911=inside job

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews

Rice has been at the heart of so much that has gone wrong in not only America, but the world. She has been a complete disaster; one of Bush’s primary enablers — along with Dick Cheney.

Of course she’s proud of it. What else would anyone else expect? Like most of the neocons she is without conscience and totally without any historical perspective. Her morally muffled conscience accounts for her pride. She like the others has no sense of shame. She is able to get those words out through the space in her teeth and the hole in her head.
God what trash she is.

Strawman. I said you omitted mention of the disclaimer, that was down further on the page. That is the lie by omission, because the disclaimer specifically says there is no context given for the quotes. Why is it so difficult for you to admit it? You’re only digging the hole deeper, and showing how little you care for honest debate. You’re a fraud, and if you won’t admit it, expect me to continue to point it out.

How’s that dead chicken smelling today? Ripe enough yet?

Do me a favor and post the portion of the link that I omitted.

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.”
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/iraq%20wmd/Intelligence_community_didnt_vet_Cheney_Bush_0605.html

Heh! I can hardly wait!

A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with

I also see from your post (#96) that the quotes from 1998 and the quotes used in the context of opposing war run counter to the thrust of my post (#46).

I concede the point.

EVERY OFFICIAL REPORT AND Tyler Drumheller , THE HEAD OF THE CIA IN EUROPE WHO WAS PAID TO KNOW CONFIRM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAR CRIMINAL AND LIARS!

ANY DOUBTS, WATCH THE VIDEO LIVE ON 60 MINUTES at link below…

“(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president’s determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

“Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida”
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/iraq%20wmd/29959.html

“Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq”
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/iraq%20wmd/CNN.com%20-%20Report%20%20No%20WMD%20stockpiles%20in%20Iraq%20-%20Oct%207,%202004.htm

I also wonder if Mr. Backup would like to enlighten us as to which freedoms we will lose if terrorists strike our land again.

Prepare, for a blizzard of out-of-context quotes. And his links don’t always say, what he claims he does, so caveat emptor, squared.

Can you also tell us which freedoms you have already lost as a result of the two attacks on the WTC buildings? Not saying that you agree with this, Backup…I’m only asking for your opinion.

Oh, and which group do you think we are at most risk from: terrorists flooding our land and attacking us, or our own fellow Americans shooting up our schools, our malls, and our workplaces? I think the evidence is highly in favor of the latter group. Wouldn’t you agree? From just a quick query of my memory, I’d say I can easily and quickly point out at least 3 events where our fellow Americans have been killed in public places in the past year alone. Now…how many successful terrorist attacks have we seen in the same timeframe?

A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with:

But not with military force – a point you left out, and still refuse to acknowledge. That’s intellectual dishonestly, and if you don’t know it, you should.

See what I mean folks? He tries to massage old, out of context quotes, and when the evidence is presented to him that he substantively lied (a lie of omission), he refuses to apologize or even acknowledge any wrong doing. Isn’t he the archetypical republican/conservative stooge?

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction…And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction.

Yes, Powell does indicate that he believes that the Iraqis are pursuing WMD programs, but they have not been successful.

So in early 2001 Iraq was not a serious threat to the U.S., not to mention its neighbors.

Yet less than a year later, we had to destroy them.

I’ve made reference to this before, but just now I realized that Powell talked about the President being in on the conversations about the sanctions, and apparently agreeing with everything that Powell said (I’ll post the link below to a complete transcript).

So we have two possibilities: the intelligence gathered that led the President and Powell to agree that Iraq was not a threat was either seriously flawed, or the intelligence that led us to invade a sovereign country that was no threat to us was flawed (or manipulated).

However, as it turns out, Powell was right when he made those statements in 2001. I also remind our friend Backup that Bush ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq only hours prior to our invasion, (and that it was not Saddam that kicked them out, as war supporters would have us believe), and they had not had the time to finish their tasks. Had they finished, we very likely wouldn’t be in the damned mess we are in today.

This may not be a complete link; I’ll try to leave out the http://www because TP likes to flag my posts as “awaiting moderation” when they contain links:

thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Don’t be a causual reader. Read it to the end and make up your own mind.

After you’ve read it to the end, explain to me how it doesn’t support my initial charge that:

A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with: