‘Bush knew Saddam had no WMD.’
By on Sep 6th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
‘Bush knew Saddam had no WMD.’
Sidney Blumenthal reports in Salon that President Bush ignored a 2002 Oval Office briefing in which CIA director George Tenet provided him with intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. “Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail.” “The president had no interest in the intelligence,” a CIA officer disclosed. “Bush didn’t give a f**k about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
a CIA officer disclosed.? WHO IS THIS CIA officer ?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:53 pmWhy did this CIA Officer say something to Congress way back then?
Questions Rise!
September 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pmdid you really have a doubt?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:57 pmYep, Bush lied. Period.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:57 pmTwo words that never ever go together
Bush and Intelligence
September 6th, 2007 at 12:57 pmIf only Saddam were still in power, then everything would be great.
He never would have tried to replenish his stockpiles, he would never have reinstituted his nuclear program, he certainly would have allowed the Kurds to live in peace and, of course he never would have been a problem to the US or his neighbors.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pmThis is news? I thought everyone knew that this regime cherry-picked their intelligence.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pmAnd Bush didn’t care to let the weapons inspectors complete their task. They kept coming up empty. Bush promised the American people that he would pursue this issue through the UN Security Council. In a speech on national TV, Bush promised he would bring it to a Security Council vote. He didn’t. Only days later, he backed out of his promise and broke his word. What kind of cowboy breaks his word (as Bush prides himself on cowboy ethics)?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pmCIA officer disclosed? WHO, WHAT CIA officer ?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pmBush “knew” Saddam had WMD because Bush is smarter than everyone else. He’s got Jesus and his gut that guide him, so everyone else should just shut up. LOL. What an arrogant little frat boy.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pmMr. Tenet and Mr. Sabri your presence is requested to appear before congress and this time bring a change of clothes. You’ll be there for awhile. The cell can certainly hold two.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pmRemember, God told him to do it. And who was George gonna believe– The CIA, or God?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pmIf only Saddam were still in power, then everything would be great.
He never would have tried to replenish his stockpiles, he would never have reinstituted his nuclear program, he certainly would have allowed the Kurds to live in peace and, of course he never would have been a problem to the US or his neighbors.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
If he did eventually do these things then it might have made sense to act. When, and if he actually did them.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pmThat’s absolutely right Ringo. The UN inspectors basically proved that Saddam was being held in check by santions and no new programs had been initiated. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed because of a horrible political blunder that had very little to do with our national security and only made the threat of global terrorism worse. Unbelievable, isn’t it?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pmRegardless, the U.S. is better off without Saddam in power.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pmAnd, the Duelfer Report proved the sanctions were not working and Saddam had the intent to rebuild stockpiles.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:02 pmAccording another story today turns out that the “samples” of Saddam’s chemical warfare agents siezed in the first Gulf War and stored at the U.N. all these years were actually non-toxic cleaning agents- Weapons of Mass Disinfection?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:02 pmof course he never would have been a problem to the US or his neighbors.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Well, he was once called a good friend by Von Rumsfeld. They could have patched things up, just like you and Mr P, after the “Cabana Boy Incident”.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pmBetter safe than sorry, rehbock.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pmRegardless, the U.S. is better off without Saddam in power.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Ah, another BASELESS claim, from the DUMBEST lawyer to ever practice law in california!
The only way the US is better off, is that they saw how incompetent and stupid you wingnuts are and have swung very far left politically. So that so far is the ONLY way the US is better off!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pmRegardless, the U.S. is better off without Saddam in power.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Still palying basketball on the Ole Gridiron? What war did you fight in? The Civil or Spanish American?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:04 pmRingo,
spin it anyway you like, but Bush lied to the American people, involved us in a war where Americans have died, but more importantly PEOPLE of this world have suffered and died because one man has a inferior complex and chooses to listen to hit “guts” instead of the intelligence surrounding every issue…
RINGO, why are you still defending this guy? one reason, just one, I ask?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:04 pmand you can’t say you aren’t…you spin every news article so that he doesn’t look as bad…you are a supporter of the worst president the US has ever had.
Someone correct me if I am wrong…but wouldn’t that make Bush a war criminal?
Again, why isn’t this on mainstream media?
jack jett
September 6th, 2007 at 1:04 pmThis miserable failure of a “President”, the V.P. and all the rest of these war profiteering fascists need to be lead out of the White House in handcuffs. To remain in support this immoral, corrupt administration, one must be either; 1) Equally corrupt and immoral, or, 2) Be a gullible idiot that will believe anything, regardless of FACTS to the contrary.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:04 pmAnd, the Duelfer Report proved the sanctions were not working and Saddam had the intent to rebuild stockpiles.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Classic federalist liar. Ignore what the evidence says, and falsely claim it says something else. How you were never disbarred is unimaginable you lying retarded old hack!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:04 pm#
Regardless, the U.S. is better off without Saddam in power.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
That’s bull$hit. The world would be BETTER OFF if Saddam was still rotting in Baghdad.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pmNext, you’re gonna tell me they didn’t have an exit strategy for Iraq.
(Filed under, “No kidding!”)
September 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pmRegardless, the U.S. is better off without Saddam in power.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Are we really?
We’ve killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, creating thousands of current and future terrorists. We are stuck in a quagmire, losing thousands of american lives, and have no idea how to get out. All to remove a dictator that could been easily contained.
I actually don’t think we are.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pmof course he never would have been a problem to the US or his neighbors.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Funny, Iran probably feels the same way about us. So now you’re using the Hitler defense? They MIGHT threaten me someday? Wow, you really are a little retarded nazi, aren’t you Ringo?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pmOur military was in much better shape, we were involved with trying to capture or kill bin Laden in Afganistan, there were absolutely no military recruitment problems, our National Guard was able to deal with domestic emergencies, the number of al Qaeda members was much lower, the rest of the world was on our side and we had $500 billion more public dollars with which to help shore up our infrastructure or provide healthcare….
Jake D.: “Regardless, the U.S. is better off without Saddam in power.”
Yikes!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pmBush derives his support almost wholly from the religious right, the 25%ers. They support him in every decision not on the merits of his policies, but because they share the same religion.
Their support is not falsifiable.
If there is no act so egregious that the supporters would not defend it (and I think this is true) then their support for any act has no relevance.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pmJake D.: “And, the Duelfer Report proved the sanctions were not working and Saddam had the intent to rebuild stockpiles.”
At best, that’s a gross distortion of the report. At worst it’s just a damn lie. Duelfer, although hand-picked by Bush, found no evidence of WMD’s and only the slightest anecdotal evidence of possible programs.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:08 pmRingo is a great example of what a Neocon foot soldier is supposed to be like. When faced with evidence that contradicts the goal of the Neocon switch the focus to attempt and keep the truth hidden.
Economically speaking are we better off with the tremendous amount of unfunded debt because of this?
Militarially speaking are they better equipped and staffed because of this?
Constitutionally speaking has this administration worked to keep it strong?
If you answered yes to any of these Ringo would like to be your friend.
Reason #12 not to vote for a republican. They can’t read without their partisan glasses on.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:09 pmhey the main stream media is just now picking up on this? wow now thats slow.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pmBetter safe than sorry, rehbock.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
So that’s really our foreign policy? Premptive war or nukefest on a hunch. You can’t be f’in serious.
Ingest some cyanide and make the world a better place.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pmThat’s absolutely right Ringo. The UN inspectors basically proved that Saddam was being held in check by santions and no new programs had been initiated.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
————————————————————————
The only problem is that for the previous decade the Left in America and around the world, with the help of the UN, was doing everything it could to have the sanctions removed.
While, at the same time, the UN was actively subverting the sanctions and the money that was supposed to go for food and medical supplies was being stolen by Saddam to build palaces or to bribe UN officials. And all the while, the Left and much of the world was blaming the US for the “deaths of millions of Iraqi children” from starvation and lack of medical supplies.
We were in a situation where, had we not removed Saddam, he would soon have been completely free to go back to his old ways….Thanks to the compassionate Left and the United Nations.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pmRingo: Please define “better”. Define it with facts, not propaganda.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pmTell that to the families of the soldiers who died.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:11 pmWe were in a situation where, had we not removed Saddam, he would soon have been completely free to go back to his old ways….Thanks to the compassionate Left and the United Nations.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
So your entire argument is based on invading another country for what MIGHT happen? Like I said, a play right out of Nazi Germany’s playbook! You aren’t jewish are you, because if you are you dishonor all those that died from repeating that kind of atrocity!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:12 pmStarting a war of aggression is a war crime(per Nuremberg rulings), punishable by death. So Bush is JUST AS GUILTY AS HITLER!!!
Hang these motherf*ckers, NOW!!!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThink Progress, yesterday: “Bush still thought Saddam had WMDs in 2006″
Think Progress, today: “Bush knew there were no WMDs in 2002″
September 6th, 2007 at 1:13 pmWhile, at the same time, the UN was actively subverting the sanctions and the money that was supposed to go for food and medical supplies was being stolen by Saddam to build palaces or to bribe UN officials. Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
You mean like how Bush’s friends in Texas were doing that? You ever wonder why the investigation against the UN stopped? It blew back to texas! Just like Halliburton selling sanctioned goods illegally to Iran while he was CEO. Stop whining Hypocrites!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pmMy neoCon brother said to me the other day that Bush found the WMD. I was stunned! It’s scary watching my own family members taken hostage by the Republican Cult. Seriously, folks, millions of Americans STILL sincerely believe the WMDs were found. When people are this deluded, it does not bode well for the future of America’s national security. I’m afraid our country is FINISHED because the proverbial village idiot has become a respectable person in our time. Kiss American goodbye.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pmThink Progress, yesterday: “Bush still thought Saddam had WMDs in 2006″
Think Progress, today: “Bush knew there were no WMDs in 2002″
Comment by Midwest Product — September 6, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Hey Bush DID know, just like he KNEW evolution was real, but then again when did REALITY ever change the OPINION of you retarded wingnuts?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pmmichael,
Yes, you are retarded.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI’m afraid our country is FINISHED because the proverbial village idiot has become a respectable person in our time. Kiss American goodbye.
Comment by corsair — September 6, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
The village idiot only constitutes about 35% of America, please don’t write off the whole country because of these minority idiots!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com refute this…
September 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/05/bush-believed-that-there-were-wmds-in-iraq-through-2006/
Ringo: “We were in a situation where, had we not removed Saddam, he would soon have been completely free to go back to his old ways….Thanks to the compassionate Left and the United Nations.”
That’s simply conjecture. The fact is that Saddam was boxed in and kept in check. And, I think if you’ll check, you’ll find that just as many conservatives were complaining about Clinton’s and the UN’s santions as lefties. Dick Cheney publically complained about them as he attempted to set up phony Halliburton subsidiaries to do business with Saddam.
Again, this illegal, political war of aggression has had NO demonstratable positive results. The results have been all bad for our country and for the world. All you have to defend it are platitudes and conjecture.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThis war will go into the history books as a war of aggression by the U.S. with its leaders deceiving anyone they had to do get the war going.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pmBush is a mass Baby killer then
September 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pmThink Progress, yesterday: “Bush still thought Saddam had WMDs in 2006″
Think Progress, today: “Bush knew there were no WMDs in 2002″
Comment by Midwest Product
Actually ThinkProgress is reporting and linking to existing stories out there. Why is there a contridiction in the stories? Is one right? if so, which? Both can certainly be true. Bush could well have been told there were not WMD and he just didn’t listen because it didn’t fit his desires.
Or, Andy Card could be floating the “bush believed in 2006″ story to contridict the one where bush is commiting a war crime. That is totally plausible as well. either way, bush is an idiot. his supporters are idiots. and jake is still a lying coward.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pmBush, Cheney, Tenet, and every other person responsible for the distortion and manipulation of intelligence that led to us into this abomination of a war should be tried and executed.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pmDigDug:
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. There’s a comprehensive accounting of WMD found in Iraq in the Duelfer Report. More importantly, from the Addendum:
“The investigation centered on the possibility that
WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious
from other sections of the Comprehensive Report,
Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of
military and other material to Iraq in contravention
of the UN sanctions. This indicated a fl exibility with
respect to international law and a strong willingness
to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable
profi t for those involved. Whether Syria received
military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other
reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence
of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated
by a Syrian security offi cer, and ISG received
information about movement of material out of Iraq,
including the possibility that WMD was involved. In
the judgment of the working group, these reports were
suffi ciently credible to merit further investigation.
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and
is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was
evacuated to Syria before the war.”
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/DuelferRpt/Addendums.pdf
September 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pmmommy, what does weiner taste like?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThink Progress, yesterday: “Bush still thought Saddam had WMDs in 2006″
Think Progress, today: “Bush knew there were no WMDs in 2002″
No contradiction. Just proof that Bush ignores facts.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmAll you have to defend it are platitudes and conjecture.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 6, 2007 @
—————————————————————–
My argument was not made of “platitudes and conjecture”.
Everything that I said was true.
The Left is so consumed by anti-Americanism that it will defend any tyrant that hates the US.
That’s why the Left wanted sactions against Iraq lifted – sanctions that they now claim kept Saddam “boxed in”.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmBush is like the loose stool that, as it spins down the drain, manages to leave a viscous streak on the side of the bowl. No amount of repeated flushings will remove the streak–heavy scrubbing is required.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pmAll who feel that we are better off without Saddam is as crazy as bush. He was not a treat to us, you were mislead to believe he was. Yes he was cruel to his people but nothing worst than what we have done.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pmThe fact is we were lied into Bush’s war and we now we are being brow beat to follow this failure. I say NO
mommy, what does weiner taste like?
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
“It tastes like your brother, Jake.”
September 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pmRINGO,
answer the question, why do you still support G. W. Bush?
you can post it in bullet form if you like.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:27 pmRingo: “My argument was not made of “platitudes and conjectureâ€.
Everything that I said was true.
The Left is so consumed by anti-Americanism that it will defend any tyrant that hates the US.”
Ringo, you protest that your argument was not conjecture or platitude and then you go on to make a completely subjective statement with no grounding in fact or data. What does that statement even mean? Can you offer any example of the left “defending any tyrant that hates the U.S.?” I’m guessing you can’t. You need to understand the difference between feelings and facts.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmYour’e an idiot jake. you claim that “There’s a comprehensive accounting of WMD found in Iraq in the Duelfer Report” but you don’t offer any proof of that. Instead you claim that ” more importantly” there is a “possibility that
September 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmWMD materials were moved to Syria.’” Do you know what “possibility” means? It means it hasn’t been proven. dthe fact that it is in the Addendeum means that it wasn’t part of the main findings and is in fact a minorty, dissenting view that was put in at the end to make the dissenter happy. As a “lawyer” you should know that. The rest of your “proof” is full of the same sort of qualifers. There’s a Possibility” that Saddam had sharks with fricken lasers tied to their heads too. Why aren’t you arguing about how bush saved us from that threat as well?
whoa_now,
I have never been a big fan of George Bush, I am simply not deranged with hatred like you are.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmIf Jake’s assertion is true then why hasn’t there been a “surge” on Syria? There’s WMD’s involved and that was enough to invade Iraq. We just missed them. Why hasn’t GW pointed our guns at Syria and give them the same ultimatums that he gave to Saddam? If it was good enough for Iraq I’m sure it’s good enough for Syria.
I’m on the ignore list (damn proud to) so Jake won’t answer me but this is the hole in his theory. I’d like to hear the logik behind why we haven’t so far. Or is this Plan B of the October suprise?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmThat’s why the Left wanted sactions against Iraq lifted – sanctions that they now claim kept Saddam “boxed inâ€.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Well, it certainly would have made life easier for Americans like Dick Cheney to do business w/ Iraq… hmmm… never mind.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmColin Powell told Bush in 2001 that Saddam had no WMD. On Feb. 24, 2001 (before 9/11) Powell said: “He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” See the first link here…
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmhttp://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml
Can you offer any example of the left “defending any tyrant that hates the U.S.?â€
Col. Jack
——————————————————
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Castro and Hugo Chavez to name but a few.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmFor the record, Syria is still on the Axis of Evil.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmHmmmmm….didn’t TP just report here yesterday that President Bush believed Saddam had WMD’s as late as 2006?
Which is it, folks?
He either believed Saddam did, or believed Saddam didn’t.
Must be one or the other…can’t be both.
In whom’s opinion do you take stock in today???
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmhelliabucket,
Maybe jake will give you a “for the record” response. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that we haven’t invaded Syria yet because they’re still torturing people for us.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmI’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!
Who would have ever believed that Bush might shun intelligence?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pmHere’s what the Duelfer Report found:
No nuclear weapons program: ”Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war.”
No chemical weapons program: ”ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter….”
No biological weapons program: ”ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.”
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
September 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pm“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
George Bush – March 18, 2003
Stone. Cold. Lie.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pmDespite what Dennis “Dept. of Peace” Kucinich says (while probably smoking mushrooms too).
September 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pmHe either believed Saddam did, or believed Saddam didn’t.
Must be one or the other…can’t be both.
In whom’s opinion do you take stock in today???
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Or he was told and didn’t listen, like when he was told that bin laden wanted to strike the US and bush had some brush that needed clearing.
or card is liying because bush would rather look stupid (like he can help it) than look like a war criminal.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pmMr. foot, you haven’t been reading then. It shows how Bush ignores the facts and sticks to his warped beliefs. Just like you believe we are better off attacking Iraq when the evidence clearly shows that the military is stretched close to the breaking point and those fiscally responsible republicans lied and spend like a college student and their first credit card.
Those facts are there for you but they go against what you want to believe. Same with Bush but only he’s responsible for the deaths.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pmYet another smoking gun pointing to impeachment. Would anyone like to defend a President’s right to lie to Congress and the American people about the need to go to war? How about we make all who would vote against impeachment take up that argument?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:37 pmLenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Castro and Hugo Chavez to name but a few.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Yeah, sure, we’re all sitting around heaping praise on Lenin, Stalin and Mao. You really are a loon.
It’s funny, though, that the Right has consistently defended dictators over the years, as long as they provided American corporations with access to their resources. Saddam himself was kept in power largely through the efforts of the Reagan administration. Batista, Somoza, Marcos, and the apartheid governments of South Africa come readily to mind. Jean Kirkpatrick even formulated an entire doctrine during the Reagan administration that stated this as specific policy.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pmWhy did Bill Clinton bomb Baghdad for three straight days back in Dec, 1998 again?
Oh yeah:
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
September 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pmAll these soldiers died based on Bush/Cheney lies. Yet it seems that’s not important as we see the polls that show some Americans would rather still believe the lie then the truth. At lease Bush/Cheney who refuse to serve in the military are willing to continue to let our troops die. The UK minus the lap dog Tony Blair are now safe and out of danger while letting the Iraq people settle their differences. Proof that Bush lied in his speech to the American people means nothing as we see 8 more soldiers killed and many more will as we continue to stay the course.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pmFor the record, jake D is still on the Axis of Evil
September 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pmBush has had a problem with intelligence his whole life.+
September 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhile no “stockpiles” or “ongoing programs” were found, VX and other WMD were found. Are you guys calling Charles Duelfer a “liar” too?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pmYeah, sure, we’re all sitting around heaping praise on Lenin, Stalin and Mao
Comment by gummitch
———————————————–
You may not be now, but Leftists at the time certainly did….and if you don’t know that, then you are an idiot.
I might note that you left off Castro and Chavez, any reason?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pmSaddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Ummm… would that include the stuff the Reagan Admin gave him?
Jes’ askin’…
September 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWhile no “stockpiles†or “ongoing programs†were found, VX and other WMD were found. Are you guys calling Charles Duelfer a “liar†too?
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Very old, very dead and useless shells were found scattered around the desert. I’d be willing to be there are parts of the American Southwest that would return similar results, except people aren’t allowed to go searching in weapons testing areas.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pmYes, that could have all been WMD transferred to Saddam by the U.S. What difference does that make to the fact that he had it?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pmSaddam himself was kept in power largely through the efforts of the Reagan administration….
gummich
————————————————-
Less than one percent of the arms provided to Saddam’s regime came from the US. Most was provided by the Soviets, China and France.
The only reason that we did provide Saddam with anything was because he was fighting Iran.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmYou people don’t know the first thing about defending a country.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmBatista, Somoza, Marcos, and the apartheid governments of South Africa come readily to mind. Jean Kirkpatrick even formulated an entire doctrine during the Reagan administration that stated this as specific policy.
Comment by gummitch — September 6, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Details, details…
September 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pmRepublican’s back in the late 30’s were backing Adolf Hitler. Topped ya Ringo.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pmGood points, Ringo. But regardless of WHERE he got it from, there was justification to take him out. Every intelligenge agency on the globe thought Saddam had WMD.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pmYou may not be now, but Leftists at the time certainly did….and if you don’t know that, then you are an idiot.
I might note that you left off Castro and Chavez, any reason?
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
I know that at one time Leftists did think that the Russian Revolution was the hope of humanity, and I also know that they became rapidly disillusioned, other than some members of the Communist Party. For you to require reaching back to the early 20th Century to make your point, while ignoring the much more contemporary record of people like Kirkpatrick, demonstrates how weak it is.
I also left off Ho Chi Minh, but maybe you weren’t paying attention. I can only speak for myself, but I did that deliberately. I disagree with your characterization of Ho.
Castro and Chavez have their defenders and their detractors among the Left, and some of us are able to view both of them objectively. I know that the Right thinks both of them are demons, but both of them have also made significant contributions to the health and welfare of their people, as promised. Both of them are also clearly tyrants who do not tolerate dissent.
What about the list of dictators that the Right has not only tolerated, but actively supported, for decades? I should not have forgotten Pinochet, either, but there have been so many like him that it’s not surprising I forgot.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pmYou people don’t know the first thing about defending a country.
Comment by Jake D.
neither do you, unless you think you have defended the country by stealing someone else’s war record.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pmRepublican’s back in the late 30’s were backing Adolf Hitler. Topped ya Ringo.
Comment by hellinabucket
———————————————
You are a moron.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pmIntelligence is overrated in BushWorld. Better to rely on your gut and Jeebus.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pmNow why would anyone believe GWB regarding Iran?
“Better safe then sorry” Wow, the thousands of U.S. military killed in this clusterf&ck aren’t safe, they’re sorry. So are the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis & Iraqi refugees. If Saddam posed no threat to the U.S. then the safety of the U.S. was never in jeopardy.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pmJake D. I have defended this country. You sir are a liar. There can be differences of opinion but to attempt to ignore mine, and many others, service is an outrage. You disgust me with your ignorance.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pmto comment #75
b-b-but Clinton!!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pmgummitch,
Thanks for proving my point.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pmRepublican’s back in the late 30’s were backing Adolf Hitler. Topped ya Ringo.
Comment by hellinabucket
———————————————
You are a moron.
Comment by Ringo
he’s also right.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pmEven with this evidence, the illegal wire tapping etc. the lock step republicans still back this guy. They refuse to even censure this rouge president. I am so sick of hearing from these repugs that he has not committed any wrong doing so impeachment is not an option. If the shoe was on the other foot the Dem would have been gone faster than Craig. These way these people think makes me sick. Party of people and don’t forget the corporations they run the country.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pmRINGO,
You are not a complex person. Too much information makes your head hurt…
September 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pmNOW can we inpeach him?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pmYou people don’t know the first thing about defending a country.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
What’s the “first thing,” then? Wait – lemme guess:
- Don’t invade and occupy countries that pose no threat to your own.
- If you must invade a country, be sure to send enough personnel to secure the country, and be sure to give the personnel body armor.
- When you succeed in overthrowing a government, don’t disband the army – at least until you’ve secured all their munitions sites.
- Do not stretch your reserves so thin that they lack the personnel and equipment to respond to natural or man-made disasters at home.
Any of those? Are they the “first thing” about defending a country?
September 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pmRingo is running out of ideas. he’s used the “clinton did it” defense and now the “I’m right because you’re a moron” defense. At least he hasn’t plaigarized a real veteran’s war record to pretend he served in Korea…
September 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pmBoth the Left and the Right have supported dictators, it’s just that the Left always supports the anti-American ones…..often, outright enemies.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pmDoes that fact hurt you Ringo? So much to think that you have to resort to name calling. Republicans wanted Hitler to succeed. George’s Grandaddy kept dealing the the Nazi’s after it was against the law.
It may hurt you but it’s still the truth.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pmLess than one percent of the arms provided to Saddam’s regime came from the US. Most was provided by the Soviets, China and France.
The only reason that we did provide Saddam with anything was because he was fighting Iran.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Got links to support the
September 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pmFor the record, I never stole someone else’s war record.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pmHe either believed Saddam did, or believed Saddam didn’t.
Must be one or the other…can’t be both.
In whom’s opinion do you take stock in today???
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 6, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
It isn’t a f*cking question of what he believed. It is a question of what he TOLD the country. And in case you missed it, he told the country there was NO DOUBT Saddam had WMD, despite the fact the CIA had delivered hard evidence that showed the exact opposite.
Bush can continue to believe he might find WMD, Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa or Britney’s panties. But it matters not one flying f*ck. He told the nation Saddam had WMD despite all the evidence to the contrary.
That, Mr Bigfoot, is a lie. Nearly 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead because of this it.
You can defend him. But it shows what a warped and stupid reptilian you really are.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pmRepublicans wanted Hitler to succeed.
Comment by hellinabucket
——————————————–
BS…Prove your accusation.
Prove how the Republican party wanted Hitler to succeed.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pmDumb_Fox, very well put.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pmFor the record, I never stole someone else’s war record.
Comment by Jake D.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pmfor the record, you did. You were beaten into submission and you disappeared for a while. Why you came back is a mystery.
Both the Left and the Right have supported dictators, it’s just that the Left always supports the anti-American ones…..often, outright enemies.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Whereas the ones the Right has supported have merely created anti-American enemies.
See: Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, and many more!
September 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pmFor the record, the only times I’ve “disappeared” was when I was playing golf. If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to discuss my war record, or the topic of WMD, please let me know.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pmJingo sez:
Here you go.
No need to thank me.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pmHere’s the link to the full Duelfer Report: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/DuelferRpt/Volume_1.pdf
September 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pmJake D sez:
<crickets>
September 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pmDave C,
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
September 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pmFor the record, I never stole someone else’s war record.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I was with the Army’s 60th Signal Service Company out of Fort Lewis, deployed to Korea and then Japan at the First Tokyo Arsenal, until my honorable discharge as a Sgt. – Jake D
http://www.koreanwar.org/html/units/60sigsvc.htm
September 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pmHere you go Ringo,
Here’s a link that explains bush’s Grandfather’s connection to nazi Germany:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Here’s alink for the republican support for hitler:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Support_Hitler_US.html
Here’s another:
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930sp2.html
Now, show similar links for the left’s love of commie dictators that is as destructive and high in the power structure as these guys are.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pmFor the record, there were more than two of us in the Army’s 60th Signal Service Co. Don’t believe all that Tom Brokaw “Greatest Generation” one American GI fought on each continent, with an arm tied behind his back, hype ; )
September 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pmAnyone else?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pmHere’s more proof Ringo. http://republican.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3317707
I accept your apology.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pmre #117
Thank you Dave C.
jake, either explain the amazing similarities, or go golfing again for another year.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pmBoth the Left and the Right have supported dictators, it’s just that the Left always supports the anti-American ones…..often, outright enemies.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Thanks for proving my point. According to people like you, there’s nothing inherently wrong in being a dictator, as long as he’s a pro-American dictator. Saddam was just fine up until he was dumb enough to invade Kuwait and threaten to take control of Kuwaiti oil. Then, bam, magically he was an evil tyrant.
Noriega was an acceptable dictator as long as he cooperated with the CIA. As soon as he started to wander off the ranch, bam, he was the worst dictator since Hitler.
Batista was a wonderful dictator because he guaranteed US access to Cuban sugar; Castro was an evil monstrous dictator because he nationalized the sugar and tobacco fincas. Same pattern played out throughout Latin America: dictators are great as long as the United Fruit Company has full access. Start nationalizing industry, or suggest that the citizens of your country would be better off owning their own land and growing actual food, and bam! you’re a horrid dictator and must be overthrown.
Castro is defined as anti-American because he has refused to buckle under to the Embargo. Chavez is anti-American because he has made some very rude comments about George Bush, while at the same time providing cheap or free heating oil to Americans.
For the Right, the term “dictator” means nothing unless he can be described as “anti-American”. Oppress your people all you want, and the Right won’t complain. Just don’t cut us off from your resources.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pmProve how the Republican party wanted Hitler to succeed.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Whilst I would never claim ALL GOOPers wanted Hitler to succeed, Bush’s own grandfather was so involved w/ the Nazis, he had his business assets consfiscated as punishment for war profiteering.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pmJake, we know what the record is. you are a lying coward scumbag republican.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:06 pmFor the record, there were HUNDREDS if not thousands of us deployed from Ft. Lewis to Korea and then to Japan after the war. Not sure how many are still living, but as you know there are two living Presidents named “Bush” as well. Not everything is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory people.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pmMaybe jake and ringo went golfing.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pmJake D sez:
If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†wants to discuss my war record, or the topic of WMD, please let me know.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 6, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Didn’t we learn yesterday that Jake was in high school during the 1930s, by his own words. Which would mean he was eligible for the draft in the early 1940s, when there was some kind of war going on, uh, something to do with Hitler?
So, how is it that he served a decade later instead?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pmSo much for the soothing melody of the crickets . . . you people are funny.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pmWhy does anyone engage these trolls? You could have copied and pasted this entire thread from a week ago, six months ago or two years ago and the arguments being made are identical. It is clear that these people have compelling reasons (like a paycheck) to come here and rehash the same tired arguments. In spite of increasing evidence of the incompetence of this administration, they refuse to modify their poositions–symptomatic of either willful disregard for the truth (which I believe to be the more common occurence) or derangement.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:10 pmI never said I graduated high school in the 30’s. Maybe that was one of the Fake Jakes?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWell, Menehune, I try to ignore them as much as possible, but when they claim I went to high school in the 30’s, I don’t want anyone else to be fooled like that.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pmGuys, never ever believe anything JAKE THE FAKE posts, he is a known liar…vet my ass, he is an RNC paid Troll – 25 – 35 years old, just check out the hours he sits here spewing his crap….and well Ringo is just a retarded fool….more than likely also a paid Troll.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pmGringo, Jake Dumb, Obigmouth support Bush because they LOVED Hitler too.
They dress up in their Nazi regalia every day & night.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pmJake D. sez:
We’re not the ones who made that claim, Shakey. You are.
That’s OK, though…I can understand how someone who lies as much as you can lose track of a lie now and again…kinda like how you claimed to be both Baptist and Catholic… ^_^
September 6th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI never said I graduated high school in the 30’s. Maybe that was one of the Fake Jakes?
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
You’re all fake Jakes. Not a word you say is real. Your opinions are merely the repetition of talking points you heard someone in the GWB administration say. The rest you’ve copied & pasted from the net. Sure, there were thousands deployed from Ft. Lewis to Korea and then to Japan… you’re just not one of them. Nor are you in your 70’s or whatever age you’ve chosen today.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:15 pmFor the record, I never claimed to be Catholic either.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pmAs if this is somehow relevant to the threead topic? I was born in 1932 and graduated high school in 1950. After the war, I went to Stanford undergrad and law school. Whether anyone on the “Ignore List” wants to believe I fought in the Korean War or not, is no skin off my nose. Now, if anyone else wants to discuss my war record, or the topic of WMD, please let me know.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pmHere’s the thing Jake. I believe you’re lying. I don’t believe you’re in your 70’s, I don’t believe you were ever in the military. That’s my belief & the writing style you use is proof IMO that you are probably in your 20’s. Plus, I’ve never met a man in his 70’s that would be dumb enough to waste his time on the net carrying water for GWB the way you do. So IMO it’s cut & dried that you’re a liar.
Now here’s the funny part. If I’m correct then you know you’re a liar. You know that in order to support your POV you have to lie. You have to say you were in the military to explain how you can be so gung ho for war while not putting your sorry ass on the line. So while you can continue to post & lie here, in the dark recesses of your mind, you know that your argument is weak, that it’s necessary to lie to support it & that you’re not really a man. That’s the funny part. Enjoy.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm“I was born in 1932 and graduated high school in 1950. After the war …”
Oh. My. Ghod. Who. Cares.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm“No skin off my nose.”
September 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pmJake D. sez:
That’s a LIE, as I will now prove:
First this:
Since I have admitted to that, yes, I did vote for JFK and, being Catholic myself, I’ve got plenty of funny Catholic jokes.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Followed by this:
CONservative:
Southern Baptist here too — we are going to have to agree to disagree that Bush is anywhere close to a KING though
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
I’ll bet you didn’t think I was still saving the proof, did you, Shakey? ^_^
September 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWell, I guess they’d rather discuss my life, or anything OTHER than the WMD in Iraq.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm“Well, I guess they’d rather discuss my life, or anything OTHER than the WMD in Iraq.”
Well, apparently both of those things are fantasies.
I guess.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:26 pmThat was a Fake Jake on March 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pm. Next?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pmYou didn’t read the Duelfer Report (linked above) then, Bernard Quatermass.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm“That was a Fake Jake on March 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pm. Next?”
Could you please go back to drawing pictures of tanks and leaving the discussion to adults? Please?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pm“Well, I guess they’d rather discuss my life, or anything OTHER than the WMD in Iraq.”
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
As you are a fictional character, I’d say both were non-existent and imaginary.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pmJake D. sez:
The “WMDs in Iraq”, like your “life” is a complete fiction. We debunk both with equal vigor.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pmI’m a 75-year old adult. How old are you?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:29 pm“You didn’t read the Duelfer Report (linked above) then, Bernard Quatermass.”
No. There is only so much time in the day. I mean, if you were the link-er it is probably crap, right? I can’t waste my time with crap.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:29 pmOuch.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pmJake D. sez:
That’s a lie.
Anyone interested in finding the truth only needs to follow the links Gregor supplied, and reread the whole thread. Your inane posting style is like a fingerprint…it’s obviously you on both occasions.
By the way, that last post lacked your customary mealy-mouthed “For the record,” preamble. That sounded suspiciously like a reply. Are you trying to subvert the ignore list? ^_^
September 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pm“I’m a 75-year old adult. How old are you?”
Do you dare imply that only children can enjoy drawing pictures of tanks? I know a sitting (alas) American president who would disagree vehemently.
Oh, and I’m a 46 year old adult. What’s your sign?”
September 6th, 2007 at 2:31 pmUmm…
LISTEN UP, YOU WORTHLESS TP MOONBATS!!!
READ THIS: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
AND IF YOU STILL THINK THAT TAKING OUT SADDAM WAS A MISTAKE,
YOU’RE A FUKING IDIOT,
AND IT’S A GOOD THING YOUR VOTES DON’T COUNT!!!
September 6th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI was born in 1932 and graduated high school in 1950.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
This is odd. Couple of days ago, Jerk D was saying he was called a “Gridder” because he played highschool basketball in the 30’s. Now he’s claiming he was born in 1932.
Sorry, this is all BS!!! NEXT!!!
September 6th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI humbly apologize to Bernard Quatermass as I now see he was already on the “Ignore List” for prior personal attacks and/or refusing to answer my questions. Please disregard any and all posts addressed above to you directly, including this one.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:33 pmThat’s right JAKE THE FAKE you are just as much a FAKE as the WMD were, a made up thing….as more and more posters figure out that you are a liar and a fake the less they well respond to your crap.
We should make it offical and put JAKE THE FAKE on everyones ignore list, sound familiar Jakie poo?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:33 pmTo the best of my knowledge, basketball players were never called ‘gridders’(football maybe) but were called ‘cagers’.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pmFor the record, 2007 minus 75 = 1932. That was the Fake Jake who claimed to play high school basketball in the 30’s.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pmFUK WARD CHURCHILL, FUK TRIPMASTERBAITER MONKEY, AND FUK TRAITORHEAD!!!
September 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pmJake D. sez:
You were responding to me, stupid…and I doubt very much you would even for a second ‘forget’ that I was on your infantile “ignore list”, since my propensity to ask question you’re incapable of answering, or unwilling to answer, was one of your prime motivations to come up with the silly fiction in the first place.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pmMy mistake. I was just born yesterday.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pmmrp sez:
Someone’s getting desperate…I just love watching the trolls melt down like this… ^_^
September 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pmSp many “Fake Jakes” here ya tell’em apart w/out a scorecard!
September 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#
My mistake. I was just born yesterday.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 6, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Okay… namejacker here.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pmFor the record, 2007 minus 75 = 1932. That was the Fake Jake who claimed to play high school basketball in the 30’s.
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
How convenient, to have a “fake” whenever you get caught in a lie. One does have to wonder, for the record, why you didn’t object to the “fake jake” when the comments about “gridders” were posted, especially since you were here, not playing golf, at the time.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pmMy mistake. I was just born yesterday.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 6, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pmHEyOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOO OO O !!
Shakey Jake’s credibility is actually less than that of his namejackers…how sad is that.
Unless, of course, Shakey’s merely making up this nonsense about ‘namejackers’, to provide an out for when his constant lies conflict, as well as to attempt to curry sympathy…and how sad is that?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pmHEyOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOO OO O !!
Comment by mrp — September 6, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Figured as much. LOO oo OO oo OOOO ooooser!
September 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pmFor the record, nothing I post is directed toward anyone on the “Ignore List” either intentionally or unintentionally, and I hereby make no warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, that someone delusional enough to be placed on the “Ignore List” in the first place may think I and/or space aliens, may be speaking cirectly to them via E.S.P., tin-foil hats, and/or metal fillings in their teeth, nor do I assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information said persons on the “Ignore List” presume to have received directly from me.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pmEveryone should listen to interviews with Ray McGovern.
He tells a story of a certain Iraqi turncoat who was giving all sorts of inside information to the CIA and the Pentagon.
Here’s one:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/08/29/ray-mcgovern-7/
The story goes that the guy divulged that all WMD programs had been dismantled. When that came up in a meeting, the reaction expected was relief. Instead the reaction was that no one wanted to hear that. That wasn’t the information needed.
So, of course they all knew Iraq had no WMD.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pmAlso, for the record, Fake Jakes are included automatically on the “Ignore List” or, alternatively, I post here 24 hours a day under hundreds of names, including my own and each and every “Fake Jake”.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pmJake you are a desperate little creep….eeeewwww……well, I am just going to ignore you from now on….you are not even worth commenting on anymore.
Bye bye, creepy Jake the Fake
September 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pmHundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dies because of the sanctions. Madelaine Albright said that it was all worth it though, so it’s ok, right?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pmREAD THIS: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
AND IF YOU STILL THINK THAT TAKING OUT SADDAM WAS A MISTAKE,
YOU’RE A FUKING IDIOT,
AND IT’S A GOOD THING YOUR VOTES DON’T COUNT!!!
Comment by mrp — September 6, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
That report pretty consistently states that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion and most programs were quite far from producing a usable weapon even if the programs would have been started up pre-OIL.
Why are you using it to assert that invading Iraq was a good idea?
September 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pmSo TP will basically post anything someone wrties about Bush without the slightest attempt to verify and libs here are ok with that. Today, Bush knew Saddam had no WMD, but yesterday he believed as late as 2006 that Saddam had WMD.
“In his new book on Bush, Robert Draper writes that the President continued to privately insist through April 2006 that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction…”
Credibility isn’t required for libs on this site to agree with an opinion? ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 2:51 pmJake D. sez:
Pathetic.
Here’s what I said:
And then you said this, two minutes later:
Sure as hell looks like a reply, Shakey. If you’re weren’t posting in reply to my post, why did you make that statement?
(Don’t worry, Shakey…that was a rhetorical question. I don’t expect a reply, so you won’t have to waste our time and yours hiding behind your infantile “ignore list” in reference to it.)
September 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pmDear People NOT on the “Ignore List”:
Since all my posts are directed towards those NOT on the “Ignore List” it is completely logical for me to correct any misimpression those NOT on the “Ignore List” could get from Fake Jake posts. If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” has a question about that, please let me know.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:57 pmOnly if you are NOT on the “Ignore List” ; )
September 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pmFuk you, you traitorous islamo-ass-sucker!
The report says that Saddam definitely wanted WMD and that he hated Israel and America! Despite the UN, Saddam’s dream was to obtain those weapons!
Did I mention,
FUK YOU, YOU ISLAMOSTALINIST MUSLIM-COKSUCKER!
September 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pmBut I am a Catholic. I mean Baptist.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pmOnly if you are NOT on the “Ignore List†; )
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Ironic coming from the man on the “RETARD LIST” that is simultaneously on the “IGNORES REALITY LIST”.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pmCredibility isn’t required for libs on this site to agree with an opinion? ;)
Comment by upright left — September 6, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Ah, the irony of downright stupid discussing credibility, when him and all of his resources have none ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 3:01 pmJake is perfectly happy to discuss Jake. It keeps people away from discussing George Bush knew there were no WMD’s and still sent our soldiers to die.
But go ahead and discuss the colorful and suspect life of Jake.
Being ignored does have it’s advantages.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pmRingo, you cite these names as evidence that “the Left” supports dictators who “hate the U.S.”:
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Castro and Hugo Chavez to name but a few.
I would argue that “the left” hasn’t ever defended these guys. To state, for example, that Ho Chi Min was the most popular man in Viet Nam is not to defend him, it is only to state the facts. To thank Hugo Chavez for providing low cost heating fuel to some of our poor is not to defend him or his tactics, it is only acknowleging something positive he has done. If one lefty folksong writer like Pete Seeger writes a song praising Stalin (something for which he apologized, by the way), that doesn’t mean “the left” supported Stalin.
It would be just as easy to point to the odd rightie who pointed out that Hitler made the trains travel on time and say that “the right” supported Hitler.
It’s just not helpful to our national discourse to continually claim that lefties are “traitors.” Doesn’t get us anywhere.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThe right did support Hitler.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:04 pmIt does indeed keep people from discussing whether George Bush knew there were no WMD’s and still sent our soldiers to die. Perhaps the next thread will be about Lyndon Johnson knowing there were no Gulf of Tonkin attacks but sending our soldiers to die too?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pmAs Ron Paul said in the debates last night… a small group of neocons hijacked our foreign policy.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pmI think all Defeatocrats should vote for Ron Paul!!!
September 6th, 2007 at 3:10 pmI think all Defeatocrats should vote for Ron Paul!!!
Comment by Jake D
Me to then we can place the murder of all these people where it belongs and through you neo cons in prison for decades…
September 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pmAh, the irony of downright stupid discussing credibility, when him and all of his resources have none ;)
Comment by JakeIsATerrorist — September 6, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Psst, terrorist, TP is the source. Don’t worry, I won’t point out your foolishness to anyone else. It’ll be a secret, bud. And I really didn’t know when I provided those links for you the other day that it would do this to you. I would have pretended not to have any verification had I known you’d go off the deep end. Sorry about that, bud. ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pmRon Paul won the text poll on Fox and Fox ignored him like he was on a ignore list or something.
He got some good cheers to with the exchange between him and Hucklebee. The Huck says “come home with honor” like the soldiers and marines wouldn’t if they were to be redeployed. It was terrible to hear him and some others last night use the integrity of our fighting forces to justify their warped sense of honor.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pmAhh the “it was done before so why not now” argument. Tonkin is the justification of our soldiers deaths in Iraq.
All clear now.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pmIf only Saddam were still in power, then everything would be great.
Comment by Ringo — September 6, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
No it wouldn’t……not everything, just the fact that Iraqis wouldn’t be killing each other and practicing ethnic cleansing in their neighborhoods which before housed Sunnis, Chistians and Shiites living together in peace. What has changed? Is it American interventiion in a land it doesn’t understand nor care for, all in the quest of OIL for SUV’s and Corporate profitt; yes it is! Someday most of us will understand this; I hope it will not be too late.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pmThe report says that Saddam definitely wanted WMD and that he hated Israel and America! Despite the UN, Saddam’s dream was to obtain those weapons!
Comment by mrp — September 6, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
His DREAM! So because deep in his heart of hearts, Saddam dreamed of one day having a weapon of mass destruction – despite lacking the facilities, materials, infrastructure, and a significant amout of expertise – we found it necessary to declare Iraq an “imminent threat” and invade? Over a DREAM?
How you fools continue to believe the line of mierda you poot forth is imply mind-boggling.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pmThat would leave the election results looking something like this:
Ron Paul — 25% (Defeatocrats and other wackos)
Hillary Clinton — 30% (regular Democrats)
Fred Thompson — 45% WINNER (Republican)
September 6th, 2007 at 3:25 pmIf we’re to believe the trolls, then the CIA officer must be a liberal activist.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmFred Thompson — 45% WINNER (Republican)
Comment by Jake D
So funny… You people have been discredited… from the inside… from the outside… on TV… And that is just from out right evidence… then there are the things people think but dont often talk about… like how fake and thin you and your arguments are… this is why your type is fantasizing about another major terrorist attack so that you might be able to get people to over look these things. Thompson is a actor/lobbyist… how popular are these lobbyists again? On the left and right?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:31 pmBasically what this comes down to, is everyone was telling Bush that Saddam didn’t have any WMD’s but Bush was so convinced he did, that he started a ware despite the massive evidence to the contrary. Yeah nice going there Bushie!
September 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pmRemember, Jake’s Ignore List is equivalent to him claiming “I Lose”
Everytime he pulls the I.L., it’s his admission of defeat.
Good Job, all, debunking his ridiculous claims. And we also now know he is not a college student, or if he is, he is one helluva geek (rather surf the internets then party)
Oh, and let us not forget this little tidbit from several months back:
September 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pmJake thinks rape is okay.
Fred Thompson — 45% WINNER (Republican)
Comment by Jake D. — September 6, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Winner of what, …..a*hole
September 6th, 2007 at 3:44 pmOkay, for those who wish to continue to debate with Jake D Fake,
Here’s Jake, after name jacking Wayne’s handle (notice the Ignore List reference):
Fort Lewis, July 1950, 60th Signal Service Company — Pusan, Seoul, and Pyongyang during the WAR — later I ended up at Inchon and at the First Tokyo Arsenal. Then I was transferred to Kyoto, Japan. I left there in and was shipped home to Ft. Carson, Co. until my discharge.
See, it’s easy pretty damn easy to damn jack!
You are back on the Ignore List now, asswipe!
Comment by Wayne — April 5, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Here’s the actual blog from which Jake (Rape is good) stole:
Comments: I joined the 60th Sig in Ft. Lewis in Aug 1950. We shipped out from Seattle in Aug. Went down the coast to San Francisco. Picked up some sailors and headed out to sea. We arrived in Pusan, Korea 19 days later. I can remember unloading crates of radio equipment from the dock. After cleaning the equipment we headed for Seoul. Some of us went by train while the others drove and hauled the equipment. One of the trucks hit a land mine that was underwater. The bridges were blown up, so they had to drive through the water. When we arrived in Seoul we set up east of town in a cement bldg. Some of then were sent to Pyongyang, N Korea. We were in a school house I beleive. I remember sleeping in a room that had a bomb stuck down through the floor that hadn’t gone off. We had Thanksgiving there. We were pushed back shortly after that. It took 24hrs to travel 125miles. I can remember the traffic was bumper to bumper and the coldest winter Ive ever lived through. We went back to Seoul and then to Teague. I had burned my hand so the Capt. sent me down to Pusan to draw supplies with two other guys. Later I ended up at Inchon before I was sent to Japan in Aug. 1951. We flew to Tokyo and spent a few days at the First Tokyo Arsenal. I was then tranfered to Kyoto, Japan. I left there in March and was shipped home to Ft. Carson, Co. for discharge. I can’t remember too many names anymore but I do remember a Sgt. Gleason, and I beleive the Co. Comander was Capt. Flarity. I hope this will help me get in touch with some of the guys I spent my time over there with.
Any questions?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pmBasically what this comes down to, is everyone was telling Bush that Saddam didn’t have any WMD’s but Bush was so convinced he did, that he started a ware despite the massive evidence to the contrary. Yeah nice going there Bushie!
Comment by Krazny — September 6, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
No, no, no it was yesterday that Bush was convinved there were WMD’s:
“In his new book on Bush, Robert Draper writes that the President continued to privately insist through April 2006 that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction…â€
Today’s word is that he knew there were no WMD’s:
‘Bush knew Saddam had no WMD.’
Maybe tomorrow it’ll be back to “Bush believed Saddam possed WMD’s.” ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmI do not think actual rape is O.K. and Fred Thompson will be President of the United States on January 20, 2009.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:48 pmMaybe tomorrow it’ll be back to “Bush believed Saddam possed WMD’s.†;)
Comment by upright left — September 6, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Maybe you should take the 5 minutes to read the paragraph and a half, that states that despite intelligence estimates, that Bush privately believed Saddam Had WMD’s. Course it might be easier to try to attack me.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pmDesperation, thy name is hanging presidential hopes on the a B actor who will beat Bush’s marathon vacation schedule.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pmMaybe tomorrow it’ll be back to “Bush believed Saddam possed WMD’s.†;)
Comment by upright left — September 6, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
I doubt that anyone would believe he “possed” anything. WTF does that even mean you moron?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmMe @ 3:39pm:
Oh, and let us not forget this little tidbit from several months back:
Jake thinks rape is okay.
Jake D. Fake Vet @ 3:48pm:
I do not think actual rape is O.K.
Hey, does that mean I’m off the I Lose, errr, the Ignore List?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pmIf so, then it’s time for some serious debate between you and I.
Are you up for the task?
If actual rape isn’t ok then what kind of rape is ok?
September 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI’m consistently amazed by the die-hard hangers on, who will go to any lengths, to search for any possible rationalization for the crimes that have been committed by this administration, in our name.
You all know perfectly well that the decade plus sancitions against the old Iraqi regime were in fact only hurting the people of that nation, and not Saddam specifically, who was never hampered by them. And, we all know that any prior attempts by Saddam, to construct any sort of WMD program, had long since been dismantled.
The UN knew it as well, which is why Colin Powell, in the end, very quietly withdraw the request for Security Council approval to wage war on Iraq. He did it because he already KNEW that France, China, and Russia, would not vote for it, and they would never have received offical approval from the UN Security Council, (in the form of a resolution) to do pre-emptive attack on Iraq. So, the Shrub did it without the required approval, which has made the entire 5 year adventure a crime of the highest magnitude.
For most of us, this is hardly news. That’s why we have to wonder about retards like Jake and Ringo. I was flabbergasted to read that Jake is actually an attorney right here in my home state of California. No wonder the legal community has such a bad reputation. With people like him, who needs bother learning the law, or anything else about our once revered document, that being the US Constitution.
And, how is it that a California attorney has this much time to post to blogs. Don’t you have clients that need you, or have you managed to see to it that they’re all safely enscounced in our wonderful industrial prison complex?
What complete hacks these people are, determined to keep things in the chaos that has been dragging us down for the past 6 years.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmHow you fools continue to believe the line of mierda you poot forth is imply mind-boggling.
Comment by toasterhead — September 6, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
I read all of your comments and admire your wit. The line of mierda that you’re referring to will never disappear. Keep fighting, my friend, we need you!
September 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pmMaybe you should take the 5 minutes to read the paragraph and a half, that states that despite intelligence estimates, that Bush privately believed Saddam Had WMD’s. Course it might be easier to try to attack me.
Comment by Krazny — September 6, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
That would be what I was referring to, bud. So yesterday libs were outraged that Bush could still believe that. Now, with today’s post, all of a sudden he didn’t believe that at all, he knew there were no WMD’s. So let’s jump on that one today. He can’t do both. But, to libs looking for something to slam him about, it works out fine. Personally, I find plenty to disagree with him about without making up things that aren’t true. ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pmI doubt that anyone would believe he “possed†anything. WTF does that even mean you moron?
Comment by Dave C — September 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Feel free to disregard typos and address the issue any time now, davie boy. ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pmFeel free to disregard typos and address the issue any time now, davie boy. ;)
Comment by upright left — September 6, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Little discussion is needed. The fact is that GWB is a liar and knowingly started a war on the basis of handpicked intelligence. He’s a war criminal. Hopefully he’ll be rewarded for that.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmComment by JoeCaribe #200,
You’re right Joe. Iraq wouldn’t be “all OK” if Saddam was still in the picture, but there would be more than one million Iraqis still alive now, and they would still have their schools, government structure, physical infrastructure, and there wouldn’t be more than 4 million Iraqis now displaced, and there would even be electricity, water, gas, food, medical care, and the list goes on.
So yes, as bad as things may have been under Saddam, (at least for anyone who opposed him) the Iraqis have now learned the same thing that most of us have learned…things can ALWAYS be worse. And for a nation of people with all of that OIL under their feet, and NO weapons or any other conventional means of defending themselves, they were prime targets for a Criminal Enterprise such as the Cheney Cabal, to simply level that nation…all the better to get to the OIL, which is the reason for being there to begin with.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:13 pmI find plenty to disagree with him about without making up things that aren’t true. ;)
Comment by upright left — September 6, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
No where in the article does it state that Bush didn’t believe that there were no WMD’s. It states, that the intelligence community, the UN, and just about everyone said there was no evidence that Saddam had WMD’s. However this gem from the last line illustrates the point.
“The president had no interest in the intelligence,†a CIA officer disclosed. “Bush didn’t give a f**k about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.â€
What this comes down too is Bush believed that Saddam had WMD’s despite the evidence that he didn’t.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:14 pmThe article also says the policy of invasion was set and it didn’t make any difference what the evidence said. This is also what British Intelligence said was the White House’s policy in The Downing Street Memo. Neither the US nor Britain have said the memo is not valid.
I always thought that Tenet looked extremely guilty as he was sitting behind Powell. Kinda like a dog who has just messed the carpet.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pmNo where in the article does it state that Bush didn’t believe that there were no WMD’s.
Comment by Krazny — September 6, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Did you read the headline of this thread? “Bush knew Saddam had no WMD” Not “Bush knew his advisors said there were no WMD” So this is misleading, possibly just to stir up libs who simply respond to any headline TP cares to print without reading the actual articles or remembering what they were whining about yesterday? As long as ya’ll are ok with that, it’s fine. Just checking. ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pmComment by Dave C — September 6, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
I see you choose not to address the issue. That’s fine. I agree Bush has made a lot of mistakes. I just don’t see that as justification for misleading headlines. Kind of makes it easier to see why TP was censored. ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 4:40 pmIf Bush was told, by the his advisor’s then he did know, and chose instead to go with what he believed instead of what was true. A pretty scary situation in my opinion.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pmA pretty scary situation in my opinion.
Comment by Krazny — September 6, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
They (repugnicants) will never listen. It goes against their inbred denial of the Scientific Method. They never left the 18th century and they never will. Keep shining a light on that and we will win!
September 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pmResponing to my comment that U.N. samples of chemical warfare agent phosgene gathered in 1996 and discovered still in the U.N. building about a week ago were actually harmless cleaning solvents Jake D. writes:
“Better safe than sorry, rehbock.”
I agree in part. These samples were gathered to prove Saddam’s factory was manufacturing WMD. Had anyone cared an iota about safety or truth they would have been tested then.
Jake D. also writes in response to others that:
“You people don’t know the first thing about defending a country.”
Bush, Cheney, et. al. have proven that they don’t either at least in Iraq.
He also hauls out the fallback that t”he U.S. is better of without Saddam.”
The U.S. would also be better off without a lot of other people inside and outside the U.S.. Perhaps the President can kill off the rest of them. Let’s hope his list doesn’t include you or anyone you love. Anyone with some basic chemistry and physics knowledge or as the folks that drove Jake D. over the edge proved some cleverness or as the Federal Building attack proved those with fertilizercan make W.M.D.. So we just need to kill pretty much everyone and then the U.S. will be real safe. Hmm… Bush and Cheney have made a great start on that plan. But I suppose their list won’t include loyal Americans like Jake D.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:03 pmJake D. let’s hope that you don’t make the list by mistake. After all mistakes happen – like when cleaning fluid is mistaken for WMD or when we know for sure that Saddam has WMD or like when we fly a bunch of nuclear bombs around without knowing it …
If Bush was told, by the his advisor’s then he did know, and chose instead to go with what he believed instead of what was true. A pretty scary situation in my opinion.
Comment by Krazny — September 6, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Or he knew that they “believed” there were no WMD. But, since Saddam never let the inspectors do their jobs as he was ordered by the U.N., no one outside of Iraq actually knew. So the headline that “Bush knew…” is incorrect, especially if “Bush believed there were WMD.” You can’t believe something if you know the opposite is true. You can act as though you believe it. That’s not what the headline said. ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 5:28 pmJake D. let’s hope that you don’t make the list by mistake. After all mistakes happen – like when cleaning fluid is mistaken for WMD or when we know for sure that Saddam has WMD or like when we fly a bunch of nuclear bombs around without knowing it …
Comment by rehbock — September 6, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
The important thing is, in my opinion, that you feel afraid ..very afraid..enough to make some idiot like AWOl Bush 43 decide for you who is a terrorist and who is not. Posada Carriles who murdered 73 people in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban plane is NOT a terrorist but Bin Laden, who was armed and trained by the CIA is it. They’re taking you for fools and you’re proving they’re right!
September 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pmJust in case anyone thinks Sydney Blumenthal is a profressional and objective journalist, I’d like to remind you that Sidney Blumenthal is a former assistant and senior advisor to President Bill Clinton.
Blumenthal was at the center of the perjury and obstruction of justice investigation of President Clinton, an investigation which led to Clinton eventually admitting he deliberately misled a federal judge and to Clinton being cited for contempt of court and having his law license suspended.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:37 pmComment by Exley — September 6, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Nice try Exley. Explain how that’s got any bearing on why Bush 43 is less responsible for the deaths of almost 4000 American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians in his quest of proving himself a better man than his father (Oedipus anyone?) or a better “strategiarist” than Napoleon?
September 6th, 2007 at 5:55 pm“Just in case anyone thinks Sydney Blumenthal is a profressional and objective journalist, I’d like to remind you that Sidney Blumenthal is a former assistant and senior advisor to President Bill Clinton.”
Oh. Yes. Certainly. How did I miss that 100% certain fact-based unbiased 1-for-1 reflexive cause-and-effect, um, thingie?
Wow. Thanks. The veils of Maya have dropped from my eyes and I now see everything clearly.
… sarcasm over. For now.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:59 pmI see you choose not to address the issue. That’s fine. I agree Bush has made a lot of mistakes. I just don’t see that as justification for misleading headlines. Kind of makes it easier to see why TP was censored. ;)
Comment by upright left — September 6, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
I see you don’t disagree that GWB lied to push the U.S. into war. What you’re concerned about are the semantics of the headline on this post… it’s not that GWB knew Saddam had no WMD, it’s that GWB knew that the intelligence community knew that Saddam had no WMD. That’s a distinction that matters only to you. The point is that GWB knew that there was disagreement over the existence of WMD and he kept that disagreement from the American people. He said that there was proof of WMD when there wasn’t. He’s a liar and this war is illegal by international law. That makes him a war criminal… or it would if he weren’t an American President. Apparently they get a free pass.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:05 pmYou Bush supporters keep chastising us to simply read the Duelfer Report. Walter Pincus and Dana Priest of the Wash. Post read the whole thing and wrote this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
As I posted, the Duelfer Report repudiates the administration rather than supports it as these Bush supporters seem to think.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm“Or he knew that they “believed†there were no WMD. But, since Saddam never let the inspectors do their jobs as he was ordered by the U.N., no one outside of Iraq actually knew. So the headline that “Bush knew…†is incorrect, especially if “Bush believed there were WMD.†You can’t believe something if you know the opposite is true. You can act as though you believe it. That’s not what the headline said.”
Comment by upright left
This is baloney. Saddam’s weapons declation before the war was complete, and Bush had it in his hands before going in. Congress never saw the complete, unredacted weapons declation before voting to go to war, so saying “no one outside of Iraq actually knew” is hogwash.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:14 pmExley, Sydney Blumenthal was never charged with or indicted for any crime. His book, “The Clinton Wars,” has already been cited by a huge majority of historians as the definitive history of the Clinton administration from an insiders standpoint.
And Fred Thompson??? Oh year. Social conservatives and born-again christians are gonna just luuuuuv the fact that this guy worked as a lobbyist for a pro-choice group and divorced his wife of 25 years to marry a woman 3 years younger than his daughter.
And when people hear the great story about how, as a high-priced DC lobbyist, he ditched his Continental to rent a used Ford pickup for campaigning in Tennessee, they’ll understand that he just exudes authenticity.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:16 pmDave C: “That makes him a war criminal… or it would if he weren’t an American President. Apparently they get a free pass.”
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes and Bush won’t be President forever. That could be what his new spread in northern Paraquay is about. Their government recently passed a law saying people within its border were not subject to World Court rulings.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:22 pmExley: “Blumenthal was at the center of the perjury and obstruction of justice investigation of President Clinton, an investigation which led to Clinton eventually admitting he deliberately misled a federal judge and to Clinton being cited for contempt of court and having his law license suspended.”
Gosh, you make it all sound so damn important. Yes the issue of whether or not Clinton’s advisor technically helped him evade the truth about a personal, consensual affair was much more important than cooperating with the president in the war on terror… to you, anyway.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:25 pmThis is baloney. Saddam’s weapons declation before the war was complete, and Bush had it in his hands before going in. Congress never saw the complete, unredacted weapons declation before voting to go to war, so saying “no one outside of Iraq actually knew†is hogwash.
Comment by barfly — September 6, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
The inspectors never saw all the sites they were supposed to without first being put off for several days, giving the impression that if anything was there it could have been moved before they were allowed inside. But that isn’t the point here.
According to your statement, this item from yesterday on TP was not true then?
“Though it was not the sort of thing one could say publicly anymore, the president still believed that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction.”
I’m simply suggesting that there is a problem posting and accepting that statement and then doing the same with the title of this thread: “Bush knew there were no WMD.” As I said, you can’t “know” one thing and believe another. ;)
September 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pmyou can’t “know†one thing and believe another. ;)
Comment by upright left — September 6, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
You can if you are completely off your rocker, and Bush has already lost whatever slim grip on sanity he had.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:45 pmThere is no statute of limitations on war crimes and Bush won’t be President forever. That could be what his new spread in northern Paraquay is about. Their government recently passed a law saying people within its border were not subject to World Court rulings.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 6, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
I was being sarcastic. There’s always hope that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will see the justice they deserve. Maybe keep gitmo open just for them… it’s like a college fraternity I hear. Or maybe that’s Abu. Either way they’ll enjoy themselves.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:04 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 6, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Maybe if you actually read it yourself you would be in a better position to speak.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:25 pmHave you read the Duelfer Report? I mean really. The report basically admits that everything Saddam had left after the Gulf War (and that wasn’t much) was destroyed later in the 90’s and there were no WMD’s and no active programs at the time we invaded. What the hell do YOU think it says?
Again, here’s the link to the definitive analysis by the Wash. Post about the report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A12115-2004Oct6.html
September 6th, 2007 at 7:29 pmSorry, that link didn’t work. I think this does: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
Since some propagandist somewhere is feeding these pathetic cultists the idea that somehow the Duelfer report supports the administration, I think everyone should read this article.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:33 pmbush doesn’t give a f**k about intelligence because he is unfamiliar with the term and has none of his own
September 6th, 2007 at 7:51 pmhussein was a threat without wmd’s, his persuit of those weapon, support of terrorism, bribes to the security council, murder of millions of innocent citizens, invasion of neighbors, torturing of children, etc were plenty good enough to remove him for.
in fact, he is indirectly responsible for bin ladens fatwah on the u.s. if he not invaded kuwait, saudi arabia never would have asked for u.s. aid. bin laden had offered his arghan army to arabia, but was rejected in favor of america. this is the reason bin laden declared war on us, and before this moment al queda had not attack american interests. if not for husseins’ chaotic actions in kuwait, the chain of events that lead to 9/11 would not have happend.
so for the lefties who say iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are foolish. the whole region is succeptable to a butterfly effect. the first gulf war, 911, the current wars, are all one big connected conflict, whether you like it or not.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:49 pmhussein was a threat without wmd’s,
Then why did GWB have to lie to get the country to support his war? And not only lie about WMDs, but lie about ties to al Qaeda as well. And repeatedly lying. When you have a good case for war it’s unnecessary to lie about the reasons and you cannot honestly tell me that if it was a Democrat President that similarly lied & put the country into a clusterf*ck like this you’d support it. Not in a million years. But maybe you’ll get the chance to support a Dem Pres in the not too distant future & with all of these nice new dictator-like powers that GWB has been busily creating. Enjoy.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:55 pmSo what’s different?
September 6th, 2007 at 9:21 pmcomment by liberals destroyed America
If the USA is being run by neo-Nazi bastards and war criminals like Bush/Cheney & their supporting sycophants(like you, exley,Trannie Coulter, Rush Limpdick, obigmouth,Darryll, Jake D(umb),mighty moron, & (G)Ringo among others )…then Amerika IS evil and truly DOES deserve to be destroyed- completely.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:25 pm“The inspectors never saw all the sites they were supposed to without first being put off for several days, giving the impression that if anything was there it could have been moved before they were allowed inside. But that isn’t the point here.”
We go around and around with trolls who continue to post this nonsense.
If Saddam tried to move materiel, satellite photos would show this; such graphic evidencewould have been presented to the UN.
“As I said, you can’t “know†one thing and believe another. ”
Comment by upright left
People who embrace authoritarianism usually exhibit this curious mental quirk. Surrendering the ability to discern internal contradiction, they close off their subjective consciousness because of fear, and on that level they think only of survival. In that mode of thought, they look for a Big Strong Daddy, who will tell them what to think and feel. If Big Daddy says the sky is green, they will struggle mightily at first to see it, and when they can’t reconcile the fact that the sky is really blue, they’ll go and buy green tinted sunglasses.
What color are yours?
September 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm“[. . .] in fact, he is indirectly responsible for bin ladens fatwah on the u.s. if he not invaded kuwait, saudi arabia never would have asked for u.s. aid.”
And if Bush 1 hadn’t said it was okey-dokey for him to invade, he would have sat tight. So by you reasoning, Bush 1 is really responsible for 9/11.
Thanks, for clearing that up.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:28 pmDuhmerikkka needs…
…weed-killer…
September 6th, 2007 at 10:44 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/05/goldsmith-politics-hiring/#comment-4059371
toasterhead = traitor
September 6th, 2007 at 11:39 pmLike I said, they used the bogus WMD claim to sell the war.
September 7th, 2007 at 4:40 amGoogle: “Powell Rice 2001 Iraq is not a threat”
What color are yours?
Comment by barfly — September 6, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Once again, you cannot “know” one thing and believe another, though you can act as though you do. All of this is a good way to avoid the original point that no libs had a problem with contradictory threads on two consecutive days. And it doesn’t really matter. I just thought it was interesting that some libs are so eager for any opportunity to bash Bush that it doesn’t even have to be a credible item. It doesn’t really hurt Bush any,but it makes the posters look foolish for failing to even recognize it. I disagree with a lot the Bush has done as well, but I at least attempt to examine the credibility of a report before I go along with it. But, hey, it gave you the opportunity to bash Bush one day for “believing” something you think is foolish and the next for “knowing” something that made him a liar. Can’t pass that up over something like credibility, eh? ;)
September 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pmDidn’t you say yesterday, that the US deserved 9/11?
I guess we know which side you’re on.
Comment by Ringo — September 5, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
I did, because we did. Prove me wrong.
Comment by toasterhead — September 5, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Surely this is a case of namejacking. I dinstinctly remember reading that Ward Churchill’s viewpoint is the minority and no one here ever said the U.S. deserved to be attacked. ;)
September 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm