Bush Ignored Senate’s Pre-War Intelligence Warning of Post-War Fiasco
Bush Ignored Senate’s Pre-War Intelligence Warning of Post-War Fiasco
Yesterday, a White House correspondent candidly asked Bush why the American people should trust him as “a credible messenger on the war,” in light of the major mistakes he has made since first invading Iraq:
Q: The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?
BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David.
Watch it:
Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released pre-war intelligence that warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create massive internal strife, giving extremist groups like al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence.
The U.S. intelligence community’s pre-war clairvoyance is notable. While there was originally no link between al Qaeda and Iraq, they accurately predicted how a U.S. invasion would ignite Islamic sentiment against the U.S., allowing terrorists networks like al Qaeda to resurge elsewhere and disrupt regional stability. Some highlights of the report:
“A stable democratic government in postwar Iraq would be a long, difficult, and probably turbulent challenge.”
“Al Qa’ida probably would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a U.S.-Iraq war.”
“Rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerilla warfare against the new government or Coalition forces.”
“A US-led defeat and occupation of Arab Iraq would boost proponents of political Islam and would result in ‘calls for the people of the region to unite and build up defenses against the West.’”
“Funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over US action.”
But like several other reports, the Bush administration dismissed these predictions. “The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President.”
Four years after the invasion, these predictions have become reality. Al Qaeda is resurging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, partly funded by allies in Iraq. Anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East continues to rise.
Does Bush really “read the intelligence“?
Read the intelligence report HERE.
Transcript:
Q: After the mistakes that have been made in this war, when you do as you did yesterday, where you raised two-year-old intelligence, talking about the threat posed by al Qaeda, it’s met with increasing skepticism. The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?
BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Yeah, if the intel happens to be about a pet goat.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pmSatyam - Bush meant to say, “I got my intelligence on bin Laden from Bill Clinton and George Tenet.”
May 25th, 2007 at 4:35 pmwow–the press is doing its job now?!
May 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pmif this segment says anything, it is that bush is either transparently stupid or transparently lying.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pmAnother LIE by the TREASONOUS MURDERER Bush exposed.
May he BURN IN HELL.
Actually, I WILL…
See YOU in hell unamerikkkan Bush TRAITOR (cause I’LL be THERE),
May 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pmMr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc.)
Yes, and he ignored the intelligence, then and now.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:38 pm“….could create massive internal strife.” and then again “might not”….. I love watching you grasp for straws - or anything that you suppose makes Bush look worse than you already imagine…..
May 25th, 2007 at 4:38 pmValiant, what Bush meant to say “What is intelligence?”.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pmThen why did the House and Senate vote just yesterday to continue the fight against Islamo Fascism?
May 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pmVV, ofcoarse you have to try and distract from yet another blatant failure of this admin. THEY ARE FAILURES. YOU WORSHIP KNOW NOTHING FAILURES.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pmIt takes great imagination not to see the misrepresentation Bush has made of the ‘intelligence’. I put intelligence in quotes because it doesn’t take much intelligence to have foreseen the situation today four years ago. Valiant, your straws are getting shorter and shorter.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pmPatrick1, what does that have to do with Bush yet again being exposed as an incompetent fraud?
May 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmBush doesn’t actually *read* the intelligence. He does, however, let his cronies craft intelligence and redact intelligence that doesn’t support their positions — why he reads Ziggy and works on the Jumble.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmBush doesn’t need any help looking worse.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pmTaking into account our State Dept. and CIA assesment that terrorist groups have grown in number, al Qaeda has grown in number and factions, al Qaeda recruitment is at an all time high and money from Iraq al Qaeda is flowing back into Afganistan, I’d like to know what any of the Bush supporters feel are Bush’s greatest accomplishments in the on-going “war on terror.”
May 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pmThen why did the House and Senate vote just yesterday to continue the fight against Islamo Fascism?
Comment by Patrick1 — May 25, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
You don’t see a lot of support here for the democrats either - if you do, you aren’t paying attention.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:45 pmCIA: “Here are our reports.”
Cheney: “No, not that one. No, not that one. Here, we’ll give Bush this one to read. And I’ve come up with a couple more.”
CIA: “But….”
Cheney: (with darth cheney glare) “Go back to your hole.”
.
.
.
Bush: “I’m credible because I read the intelligence”
That pretty much sums up Bush’s intelligence.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pmTell that to the 3,400+ soldiers and 650,000 civilians, piece of shit.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pm“because i read the intelligence”…i’m not believing for one nanosecond that chimplips can read!
neither can congress…they can’t even read the writing on the wall and that writing is in blood.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:50 pmI can’t believe Bush and intelligence are being used in the same sentence!
May 25th, 2007 at 4:51 pmPatrick1,
May 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pmAre you ever going to make a point in line with this article or just keep randomly bad mouthing Dems? Yeah, I’m pissed at them for the crap they pulled yesterday, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re rambling in some inane effort to defend/distract from Bush’s idiocy. What the Dems do has no baring on the fact that Bush is a dolt. This morning I was firmly out of the Dem party. The longer the day wares on and I read moronic posts like yours and other trolls/righties/rethugs/etc, the more I feel compelled back into the Dem party to keep idiotic lunatics out of positions of authority. wherever I can.
They had “a fever,” intel be damned.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pmSatyam - Bush meant to say, “I got my intelligence on bin Laden from Bill Clinton and George Tenet — and ignored it.â€
Comment by valiant venus
Fixed it for you, Mighty Idiotic Hag.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pmCommenting in blogs is not enough.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pmOf course he reads the intelligence. And if he agrees with it, he will file it away for future use (not bothering to do some research to see if what he read is credible), and if he disagrees with it, he files it in the round file.
Bush thinks he is credible because he reads the intelligence reports. What makes a President credible is when he acts on the intelligence reports. If Bush had done that, 911 probably could have been prevented.
THE MAN IS AN IDIOT!
May 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pmDavid Gregory better be careful, he won’t be allowed onstage with MC Rove anymore.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pmSatyam - Bush meant to say, “I got my intelligence on bin Laden from Bill Clinton and George Tenet.â€
Comment by valiant venus
Actually, Bush got it from another intellectual oddity: Doug Feith, chief cherry-picker in the OSP orchard.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pmOsama STILL free, still plotting, and has a great new playground to try out strategies against our pinned down troops. Kill Monkey couldn’t have arranged it better if he actually belonged to al Qaeda. Heckuva job, fearless leader!
May 25th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“Commenting in blogs is not enough.”
I certainly don’t think ANYONE thinks it is…except the trolls. Hopefully they think their idiotic ramblings are plenty. They all seem to be about 12 anyway, so I don’t need to worry about them voting until they a bit more experience with reasoning under their belt.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:55 pmBush has deceived us?!?
That is a shocking revelation and incredibly newsworthy.
I think the dems need to stand in unison and chant “liar liar pants on fire” as they hand him the next blank check on Iraq.
Yup, the news of the day is that Bush is a liar and certainly not that the “democratic” party and leadership just screwed the US public in the a$$.
Progressive indeed.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pm“They all seem to be about 12 anyway, so I don’t need to worry about them voting until they a bit more experience with reasoning under their belt.”
Boy, I know what you mean. I doubt that any of the trolls here know what critical thinking is. They are incapable of any original thoughts and don’t know how to analyze what they read. They also don’t know how to do some research before they post. They are so easy to swat down. But, I am getting sick of how the trolls and the “troll players” dominate so many threads. I still think we would be much better off if we just ignored them. I doubt they would stick around long if people just pretended they were not here.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David. ”
He’s lying. Bush can’t read.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pmThen why did the House and Senate vote just yesterday to continue the fight against Islamo Fascism?
Comment by Patrick1
Give it a rest loser. There are certainly radical Islamic fundamentalists, but the term Islamo Fascism smacks of blatant, simple minded jingoism…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
May 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pmSatyam - Bush meant to say, “I got my intelligence on bin Laden from Bill Clinton and George Tenet.â€
Comment by valiant venus
It’s a shame he didn’t listen to either of them, we wouldn’t be in this mess. how many more soldiers will have to die so the AWOL idiot president won’t have to admit he was wrong?
May 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThen why did the House and Senate vote just yesterday to continue the fight against Islamo Fascism?
Comment by Patrick1
And another thing that you’re apparently too stupid to understand, Iraq was a SECULAR country not an ISLAMIC one. Saddam, as evil as he was, was trying to contain any radical Islamic element in his own country. Since the US invasion, it has now become a magnet for radical Islam.
Heck of a job!
May 25th, 2007 at 5:19 pmi am uploading key parts,
in easily searchable, plain text, of
patrick fitzgerald’s sentencing
memorandum, in u.s. v. libby
right now, at the above link. . .
one juicy bit:
“. . .As President Bush stated on
October 6, 2003: ‘[t]his is a very serious
matter, and our administration takes it
seriously. . . . We’re talking about a
criminal action, but also hopefully will
set a clear signal we expect other leaks
to stop, as well. And so I look forward
to finding the truth.’ Remarks by
President Bush at Press Availability
with President Kibaki of Kenya,
Oct. 6, 2003. . . The President and his
spokesman made it clear on repeated
occasions that the President expected
everyone in his administration to
cooperate and provide information
to the investigators. . .
. . .the law is entitled to every man’s
evidence. Inherent in this principle is the
obligation of a witness to tell the truth,
particularly under oath. . .”
i’ll be adding more of the 21 pages,
some partially redacted, as the afternoon
wears on. . .
keep it spinnin’ in good karma!
May 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmJPV, so fighting Islamo Fascism is like fight satan! Patrick, it must be so hard to fight your imagination.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pmMy fellow left wing followers, do you think that thinkprogress.org has an agenda by refusing to report this story?
No wonder my left wing kook friends believe that Democrats are gods. They only read “news” from the left wing sites.
well, hate to burst your bubble, but here is for the “most ethical Congress in American history.”
Will Pelosi, will Democrats demand this Democrats head in a platter?
I won’t hold my breath…..
Georgia Congressman Accused of Paying $500G to Family From Campaign Funds
Friday, May 25, 2007
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. David Scott has used his campaign account to pay more than $500,000 to four family members and his family’s business, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The Atlanta Democrat, who graduated from the prestigious Wharton School of Business, also had had more than 40 tax liens — some dating to the 1980s and 1990s — placed against his home and business, the Atlanta-based Dayn-Mark Advertising. But none of that means Scott broke any campaign laws, and he says he’s paying of the tax debts, some of which he says are the results of mistakes his wife, Alfredia.
“I have done nothing wrong,” Scott told the newspaper in an interview Thursday.
Some of Scott’s financial documents have been anonymously circulated among news organizations for months, but the first story about them appeared Thursday on The Politico Web site. Scott called the story a partisan attempt by opponents to undermine him.
His business and family members have received between $52,000 and $344,000 every two-year election period. Such transfers are allowed by the Federal Election Commission as long as family members are employed and the business is providing a service it typically provides at a fair market price.
The Scotts say they decided to staff the campaign themselves after spending large sums on consultants during his first campaign in 2002. Scott’s two daughters and son-in-law began working for the campaign, and the family started running the campaign out of a single room at Dayn-Mark.
Both Scott’s business and his home are located outside his district, which covers parts of Clayton, Henry, DeKalb, south Fulton, Douglas and Cobb counties.
Scott’s taxes are under scrutiny, but the congressman blames that on his wife incorrectly filling out tax forms when Dayn-Mark moved its offices. She says she mistakenly used the name of the parent company, The Dayn-Mark Co., rather than Dayn-Mark Advertising, so tax offices treated the advertising firm as a new and separate business.
Both the ad firm and the parent company were billed for the same taxes.
“There was nothing substantially amiss,” said Scott’s lawyer, Michael Williams of Atlanta. “It looks like some mistakes were made. They will pay what they are required to pay.”
See Next Story in Politics E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
May 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pmFor the new Senate intelligence committee report, its Phase I report, the Robb-Silbermann report, the Iraq Survey Group report on WMD, the Downing Street memos and other essential documents, see:
May 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pm“The Iraq WMD Intelligence Documents Center.”
JPV, so fighting Islamo Fascism is like fight satan! Patrick, it must be so hard to fight your imagination.
Comment by Yikes
It’s just such a contrived and stupid term. That’s not to say that there isn’t a violent radical element to certain Islamic fundamentalist groups, but terms like that are blatant propaganda inventions, designed to demonize all of Islam.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:24 pm36. Clinton,
May 25th, 2007 at 5:26 pmcopy and paste much? At least I have thoughtful analysis to provide. Your comments are just cheap shots.
Hey Patrick1 and other trolls: Real quick, without looking it up, define Fascism.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pmJPV, so fighting Islamo Fascism is like fight satan! Patrick, it must be so hard to fight your imagination.
Comment by Yikes
It’s just such a contrived and stupid term. That’s not to say that there isn’t a violent radical element to certain Islamic fundamentalist groups, but terms like that are blatant propaganda inventions, designed to demonize all of Islam.
Comment by JPV — May 25, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Yeah, I guess that Nazi Germany was a stupid contrived term. right? I guess this term was created to push blatant propaganda on the world and to demonize all German people.
wow, my party member really do not know how to think.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:34 pmYeah, President Clinton, both parties are corrupt and out of control. I’ve been constantly chastised over the past several years for stating that the Democrats would be the saviors of the country once they gained control. I think that recent events have proven me correct. The two party’s are merely two sides of the same coin. All the political histrionics are nothing more that scripted theater, designed to keep the populace in a constant “us v.s them” feedback loop that keeps the keeps the status quo in power. Basically the age old tactic of divide and conquer at work.
I will say though, that more and more people seem to be coming to this realization. Perhaps the Internet has had some effect in disseminating information in such a vast manner that these truths are becoming more and more apparent.
As to whether this will bring about change, I don’t know. Personally I think that we are screwed.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:34 pmNow that you’ve had a chance to look it up, it pretty much describes the US under the Bush regime, huh???
May 25th, 2007 at 5:35 pmWhere’s the bill to fight Islamofascism? Sounds like something Virgil Goode would want to bring up on the floor.
Go get em patrickwienersavage. Contact Goode and demand he bring a bill to fight Islamofascists.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pmClearly the Republicans are in the final throes…
May 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pmYeah, I guess that Nazi Germany was a stupid contrived term. right? I guess this term was created to push blatant propaganda on the world and to demonize all German people.
wow, my party member really do not know how to think.
Comment by President Clinton
Yeah weel, why not just use the term “Islamic fundamentalism” or “radical Islam”? They seem more accurate to me.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pmNow that you’ve had a chance to look it up, it pretty much describes the US under the Bush regime, huh???
Comment by Vet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
May 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pmBush has kept us safe since 9/11. As far as I am concerned he is doing a great job. I’d rather our brave troops kill as many of those dune coons in Iraq as possible, rather than us have to weed them out here. NEWSFLASH: WE WEREN’T IN IRAQ ON 9/11!!!!!!! KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!
May 25th, 2007 at 5:42 pmYeah weel, why not just use the term “Islamic fundamentalism†or “radical Islam� They seem more accurate to me.
Comment by JPV
Accurate for a certain segment but not particularly useful in describing Iraqi insurgents, because it implies that their rationale is religious rather than political, or that they simply want the damn invaders OUT.
“Islamo fascism” is a useful term, however, for weeding out people with no historical perspective. People that throw that term around clearly have absolutely no idea what fascism was. Or is. Or could be.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pmwow, my party member really do not know how to think.
Comment by President Clinton
Yeah the Republicans have real cognative issues.
Now run off, troll. You are no Bill Clinton.
Bill was actually intellegent when he kept this zipper shut.
You are not.
your silly game is old, as well as boring.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pmwhy do you commies hate America so much?
May 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pmNEWSFLASH: WE WEREN’T IN IRAQ ON 9/11!!!!!!! KILL THEM ALL!!!!!!
Comment by neo-con sh*tkicker
Newsflash: Al Queda was not in Iraq on 9/11 either. Dumba$$
May 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pmDubya and the thugs know best.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pmwhy do you commies hate America so much?
Comment by neo-con sh*tkicker
You first, Sean.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:57 pmThe intelligence may not be credible, but that is okay. This credible or incredible intelligence is secret so it is not independently verifible. So this comes down to; “It is credible because I so”.
You can just call that a Decider, Commander Guy, royal perogative that us peasants would not get, so TS.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pmNow that you’ve had a chance to look it up, it pretty much describes the US under the Bush regime, huh?
Comment by Vet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
May 25th, 2007 at 6:03 pmZooey, you rock my world, girl!
May 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pmHey Wayne! can you say ZARQAWI? The main point is, they are in Iraq now! And you bunch of pansies want to cut and run with our tails between our legs. Oh please, Mr. Terrorist! Will you be nice to us if we leave? we are soooo sorry for offending you.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:08 pmNow that you’ve had a chance to look it up, it pretty much describes the US under the Bush regime, huh???
Comment by Vet
May 25th, 2007 at 6:12 pmZooey, you rock my world, girl!
Comment by neo-con sh*tkicker
Lucky for you. Keep dreaming.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:12 pmgiving groups like al qaeda a breeding ground in iraq is exactly when dummya and the rest of the neocon scum wanted to achieve in their eternal quest to take away our freedoms by saying “boo!, it’s al qaeda, gimmie your freedom”. of course, the remaining mouth breathing 29%ers who still support the commander in chump piss their pants like school girls and say “please protect us, dummya wheese scar-red, take away ourah rights”.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:15 pmHey Wayne! can you say ZARQAWI? The main point is, they are in Iraq now! And you bunch of pansies want to cut and run with our tails between our legs. Oh please, Mr. Terrorist! Will you be nice to us if we leave? we are soooo sorry for offending you.
Comment by neo-con sh*tkicker
Yeah, it’s not like our presence there, or our affiliation with Israel, is what’s inflaming their hatred towards us now… is it?
And if they are only just there NOW, remind me againwhy we attacked Iraq in the first place?
Idiot.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:15 pm#15
No terrorist attacks on U.S. homeland since 9/11.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:17 pmBTW, sorry for the multiple post but the site seems to be acting strange for some reason.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pmWhat do Bush and Al Qaeda have in common???
May 25th, 2007 at 6:20 pmThey want us to Stay in Iraq.
All the Well Known Dangers of toppling Saddam were Ignored, because Ahmed Chalibi, who was probably an Iranian double agent, convinced the Bush Administration that an Easy Victory in Iraq would transform the Middle East. Transformed Indeed!
Bush ignored everything that didn’t give him a “hallelujia” while he and darth were dreaming this up.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:21 pm“and David.. when I read those intelligence reports I colored some cool pictures on the back of them!..No else has done that before”
May 25th, 2007 at 6:23 pmBubble boy only reads into the intelligence report what he wants to read…and it said, “Attack Iraq, and to hell with everything else.”
1. The Dems voted as they had to, they know that we are never leaving Iraq with 14 bases and a hugh Embassy fortress there.
2. The timeline was just a show, they knew they would have to fund the war because we are not ever leaving.
3. They also are NOT GOING TO IMPEACH BUSH because then it is they that would OWN the war.
4. They want to keep the investigations going as long as possible, as the news will sooner or later have to pay attention and the general uninformed public will see the light and this will effectively destroy the Repukian Mafia.
This is what is going on for all those that have not really thought this thru.
So, no don’t Impeach the crook, destroy the Repukian Mafia so it won’t rear it’s ugly head for many decades.
Tada, that was easy now wasn’t it.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:24 pmNo terrorist attacks on U.S. homeland since 9/11.
Comment by Tracy
Oh yeah, I believe that there have been many (alleged) attacks that were thwarted, both in the US and abroad, by law enforcement.
Odd, I don’t remember there being no where near as many attempts before 911.
Explain that one please.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pmBush cultist: “Yeah, I guess that Nazi Germany was a stupid contrived term. right? I guess this term was created to push blatant propaganda on the world and to demonize all German people.”
Why in the face of all facts and logic do right wing cultists insist on comparing “islamafascism” to Nazi Germany? OK, one more time: approximately 3% of all Sunnis favor a world-wide Caliphate. Nazi Germany was, at one time, the world’s most formidable industrial and military power.
Can you war apologists begin to see a difference here — you know, world’s most powerful industrial military power vs. some terrorists???!!! Get it?
May 25th, 2007 at 6:29 pmDoes Bush really “read the intelligence“?
Can Bush really read with intelligence?
May 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pmTracy: “No terrorist attacks on U.S. homeland since 9/11.”
That’s right, Tracy, that was the answer I was looking for, because I know it’s the only one you’ve got. One problem though. By that criteria, Bill Clinton was even more successful — the WTC was attacked only 30 days into his first term and islamic terrorists never again attacked our country successfully for the rest of his 8 years. So, just to be consistent, if you think this has been a success for Bush, you must also approve of the way Clinton handled terrorism, right?
May 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm#32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
“Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes”
Now we read the goals of Al Qaeda:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-600175-Trans.pdf
“Page 2
Goals of Al Qaeda:
The victory of the mighty religion of Allah, the establishment of an Islamic Regime and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, God willing.â€
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Caliphate
“A caliphate (from the Arabic خلاÙØ© or khilaafah), is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world.”
Joseph Sobran isn’t too bright because he obviously doesn’t know a thing about al Qaeda.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:34 pmI was raised never to wish anyone ill - it’s still difficult for me, but I’ll make an exception - I do hope he burns in hell - but before that I want him to suffer on earth. I’ve never despised anyone as much as I despise Bush - Nixon was nasty, but he was a choirboy compared to the repellent, disgusting thing that is Bush. He has broken our country, and left us naked in the world.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:35 pmTracy, maybe it would be comforting to you to know that a greater percentage of Americans want to violently change our system to a theocracy than the percentage of Sunnis who want a world Caliphate.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pmYeah but — um — um — but — um –
Sandy Burglar!
May 25th, 2007 at 6:42 pmHey Wayne! can you say ZARQAWI? The main point is, they are in Iraq now! And you bunch of pansies want to cut and run with our tails between our legs. Oh please, Mr. Terrorist! Will you be nice to us if we leave? we are soooo sorry for offending you.
Comment by neo-con sh*tkicker
1. Zarqawi was not in Al Qeda till AFTER the Iraq war started.
2. I am a veteran, and if you called me a pansy to my face, I would beat you siller than you already are. ( name the place, wimp, if you want to take me on. I will rent a boxing ring for the day. I have vacation time stored up.)
3. the Iraq War was supposed to be about WMDs that never exhisted.
Join up. I am sure there is a recruiter near you. wuss.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:45 pmYou run your mouth but are too cowardly to go to Iraq yourself.
#65
“Odd, I don’t remember there being no where near as many attempts before 911.”
“Explain that one please.”
I don’t think I need to, but I can point out that there have been more sucessful attacks against the U.S. in the 6 years before 9/11 than the 6 years after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_terrorist_incidents#1995
May 25th, 2007 at 6:45 pmIs this really the base of the democrat party? Anti -semites, conspiracy theorists, and America-hating commies. As a Republican during the 90’s, I often felt that my own party went too far in some of its attacks on slick willie, but even the most passionate clinton-hater pales in comparison to the frankly pathological hatred I read and hear in lib circles. The lib response to Tony Snows cancer returning was the worst. Shameful.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:46 pmIt is so sad that you have been blinded by hatred.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pm“That’s right, Tracy, that was the answer I was looking for, because I know it’s the only one you’ve got.”
Oh, I have alot more….stay tuned.
“So, just to be consistent, if you think this has been a success for Bush, you must also approve of the way Clinton handled terrorism, right?”
Nope because of Clinton al Qaeda was able to plot 9/11 and establish Afghanistan as it’s base of operations.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm#71
Ok, cite you information source.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pmWayne. Meet me at your mom’s house tonight after I f#ck her brains out. I’ll let you smell my fingers when I am breaking your jaw!
May 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm3444 times wrong Bush you butcher
May 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pmwhy do you commies hate America so much?
Comment by neo-con sh*tkicker
Wow, that question really put me to think. So elaborated and lucid. /sarc, of course.
Must be propaganda happy hour.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:55 pmMeet me at your mom’s house tonight after I f#ck her brains out. I’ll let you smell my fingers when I am breaking your jaw!
Comment by neo-con sh*tkicker
mmmm…no surprise here. Chickenhawk.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:56 pmwhy do you commies hate America so much?
May 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pmComment by neo-con sh*tkicker
As I recall, it was hatred of those commies that led Pres. Reagan to support the Mujahadiin in Afghanistan… and we all know how that turned out.
You have to hand it to the trolls, they really know how to fill a thread with a lot of words. What’s the secret, quantity over quality?
May 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pmBush Ignored Senate’s Pre-War Intelligence Warning of Post-War Fiasco.
Wow, that’s a big surprise.
Absolutely unreal that they are even still in office.
Really, when you think about it, it’s the perfect place for the ultimate criminal.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pmTotally above the law while they decide whether or not to investigate themselves.
It’s no wonder you end up with people like this inpersonating an actual president.
They’ve been workin’ on it for a long time, with plenty of money to use in the process.
They had good credit standings with the lenders.
Plenty of equity contained in middle class U.S. taxpayers pockets .
Bush read the same intelligence as Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, the Brits, the French, the U.N., the intelligence committee, etc, etc,. All drew the same conclusions. Democrats may not have much else going for them, but you have to admit, their hindsight is 20/20 and monday morning quarterbacking is exceptional. Here’s a little reality check. With all the information we have now and all the calls for impeachment and troop withdrawl, your newly elected Democratic congress has determined that it’s still important to fund the conflict.
But they’ll be blaming Bush for deceiving them about the funding or explaining that they knew it was a bad idea all along by this time next year.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:26 pmDo you agree with Congress passing the Iraq war funding bill without a withdrawal timetable?
Yes 40% 40810 votes
No 60% 60175 votes
http://www.cnn.com/ POLLSERVER/ results/ 32100.exclude.html
May 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pmBush read the same intelligence as Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, the Brits, the French, the U.N., the intelligence committee, etc, etc,.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
But only was stupid enough to invade… and thats not all. He is still there and you are still supporting him AFTER it has been proved that THERE WERE no WMDs. After it has been proved that US government built a case to support the invasion. And yet, 4 years later you are supporting an occupation that began as A LIE. A freaking lie. And you are here defending that? Are you that stupid? Yes, I believe you are.
Let me say that again: there were no WMDs and US forces are still there…building a 104 acre embassy (biggest in the world).
May 25th, 2007 at 7:32 pmBush read the same intelligence as Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, the Brits, the French, the U.N., the intelligence committee, etc, etc,. All drew the same conclusions.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:35 pmI beg to differ. All agreed that Saddam was dangerous, and needed to be opposed and thwarted. Bush concluded that the answer to this problem was WAR!
I don’t think I need to, but I can point out that there have been more sucessful attacks against the U.S. in the 6 years before 9/11 than the 6 years after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_terrorist_incidents#1995
Comment by Tracy — May 25, 2007
You’re totally full of it…
By my count, there was a total of 4 Islamic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks between 1995-2001.
There was 13, or maybe more, between 2001-2007.
And if we’re going to count attacks on US forces overseas, such as the Cole bombing, then we must also count the literally hundreds, perhaps even THOUSANDS, of terrorist attacks on US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan too.
Some thwarted attacks that were missing from that list…
May 25th, 2007 at 7:45 pm“Just go away, leave us alone, scoot; we read that there intelligence and just knew before we read it that it wasn’t reliable, we’re the deciders here”
George the Bush
“And, furthermore, we still read that there intelligence, and we’re ain’t gonna listen to nobody”
May 25th, 2007 at 7:46 pmJuan C. You may not like Sean Hannity, but he has at least a dozen clips of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and many other Democrats of the time; hawkishly promoting action be taken to prevent Saddam from using the WMD that everyone believed he had at the time.
Juan, I’m sure you have good intentions, but I believe you have a short (or selective) memory.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pm“…hawkishly promoting action be taken to prevent Saddam from using the WMD that everyone believed he had at the time.”
Irrelevant. None of the democrats you mention would have ginned up fake intelligence to cover for an illegal invasion of Iraq. That’s what Bush did. No, all of them favored continued santions, inspections and no-fly zones.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pmCharlie Brown. Hillary Clinton is a pretty bright woman. Her husband had been out of the White House for about a year, she was a Senator and she knew most of the main intelligence players on the world stage (Bill appointed Tenet). And, of course, she had ambitions for her own presidency. Was she that disconnected, or naive, or gullible, or politically inept; to be decieved by the Bush administration to whole-heartedly support the authorization for war? Or is it possible, that with the information that was available at the time, it seemed like appropriate action?
You are blinded by your hindsight. But because the video of the strong democratic support of time exists (the information that you are unable or unwilling to consider) your accusations are ridiculous.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:01 pmhawkishly promoting action be taken to prevent Saddam from using the WMD that everyone believed he had at the time.
Captain Manastic…
Since I don’t watch fox news, educate me. You have these democrats on tape suggesting we INVADE Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein by MILITARY Action????
May 25th, 2007 at 8:02 pmWhat does hawkishly promoting action mean???
Comment by CaptainMantastic
There were/are no WMDs. Period. That was the whole point of the invasion that began with Shock and Awe. How many civilians died for a lie? I dont care about Dems, Repubs, Fox News, or other political actors… There thousands of civilians dead, buddy, for a freaking lie.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pmJohnathan Alter on Countdown…
…brilliantly responded to Keith’s question…
…about why Bushiva signed the supplemental in private…
Alter said:
“Perhaps because he knew he was signing the death warrants of many of the troops.”
…now WHY couldn’t the Democratic leadership…
…have FRAMED the funding debate that way?
…Do the Democrats REALLY want to win the WH?
…or is the ship taking on so much water…
…its sinking is unavoidable?
May 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pmBadger. It’s about 10 minutes long. nothing important is said for about the first 5 minutes, but after that you get a sample of what people were saying at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8
May 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — May 25, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
CM, are you actually suggesting that because Hillary and the other democratic Congresspeople did not suspect the reports on Iraq supplied by the intelligence community were bogus, it is their fault they were tricked?
According to that logic, I can run a fake investment scheme and swindle people out of their savings, and when I’m caught, I can just say, “hey…these people are pretty smart…were they that disconnected, or naive, or gullible, to allow me to swindle them?”.
The fact that the pre-war intelligence was ginned up to fit the preexisting policy decision to invade and occupy Iraq is well established. The responsibility to procure accurate intel does not belong to Congress. Quit making excuses.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:18 pmBush may have read the report, but he did not give a shit. The neo-Nazi neocons were hellbent on war in Iraq no matter the consequences.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pmI’m credible because I read the intelligence, David. Then I fix it around the policy.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:30 pmCM, are you actually suggesting that because Hillary and the other democratic Congresspeople did not suspect the reports on Iraq supplied by the intelligence community were bogus, it is their fault they were tricked?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Don’t be fooled. Both parties are scum…
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
May 25th, 2007 at 8:31 pmPronunciation: ‘vik-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English victorie, from Anglo-French, from Latin victoria, from victor
1 : the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist
2 : achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties
–definition courtesy of webster’s online dictionary
jonathan alter also said that perhaps the president is beginning to scale down the meaning of victory.
and here we thought that minitrue and newspeak existed only in mr. orwell’s warning. DAYUM!
May 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pmneo-con sh; repeat after me; Better Red Than Dead. Better Red Than Dead. Better Red Than Dead. See? Wasn’t that easy? Keep repeating.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pmDon’t be fooled. Both parties are scum…
Oh, rest assured, I’m not fooled. I’m just pointing out that because the intelligence leading up to the invasion was falsified, judging Congresspeople on the basis of that vote is not valid.
There’s plenty of other things to judge Congressspeople on, however, and in those, they have indeed been found wanting. This latest blank check to continue this criminal occupation is just the latest and most egregious example.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pmFlashback. 1999 War Games Foresaw Problems in Iraq:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 11/ 04/ AR2006110400577.html
And let’s not forget the Cheney quote from 1991 (I’ll not repost it, it’s easy to google).
May 25th, 2007 at 9:15 pmIf Bush would have acted on the intelligence, it would have scared the 2nd graders. (see “My Pet Goat”)
May 25th, 2007 at 9:27 pmOnce Mr. Bush makes his mind up on a course of action, “neither hell nor high water” can change it.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:34 pmIt’s nice to see the media doing its job like it should.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:55 pmIf Georgie Boy doesn’t even read a newspaper, why should I be surprised that he wouldn’t read an intelligence report.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:59 pmNeocon Sh*tweed, strap on your Kevlar, take up your rifle and stand the post.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:57 pmHopefully these terrorist monkeys will peacefully kill each other off…
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
elect some terrorists
who will keep war alive
May 26th, 2007 at 5:40 amuse you as human shields
.
Ah yes, the old “here’s a few cherry-picked things from a large report and we present it as the full truth” trick. Well done.
The report also says a lot of other things, but we’ll just leave those out because we’re doing this whole cherry-picking thing. Wait, isn’t that what you guys accused Bush of doing?
Oh yes, hypocrisy. At Think Progress. What. A. Shocker.
So we all knew and understood that reforming Iraq would be hard, Bush even said so on May 1, 2003. Does that mean we don’t do it?
The Think Progress motto should be: If It’s Hard Work, Don’t Do It.
May 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pmDid you read my post? I said SUCESSFUL attacks. The fact the so many attacks have be thwarted from 1996-2006 is a good…don’t you think? Look again at the SUCESSFUL attacks specifically targeting Americans. BTW we are talking about Islamic fundementalist terrorist attacks NOT domestic attacks that were in no way related to people on a Jihad.
“And if we’re going to count attacks on US forces overseas, such as the Cole bombing…”
The USS Cole was attacked when the U.S. was not in the middle of a war. The situation was one of relative
“By my count, there was a total of 4 Islamic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks between 1995-2006.”
Your count? Are you trying to tell me that you only know of 4 attacks that either were sucessful or foiled from 1996-2000 LOL! There were many foiled attacks thru out the 1990s, but it’s funny you aren’t giving Clinton any credit for them. First of all a list of SUCESSFUL attacks by Islamic fundementalists specifically targeting Americans from 1995 to 2001:
1996:
June 25: Khobar Towers bombing — In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Hizballah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Hizballah) with Iranian support, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists.
1997:
February 24: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself.
1998:
August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
1999:
None.
2000:
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, the Buffalo Six Lackawanna Cell.[98]
2001:
Attacks killed 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit an unknown, but likely prominent, Washington, D.C. target, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane’s passengers; by Al-Qaeda.
2002:
None.
2003:
None.
2004:
None.
2005:
None.
2006
None.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:14 pm#114 is in response to #90.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm#68
“…the WTC was attacked only 30 days into his first term and islamic terrorists never again attacked our country successfully for the rest of his 8 years.”
So considering the U.S. Embassy in Kenya was actually U.S. soverign soil that didn’t count? LOL!
May 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pmScott Bronstein and/or the TRAC have to be some of the most clueless people in regards to national security.
http://www.cnn.com/ 2007/ POLITICS/ 05/ 27/ homeland.security.record/ index.html
May 28th, 2007 at 12:10 amDid you read my post? I said SUCESSFUL attacks. The fact the so many attacks have be thwarted from 1996-2006 is a good…don’t you think?
Comment by Tracy
Yeah, I read your post. I just don’t agree with your flawed logic.
Successful or not, I think it is safe to say that the “War on Terror” has fomented more animosity towards the US and hence more attempted terrorist attacks.
And like I said earlier, if your going to count the bombings of US troops, such as the USS Cole, then you’re going to have to include hundreds of successful insurgent/terrorist attacks on US troops in Iraq since 2003.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:01 am“By my count, there was a total of 4 Islamic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks between 1995-2006.â€
Your count? Are you trying to tell me that you only know of 4 attacks that either were sucessful or foiled from 1996-2000 LOL! There were many foiled attacks thru out the 1990s, but it’s funny you aren’t giving Clinton any credit for them. First of all a list of SUCESSFUL attacks by Islamic fundementalists specifically targeting Americans from 1995 to 2001:
1996:
June 25: Khobar Towers bombing — In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Hizballah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Hizballah) with Iranian support, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists.
1997:
February 24: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself.
1998:
August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
1999:
None.
2000:
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, the Buffalo Six Lackawanna Cell.[98]
2001:
Attacks killed 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit an unknown, but likely prominent, Washington, D.C. target, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane’s passengers; by Al-Qaeda.
Comment by Tracy
Oh I’m sorry dear, it was 5 not 4 then.
LOL!!!
May 28th, 2007 at 1:04 am“And if we’re going to count attacks on US forces overseas, such as the Cole bombing…â€
The USS Cole was attacked when the U.S. was not in the middle of a war. The situation was one of relative
Comment by Tracy
Please dear, how is it relative then? Terrorist attacks don’t count in the middle of a war.
LOL!!!! That’s rich dude… REAL rich.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:06 amThere were many foiled attacks thru out the 1990s, but it’s funny you aren’t giving Clinton any credit for them. First of all a list of SUCESSFUL attacks by Islamic fundementalists specifically targeting Americans from 1995 to 2001:
Comment by Tracy
I could care less about Clinton. I think all politicians are criminals regardless of party affiliation.
Either way I’m a Conservative. An “old school” Conservative. I believe in a non-interventionalist foreign policy, smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The hallmarks of conservative ideology and the antithesis of the Neo-conservative movement. The Liberal Neo-conservative are merely pretending to be Conservative, and apparently are good at fooling idiots like you. Do some research into the history of the Neo-conservative movement and you’ll see what I mean.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:11 am#118 and #119
“Successful or not, I think it is safe to say that the “War on Terror†has fomented more animosity towards the US and hence more attempted terrorist attacks.”
Well you just can be defensive and hope that they leave us alone. We tried that during the 1990s and we got 9/11. Offense is absolutely necessary in today’s world.
“Oh I’m sorry dear, it was 5 not 4 then.”
5 not 4? In 2001 Clinton was president. That’s 4 SUCESSFUL attacks. There were many foiled attacks during the 1990s BTW.
“I believe in a non-interventionalist foreign policy…”
Oh, you are one of those isolationists freaks like Buchanan. Wow! Not a Reagan supporter I take it.
“…smaller government and fiscal responsibility.”
Those two I agree with except I want a strong military with ability to respond to any crisis that might affect the security interests of the U.S.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:39 pm