed that little error for you MostlyFactsOnly.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pmDear Choc – We sold him weapons for use to kill our enemy, Iran – Give your recycled talking points and misrepresentation of the facts a “sprucing up” – - “whitewash” might offend you….
April 30th, 2007 at 4:47 pmwhat hes trying to imply is obvious….â€saddam was involved with the people who were involved with 9-11 therefore sadam was involved with 9-11″
you can imply something without directly saying it.
Comment by Disgusting— April 30, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
I give to the Red Cross but I’m not directly involved with their work. Fortunately for me, giving to the Red Cross isn’t equal to giving to terrorists. ;)
April 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pmexeley,
what are you doing quoting from the 9/11 Commission….are you crazy putting up facts on a site like thinkprogress.org! c’mon now. Don’t tell Liberals on this site that Richard Clarke long before George W. Bush became President, there were those in the Clinton administration that were already talking about a connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein.
stop putting up facts and quotes from the 9/11 Commission book, you know how much Liberals hate facts, history and the truth. Remember none of these are their forte. Their forte is, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and then…..lie some more and speak in half-truths.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pmWhether or not anyone in the Clinton administration had suspicions is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Clinton or Gore would not have invaded Iraq. Santions were working. Inspections were working. He was under control. All of this “they thought he was a threat,” nonsense is just obfuscation. Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses. He said Saddam wouldn’t allow inspectors. That was a lie. Clinton didn’t do that.
And, Valiant, regarding your little pseudo-polemic, “liberal hate facts,” we just established above that you think the Reagan administration, with 138 indictments, arrests and convictions, was less corrupt than the Clinton administration, with one indictment and conviction. So, we can see clearly how much facts mean to you.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pmBluedog49,
wrong, wrong, and wrong again!
The Clinton administration had plans to attack and invade Iraq. The reason why they didn’t put it forth was because they new that Republicans would never agree to it.
but you are wrong in all accounts. Let us not forget that it was Clinton with the Iraqi Liberation Act who first made it a United States policy to do regime change in Iraq.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pmbluedog49,
Hussein was under control, really? so why was he firing missles at our jet fighters patroling the no-fly-zones? why?
also Bluedog49, please, please for you own sake and sanity, do research on how many of Clinton’s administration officials have been either indicted or convicted of a crime.
you only established something in your head, the facts are not on your side, as always.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pmFixed that little error for you MostlyFactsOnly.
Prove it.
Prove that Saddam had active WMD programs at the time of the invasion. You are making the claim so the onus of proof is on you.
Based on their inspection results the UN had determined that there were no viable programs and … what happens? Shock! Surprise! There were no viable programs. Who would have thunk it!
You on the other hand claimed that they were there, based on no evidence and a whole lot of hot, stinky air. And … you were (and are) completely, 100%, certifiably wrong.
So far your and the other neocons’ record is simply craptastic … on just about every subject.
Subsequently you simply just need to shut up since your credibility on the subject of WMDs in Iraq, unlike that of the UN, based on yours and their records, is exactly zero.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pmthese are stats as of June 2000….ouch, it does look like you are wrong, bluedog49 about only one clinton administration official being indicted or convicted.
CRIME STATS for Clinton administration as of June 2000
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
April 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm- Number of these convictions during Clinton’s presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of imprisonments: 14
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 124
Bluedog49,
If Hussein had nothing to hide, why didn’t he open his whole country for the UN inspectors to check? why was he always playing games with them? why?
why did most intelligence services of the world believe that Hussein had WMDs, why? was the whole world lying?
April 30th, 2007 at 5:25 pmBluedog49, here is more for you and how you got your fake 138 under the Reagan administration. try something new for a change, and not a far left crazy lie about Reagan, ok?
RECORDS SET for the Clinton Administration
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in “Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: “By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.”
April 30th, 2007 at 5:28 pmwonder if thinkprogress.org would compare this number to Gonzalez’s…what do you think liberals?
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
April 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pmHarold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O’Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
The Clinton administration had plans to attack and invade Iraq. The reason why they didn’t put it forth was because they new that Republicans would never agree to it.
Comment by valiantthehater
And this, Ladies and Gents, is a conversation ender. This is the sort of statement that results in embarassed silence at social gatherings, with the host depserately trying to get “valiantthehater” to take his/her medication before he/she starts rolling on the floor swatting at imaginary spiders.
Really? So you are saying that Republicans “stopped” Clinton from going to war with Iraq … about which he fantasized for ages in his PNAC ravings and rantings … which they promptly did themselves as soon as a Republican president was elected … because … beause …. Clinton made them!!!
Well, don’t stop there, lets hear the rest of it:
“…. the neocons in PNAC were obviously all good pals of Clinton. It was that famed Clintonite Cheney who had the ear of Chelabi and all those Bills’ buddies in places like FOX News who pushed for the invasion, while being bravely resisted by God Fearing, Clinton-Hating Republicans such as, say, Kusinich.
And the sky is truly, honestly, green with pink polka dots ….
Glog! Glog! Glog! Glug!”
April 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pmIf Hussein had nothing to hide, why didn’t he open his whole country for the UN inspectors to check? why was he always playing games with them? why?
Because he was playing Arab face-saving, macho posturing, political games, at which he was an expert, in order to maintain his hold on the country. A major part in which played the fact that CIA has infested the UNMOVIC, and subsequently got caught by Saddam, and therefore Saddam knew that an open-ended access to all of his facilities by UNMOVIC meant essentially writing an invitation to CIA subrefuge of his rule.
It had nothing to do with WMDs and everything with an attempt by the US neocons to use the UNMOVIC to overthrow him.
And he was right. That is what they tried to do. Having denied them that venue, the neocons were forced to resort to outright military aggression.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pmBush, like his supporters, has all the intelligence of a turd, and all the integrity of a pedophile.
The truth does not matter to Bush voters, who have brains the size of a pea.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pmI sure am glad I’m not a public figure of any kind – it leaves me free to invite any and all “Righty” types to bite down on a big turd, and live long, featureless lives of lonely bitterness. (at least I’m nice enough not to wish Lee Atwater’s fate on them).
You’re some nasty people, Righties. The kind that make Jesus cry, and little kids run and hide.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pmThe only thing Tony Snow is religious about is lying…he does it religiously.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pmwonder if thinkprogress.org would compare this number to Gonzalez’s…what do you think liberals?
None of which has, of course, anything to do with the topic of this thread.
Which is an indication that “valiantthehater” has run out of topic-related bullshit disinformation talking points he was told to spread and is now proceeding to the old, tried, tested and true, last refuge of a neocon scoundrel: “But … But … But … Cliiiiintoooon!!!!”
April 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pmFactsOnly,
unlike you, I am not a partisan hack. Yes my poorly informed fool, Clinton in the 1990s, late 1990s wanted to take down Hussein. You might want to start your education by reading the Iraqi Liberation Act signed by Clinton.
Yes, the Republicans played politics in the 1990s against Clinton, much like today the Democrats are playing politics with Bush.
for having a name, FactsOnly, you know little if any history at all.
guy, open up a book and read it, while you are it, get a clue too.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:03 pmhatefactsonly,
my poor, poor, ill-informed fool. do you know how much of a blind partisan hack you sound like?
nothing you have said here hasn’t been said by thousands of ill-informed Liberals before. try something original, try something new, stop being such a sheep and such a tool. I can assure you you might start sounding intelligent for once.
Will you deny, that Richard Clarke said, while Clinton was in power, that al Qaeda and Iraq were connected and probably forming an alliance? are you so poorly informed, that you will deny this?
will you deny the facts put forth in the Iraqi Liberation Act by ex-President Clinton?
will you deny the countless of claims made by Democrats during the Clinton years that Hussein had WMDs and he was ready to use them?
c’mon son, you have come ready to play with the boys, now step up and play with the men, your bull shit is only believed by the poorly educated libeal masses, those of us that are educated know that all you are doing is bull sh…tting.
so, either go play with the kids in the sandbox or start acting like an educated adult. your choice.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pmSix minutes of Bush Administration lies from youtube.
“A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam’s government was involved or even aware of [Zarqawi's] medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi.” Source
April 30th, 2007 at 6:22 pmunlike you, I am not a partisan hack.
Oh give it up. You’ve spent quite a bit of time proving yourself one on this very thread.
Yes my poorly informed fool, Clinton in the 1990s, late 1990s wanted to take down Hussein. You might want to start your education by reading the Iraqi Liberation Act signed by Clinton
The part which you do not seem to be able to fathom is that attempting to get rid of Saddam and waging a war of unprovoked invasion on Iraq are not one and the same. No one was “stopping” Clinton from invading Iraq, because Clinton was not, ever, attempting such an invasion.
Therefore any sort of “advice” on reading coming from comprehension-challenged likes of you is comical.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:24 pmAfter reading all the pseudo facts that “valiantthehater” has spewed out letter after letter, I can only surmise that valiant, George Bush, and all the “Limburger” hate radio jocks are the three best reasons I know for passing a law to make abortion retroactive.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:33 pmWill you deny, that Richard Clarke said, while Clinton was in power, that al
Qaeda and Iraq were connected and probably forming an alliance? are you so poorly informed, that you will deny this?
Again, my comprehension-challenged friend, what some career “security expert” doofus says, and what is really happening are by no means one and the same thing. Clarke now says he was mistaken. Irrespective of which no Al-Queda/Saddam co-operation ever existed, for a myriad reasons I already gave you.
will you deny the facts put forth in the Iraqi Liberation Act by ex-President Clinton?
Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with invading Iraq.
For most of the Cold War attempts were made to assist anti-communist movements within the Warsaw Pact countries and yet no sane president would try to employ a pig-headed, GWB-style, head-on assault for it would result in human race’s extinction.
Similarly, Clinton wanted to assist Iraqis in overthrowing Saddam, but he was not willing (wisely) to go and invade because he knew it would result in carnage and chaos. So did by the way Bush Senior.
will you deny the countless of claims made by Democrats during the Clinton years that Hussein had WMDs and he was ready to use them?
Speaking of partisan hackery…
What mis-informed Democrats were saying does not somehow magically become true just because they were Democrats saying it.
so, either go play with the kids in the sandbox or start acting like an educated adult. your choice.
Well since you are acting the whiney, tantrum-throwing kid part, I will go with the adult role.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:34 pmComical. Valiantthehater’s job is to suppress truth on this site and others.
Someone bring him to reality and tell him that the left/right paradigm is false. Oh wait, he already knows this.
He’s shilling and just doing his job.
What a good boy.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pmGeez us H KeeRist! Mr SnowJob must have never listened to
the low grade drivel his own pathetic excuse of a news network
pushed like bad crack, during the lead up to the “liberation” of
the Occupation in Iraq. You know, its just like the “Stay the Course” monologue we listened to for 2 years, only to hear
“its never been about stay the course” after hearing it 10 zillion
times. Any reality will do, whenever needed, obviously. That they
can do it with a straight face, is just an indicator of the moral
bankruptcy of the Reich Wing Rethuglicans. School yard bullies
the lot. The invasion of Iraq was a national policy, and not just
a republican one. Both parties were involved in the slow, steady
degradation of the Iraqi military, since 1991. The current “surge”
is only another of interchangeable excuses to keep US Troops
in Iraq for as long as possible. The more Iraqis killed today, are
the less Iraqis to deal with in future. An average of 30 Iraqis a
day are killed, one way or the other. Its for the good of the
Republic. And any excuse to stay, is excuse enough.
The recent poll approval rating of 28% just goes to show, there
will always be 1 out of 4 citizens that have either smoked them
selves stupid, or were just born pig shit stupid enough to listen
to the continual blather these automatons mouth.
Clintons administration answered to 1045 subpoenas, the
current administration has answered to 5. So when rethuglicans
feign anxiety over the “politicization” and witch hunts, they only
have their own witch hunts to use as an example. Not that truth
is an issue. Any truth will do.
By all means keep those lies coming, the voters are wise to the
April 30th, 2007 at 6:45 pmWillie Horton tactics, and will send even more of these Vestal
Virgins packing in November 08.
I guess Tony needed a rest from LYING.
Sounds like he needs to be taking acting lessons. His LIES are more transparent than ever before!
April 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pmValiant, the site where you got your opinions on corruption during Clinton’s administration gives no citations or evidence for anything it presents. In fact, i can’t even understand what they’re saying. The facts are pretty conclusive:
* Number of Reagan administration era convictions in the Iran-contra scandal: 14 (two overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted for illegal lobbying: 2 (Michael Deaver; Lyn Nofziger, overturned on appeal).
* Number of Reagan officials convicted in Housing and Urban Development scandal: 16.
* Total number Reagan era convictions: 32
No president before or since oversaw a White House with so many criminal convictions. In fact, by way of comparison, there have been large organized crime families that have had far fewer convictions that the Reagan administration. Plus, these convictions don’t even begin to include the dozens of other Reagan administration officials who narrowly avoided prosecution, but nevertheless left their positions in disgrace.
Over 30 additional Reagan appointees resigned or were fired following charges of legal or ethical misconduct, including Secretary of Interior James Watt, Secretary of Interior Raymond Donovan, CIA Director William Casey and EPA Administrator Anne Burford. Many dozens more were investigated.
The only Clinton official indicted or convicted, after all of those multi-year, Republican-led investigations, was Asst. Attorney-General Webster Hubbell, who was convicted of embezzlement — a crime he committed before joining the Clinton Administration. In addition, Henry Cisneros had a problem with paying money to a mistress.
Whitewater – Clintons were actually exonerated in 1994 by the RTC.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pmFilegate – nothing
Travelgate – nothing
Christmas card list – nothing
Budhist temple – nothing
Sexual affair? Yes. President is embarassed and contrite. Repubs IMPEACH him for lying about it.
Nice to see that the layoff hasn’t affected Snow’s swing. First AB after returning to the line-up and Tony “The Tiger” hits one right out of the park.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pmTony says there was no linkage, but oh, oh, as has been pointed out, the congressional authorization they wanted was all about linkage:
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;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
April 30th, 2007 at 7:06 pmhatefactsonly,
so, you don’t care what Richard Clarke said in the past, you just care what he says now. So, how did he figure out he was wrong? He mislead two Presidents and then all of a sudden he quits and claims he is wrong?
oh wait, that is NOT TRUE! the 9/11 Commission is the one that got the facts and put down in a book that Richard Clarke said under the Clinton administration that Iraq and Al Qaeda were trying to form an alliance. Who do we believe, Richard Clarke now, or what he said to the bipartisan 9/11 commission and the conclusions they came to?
you only believe Richard Clark now because it fits into your little hate fest against Bush.
Once again, i told you to come ready to play with the adults. I guess you much rather play in the sandbox, right?
and what “mis-informed” Democrat? you mean the whole Democratic Party was poorly informed about Saddam Hussein during the 1990s? wow! all of them had it wrong and you, the shining light of stupidity have it right, eh? incredible! you might want to call the NSA and tell them that you are ready to work as an intelligence officer since the voices in your head are telling you that all the Democrats during the 1990s, who called for Hussein’s head based on Clinton administration intelligence were 100% wrong.
please kid, you are boring, try harder, give me a mental challenge and not 7 year old anti-Bush propaganda, ok?
April 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pmNo Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says
Valiant, I’m not sure where you got the idea that the 9-11 Commission thought there were ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, but you’re wrong.
“By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 1:32 PM
There is “no credible evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”
April 30th, 2007 at 7:14 pminteresting read from the Boston Globe. Why are the Democrats using this as a political stunt? why are Democrats playing politics with our troops? why didn’t the Democrats send this bill immediatly to the President? because they want headlines, they want power, they want elections. It is obvious that Democrats, at least most of them, do not care about our troops.
this is going to blow up in the face of the Democratic Party.
i wonder why thinkprogress.org hasn’t linked anyone to this article? oh yeah, it makes Democrats look like the partisan hacks they are and the anti-troop, anti-americans, pro-playing politics with our troops that they are.
thinkprogress.org you are only fooling the ill-informed Liberal masses.
What drives the Democrats?
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | April 29, 2007
LEGISLATION passed by congressional Democrats last week would force US troops to abandon Iraq beginning Oct. 1. Though a veto was foreordained, the vote was great news for the jihadis in Iraq, their second such morale boost in a week. On April 19, Senate majority leader Harry Reid had run up a white flag, declaring that “this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything” — music to the ears of Al Qaeda and its allies .
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Op-ed RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Share on Digg
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Why is the Democratic Party so wedded to defeat in Iraq? What drives its determination to see this war end in American failure?
The most generous explanation is that Democrats genuinely believe that Iraq will be better off with the Americans gone — that removing US troops will eliminate the catalyst of Al Qaeda ’s butchery.
But as Connecticut’s Joseph Lieberman pointed out on Thursday, this is sheer fantasy. US troops have retreated from Iraqi cities and regions a number of times, yet “in each of these places where US forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became . . . islands of fear and violence.”
Lieberman quoted the grim forecast of Sheik Abdul Sattar, a Sunni tribal leader in Anbar province: “If the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.” The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees. An American withdrawal in the near future “almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq,” it concludes. “Massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable.”
Some Democrats are clearly motivated by ideological conviction. There may be some on the party’s leftmost fringe who would welcome a US defeat on the grounds that the only good superpower is a humbled superpower. There are certainly Democrats in Congress, such as Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich, who almost always oppose any use of military force on principle.
And then there are those who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the magnitude of the stakes in Iraq or in the larger conflict against radical jihadism. The reality of this struggle — that we are in an existential war with a totalitarian enemy that celebrates death and cannot be appeased — is too bleak and hopeless. They would rather escape into an alternate reality, one in which Americans can choose to end the war by quitting the battlefield.
But in the end there is no escaping that for many Democrats, this is all about politics. Both President Bush and the war in Iraq are unpopular, and the Democratic leadership hopes to capitalize by opposing both of them.
“We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” Reid said candidly at an April 12 press conference. “Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.” To which Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, added: “The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle. . . . They are looking extinction in the eye.” He spoke those words, Congressional Quarterly observed, “making no attempt to hide his glee.”
That glee is very telling. It would be one thing for lawmakers to conclude regretfully that America’s campaign in Iraq has failed and that bringing the troops home is the least bad option left. Were that the case, voting to pull the plug would be a sad and painful duty, one no member of Congress would carry out with “glee.”
Yet when the House of Representatives voted last month to force a withdrawal from Iraq, Democrats were jubilant.
“Many House Democrats stayed on the floor, reveling in their victory,” reported The Hill on March 23. “House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey and Representative John Murtha hugged each other while a smiling [majority leader Steny] Hoyer shook every hand he could find. . . . [majority whip James] Clyburn joked with members as [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi kissed and hugged her colleagues.”
The New York Times noted that in conversations with “dozens” of Democrats, Pelosi’s argument for the bill was overtly political: “Did they want a headline saying, ‘Congress is standing up to President Bush,’ or ‘Congress gives President Bush free rein?’ ”
Senator John McCain, adamantly supporting the current “surge” in Iraq says he would rather lose a presidential campaign than a war. Democrats, all smiles, prefer to lose the war and win the campaign. They’re not alone. In Iraq, Al Qaeda is smiling, too.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pmDo I need to say it? OK, I will…..I TOLD YOU SO. Yesterday, I posted that with Snow back, we will have to endure Snowjob II. First day back in the box too. Baghdad Bob had more credibility than this shitbird.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:26 pm#215 – You called it, Uncle Ho! Snowflake rarely disappoints.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:50 pmso, you don’t care what Richard Clarke said in the past, you just care what he says now
No, I only care what the facts are, not which pundit said what. I indicated Clarke changing his mind as an example of why one should not trust such “experts”.
Who do we believe, Richard Clarke now, or what he said to the bipartisan 9/11 commission and the conclusions they came to?
Your sick authority worship is getting the better of you (which is, sadly, only expected of an authoritarian wingnut). No, Clarke is not a god, he does not have a monopoly on truth, he can be, and was, mistaken.
I do not, unlike you it seems, base my view of the world on what one bureaucrat or another says, I base it on corroborating information from multiple sources. Many, many sources which must mutually validate the information.
That is why I tried to explain to you why Al-Queda and Saddam could not have a relationship, since small little itsy bitsy things like death fatwas by Osama on Saddam got in the way, amongst many other things.
You on the other hand are stuck trying desperately to pit some Clintonite hacks against some FOX News hacks. Truth, it seems, is of no interest to you, only who said what and whose bandwagon was he on.
you mean the whole Democratic Party was poorly informed about Saddam Hussein during the 1990s?
Really? Quote every single Democrat saying that “Al-Queda and Saddam are allies”. Perheaps that will teach you to stop making generalizations such as “whole Democratic Party” doing this or that.
all the Democrats during the 1990s, who called for Hussein’s head based on Clinton administration intelligence were 100% wrong
Most of them called for overthrow of Saddam because he was a tyrant, some believed him to be developing WMDs and very, very few believed he had anything to do with Al-Queda.
But then again, in your warped psyche, once one Democrat says something, it somehow immediately becomes an Official Democratic Guiding Principle To Be Applied To All “liberals” World-wide, according to you.
That would explain a lot, given that you think that Saddam’s loose association with PLO is somehow equivalent to him being card-carrying member of Al-Queda, the Illuminati, the Brain Sucking Pod People Association of Uranus, etc.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:51 pmvaliantthehater —
I’ve learned the hard way, there’s no point in arguing w/ the mentally ill. Time to have your meds adjusted.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:14 pmIntresting video on the forged memo
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ExCIA_analyst_Forged_yellowcake_memo_leads_0430.html
April 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pmWhy should this man’s straight forward lies surprise anyone? This administration is the worst I’ve seen after 41 years on this planet. I thought America suffered under the Democrats. The fact is both parties BLOW! They just get worse and worse. They’ve been milking this country for years, they’re just ratcheting it up more now. They’re two wings on the same vulture that is slowly devouring everything good this country used to stand for. We’re the biggest debter nation on the planet. The average personal savings in this country actually went negative last year. We’re in debt up to our eyeballs and the rich, ruling class is getting richer and richer. The politicians are getting more power and the people are working longer and longer hours for a lower and lower standard of living. How many times in history does this have to repeat before people finally figure out how power and money eventually corrupt all politicans.
Our government has been taken over by globalists who want to rule the planet. They’re just going about it more intelligently. Most people will still deny that there are any plans to integrate the US, Mexico, and Canada. Multinational corporations simply pay off the politicians and they pass the laws most beneficial to their financial supporters. Doesn’t matter if they are Democrats or Republicans. They’re all working for the same big money. The borders of this country, the laws of this country, and the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country are reducing the bottom line for all the business interests directing our politicians. And they’ve always been in the way of ambitious politicians. You can never have too much power. Enter the Unitary Executive! All hail the great Leader. Just trust your government, they love you. They wouldn’t do anything to hurt you. And if they screw up like they did on 911, rather than fire the whole lot, we’ll point fingers at the different parties and say its all about partisan politics and some how rationalize the whole thing. And nobody is held accountable. And no one ever takes responsibility. And in the end, the government just keeps getting bigger and bigger. The bigger the screw up, the bigger the increase in the size and power of the government. Seems any politician with half a brain would want to see big, big screw ups. Imagine how much bigger and more powerful the government will become if a nuke goes off or a WMD is used in the US. Don’t you see how this works?! NOBODY LOST THEIR JOB FOR 911!! As a matter of fact, a lot of people got promotions, raises, awards, medals, and so on. We need to stop watching the TV and atart paying attention to what “our” politicians are up to. And get over the liberal/conservative, Dem/Rep paradigm. It’s all theater folks. These people work at the same places, they go to the same parties, they vacation at the same places, they attend the same conferences, speak to the same reporters, deal with the same lobbyists. They are the ruling elite of the latest unwitting country to allow their politicians to hoodwink them into dreams of Empire. And the blood and treasure of the people will pay for their dreams of power. We’ll spend over a trillion dollars in Iraq before its all said and done and what will the people of this country have gotten in return? I’ll tell you what. Thousands of dead Americans, a worn down military, more terrorists than ever, higher gas prices, and a weaker dollar. All based on one, big, gignatic lie. 911 allowed all of this to happen. And we’ve been lied to about it. Better wake up everyone. If you think the death of a few thousand Americans is going to get in the way of kick starting a global empire, you don’t know what Empire is all about. Pearl Harbor events are great for big government. Why would politicians just wait for them to happen….?
911 was an inside job. Better learn to think for yourself, while you still can.
How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving. That phrase has been around for a long time. There’s a good reason.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:02 pmTony Snow: “The White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?”
April 30th, 2007 at 10:13 pmDick Cheney: “Right. We’ve never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming.”
—”Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow,” March 29, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
“there has been no attempt to try to link Saddam to September 11.â€
Uhhh, why did we go to Iraq then? Wow, Tony Snow, some grade school level of intellegence and some common sense would go a long way for you! Don’t think that we are as stupid as you are, Tony Snow!
April 30th, 2007 at 10:27 pmTony’s brain is fried. Let’s admit him to an old folks home.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:29 pmvaliantthehater: In reality, everything you say about Democrats is everything the Republican party is. “Don’t care about the troops, want power, political games.” Everything you talk about “little kids” and “sandbox”, that’s you. Your really confused, because there is no logic to what you say, no truth, but a case of Psychological Projection on your part. I don’t know how to explain it to you other than you need to look up Psychological Projection on the internet.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:38 pm“If the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.†An American withdrawal in the near future “almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq,†it concludes. “Massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable.â€
Did you know this is already happening? Because of people like you, hater? Yes, why don’t you come up and discuss things with 7-year old Democrats, you could learn a lot from a 7-year old.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:43 pmBest comment:
“Good BOY, Tony!!
You “got religious†and you STILL won’t tell the TRUTH.
SATAN LOVES YOU, and
I’m PROUD of you, boy, and now I know FOR SURE that I’ll
See you in hell Tony (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo),”
Has me cracking up.Snow is an idiot.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pmValiant #214:
April 30th, 2007 at 11:26 pmWhere to begin?
“It is obvious that Democrats, at least most of them, do not care about our troops.” You mean like sending them into harm’s way without sufficient equipment? You mean their families back home having to apply for food stamps? You mean cutting the VA budget to support tax cuts for all your fat cat buddies?
“In Iraq, Al Qaeda is smiling, too.” Right. If we leave, the Shiite majority will just roll over and let the Sunni Al Qaeda take over the country, foregoing all of their pent up hatred for Sunni dominance. But if we stay, we’ll eventually defeat a finite number of “terrists”, and all will be forgiven and the infant Western style democracy will just flourish. You dreamer.
Souls For Sale…Cheap!
1600 Pennsylvania…
…see the Penguin look-alike in the back…
April 30th, 2007 at 11:49 pmvaliantthehater
its true that spineless jellyfish such as the ones you quoted above repeated the lies of the bush administration. lies that came out of the ‘office of special plans’ which was located in dick cheneys office. the round table that was slated to sell the war. people in that group included rice, rove, wolfie, matlin, card, hadley and others. the pussies that repeated their lies were lying cause they knew they were lies but were to pussiefied to actually grow a cock and stand up to bush the war criminal. so there, i answered your question. now stop using the lessons youve learned from bush the liars first hand cock man, rove, and not try to change the subject. truth is, bush and the other sons of satan DID link sadam to bin laden and – 911. you wont admit it because you are full of as much satanic shit as your master, george w beelzebub. i know that you thought you had a zinger but you didnt. most of the people on this and other so-called liberal site would agree that the pussie left did repeat the lies of bushes brain and are therefore liars themselves. they would deserve to burn in the fires of hell right along side bush but at least theyve seen the errors of their ways. for that i give them a very small amount of credit. the change from the dark side of reality might save their narrow asses from spending eternity in hell along side EVERYONE that has, is or will serve in the bush admin. balls in your court.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:07 amwhile its true that spineless jellyfish such as the ones you quoted above repeated the lies of the bush administration. lies that came out of the ‘office of special plans’ which was located in dick cheneys office. the round table that was slated to sell the war. people in that group included rice, rove, wolfie, matlin, card, hadley and others. the pussies that repeated their lies were lying cause they knew they were lies but were to pussiefied to actually grow a cock and stand up to bush the war criminal. so there, i answered your question. now stop using the lessons youve learned from bush the liars first hand cock man, rove, and not try to change the subject. truth is, bush and the other sons of satan DID link sadam to bin laden and – 911. you wont admit it because you are full of as much satanic shit as your master, george w beelzebub. i know that you thought you had a zinger but you didnt. most of the people on this and other so-called liberal site would agree that the pussie left did repeat the lies of bushes brain and are therefore liars themselves. they would deserve to burn in the fires of hell right along side bush but at least theyve seen the errors of their ways. for that i give them a very small amount of credit. the change from the dark side of reality might save their narrow asses from spending eternity in hell along side EVERYONE that has, is or will serve in the bush admin. balls in your court.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:08 amTony is both a great human being and a great American
May 1st, 2007 at 12:30 amThe Bush administration has been very clear and consistent all along on 2 points.
A) There was in fact a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
B) There is no proof of any connection between Saddam Hussein and (-11 specifically.
It is difficult for me to understand how these simple and factual posiiton statements can constantly be misunderstood.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:42 amTony is both a great human being and a great American
Comment by Don — May 1, 2007
THIS GUY IS BAITING YOU SO THAT YOU SAY SOMETHING NASTY ABOUT SNOW. THAT WAY FOX AND ALL THE OTHER RIGHTIE SHITBAGS HAVE SOMETHING TO GET INDIGNANT ABOUT FOR THE NEXT WEEK. ‘OH GOD, WHINE, LOOK AT THE LIBS THEYRE SO HORRIBLE. LOOK WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT POOR, DEFENSELESS TONY SNOW. HES UNDERGOING CHEMO THERAPY AND, OH, WHINE. DONT FALL FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:16 am(rightie shitbags isnt in spell check. another right-wing conspiracy).
What I don’t understand is why don’t the reporters follow up on his obviously wrong answers with these quotes by the administration? Not just on these questions but on others. By letting Snow answer like that with refuting his facts, it makes it seem to the average viewer/listener that Snow’s answer is absolutely correct.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:14 amperahps the mouth breathers who watch faux news believe this snowjob but, 80%of americans don’t. these fools seem to forget what they say is recorded and can easily be looked up by anyone with the desire to do so. furthermore, snow seems to forget in the run up to this clusterfuck that is iraq, his home “news” channel, faux, brainwashed their braindead minions by pairing the words 9-11 and iraq in the same sentence until the above mentioned mouthbreathers began to associate the two.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:23 amI have to say that a lot of the left-leaning comment on this issue, and that of WMDs, seems to miss the subtlety of the Administration’s approach. Snow’s comment is actually largely true. The Administration drew lots of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, implying that very weak links were very strong ones. But they didn’t say that Saddam was involved in 9/11 – they just left that for people to infer, which they did, to the extent that most of you think they said it outright.
While Cheney has tried to draw some links between Saddam and 9/11, apart from the very early days he’s done that by saying “we don’t know that those links weren’t there, and we’re still investigating.†When asked straight up, Bush declared that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam and 9/11.
On a similar note, I watched hours of Bush Administration officials making the case about WMDs, and I never heard anyone declare definitively that Iraq had WMDs that posed a threat to the West. They said that Iraq had “failed to account for†X many liters of sarin and mustard gas. They were very careful not to say that Iraq actually had those weapons, not, I think, because they thought they had been destroyed, but because they knew that most of that would have been degraded beyond usefulness by then. They talked about weapons labs, but I never heard them say those labs were producing any weapons. Again, they clearly wanted you to believe something, but avoided saying it in order to preserve plausible deniability.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:19 amGet a grip folks, both the dems and the republicans are full of themselves!
May 1st, 2007 at 10:28 amPlease note themselves! Its nothing about us. Bush got the country into
something that will take time and peolple with intelligence to get us out of.
Neither parties has that! The Dems have no answers, the are just saying what they think the people want to hear. The reps just don’t know what to do. The dems in congress are just wasting their time with this war bill, they know Bush is going to veto it, but they waste time sending it anyway. You can’t run a war with several hundred people in charge, its just a pissing contest on both sides. How about setting milestones for for setting the withdraw? How about getting on the Iraq’s to take over faster. How about sitting down and working it out! Honestly for the last 14 years nothing has been down in this country due to freakin politics
good game government… good game.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:06 amYou Libs are cracking me up. Snow is claiming that the administration said there was no link between “Sadam and 9/11″. Then you guys pull all these quotes from the administration quoting ties between “Iraq and Al Qaeda”. Wow you guys are brilliant. Of course Iraq was friendly with Al Qaeda, that doesn’t mean Sadam was responsible for 9/11. Its like saying Canada won WWII because we are allies. Brilliant, thats very impressive.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:33 amExcept that part where Osama and Saddam were mortal enemies, complete with entertaining death fatwas and vicious assasination plots.
But keep repeating that lie of yours, some FOX “news” viewers are only too eager to believe you.
Just do not hope for similar results here.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:11 pmValiantthehater: So, because Democrats did it too, that makes it okay? When will all of you realize that many people in the government from both parties are more interested in getting re-elected and helping their party gain or keep control than in solving problems effectively?
May 1st, 2007 at 10:05 pmWhat a liar! Does this imbecile really think we are going to fall for something so stupid again? I taped broadcasts on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox where President Bush said that Huessein and Bin Laden were responsible for the attack on 911!!!! He said those words exactly! I am going to posts the broadcasts on Youtube and Google Video.
Liar, liar liars all of you. This is why I get my news from the Internet from now on:
http://www.jeffcohen.org/index.html
Don’t believe a word they say on TV. Television is over in this country!
May 6th, 2007 at 12:23 pm