"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers," Sidney Blumenthal reported in Salon.com. "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."
What’s more, the intelligence information was later changed and distorted to match what the White House wanted to hear, Blumenthal reported. And when the CIA officers complained, one of Tenet’s deputies allegedly told them, "You haven’t figured this out yet. This isn’t about intelligence. It’s about regime change."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
296 Comments
Editors,
THANK YOU.
Now, Repukes, can you finally stop with the whole “the Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the White House, and therefore voted to authorize President Bush to go to war” lie?
The Democrats didn’t have the whole picture. Bush did and decided to ignore the intelligence which refuted claims about Iraqi WMD.
Bush lied. Folks died. That’s the truth.
So what else is new?
Hence the phrase, “Bush lied, people died.”
MEGA DITTOS, EDITORS!
What everybody pretty much knew all along, that Bush trumped up this war for oil by justifying any way he could, has now been proven beyond doubt.
“How long do you have to be hit over the head before you see who’s hitting you?” Harry Truman
bushco couldn’t tell the truth. It was already planned. bushco are murderers.
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” It is an ideological match to PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America’s new place in the world.
Why would bush listen to an informer in the inner circle, when he had ‘curveball’ (cute name).
Why does this matter?
Are the Democrats too dumb to realize they are not running against George Bush in the next Presidential Election?
Someone needs to get a clue.
Republicans ran against Clinton in the 2000 election. Were the Republicans too dumb to realize that he wasn’t running for a third term?
“Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail.”
I already addressed this yesterday.
Tarik Aziz, the foreign minister was a known propagandist and liar. He really couldn’t be trusted as he had given us many bad and false leads about the Hussein regime.
Going to Iraq was on Bush’s agenda before the 2000 election. Actually, several agendas were involved: 1. Recover the Bush family jewels left there by Daddybush, to the embarrassment of conservatives since Iraq I. 2. The securing of oil reserves for the US that had been tied up by the embargo. 3. To test the neo-con version of the Domino Theory, that if we establish a democratic government in Iraq (allied politically and economically with the US), that all the other governments in the middle-east would immediately collapse and democracy (and love of Israel) would blossom from the ashes (basically an idea borrowed from 19th century anarchism).
Believe me, intelligence had nothing to do with it! If Saddam wasn’t a threat, he had to be made one, and 9/11 became a perfect opportunity. All it took was a few speeches and bought-and-paid-for support in the media, and Saddam became the villain of 9/11!Now, 4 1/2 yrs and hundreds of thousands of casualties into an endless war, the Bush family jewels have yet to be captured, we have no guaranteed Iraqi oil reserves and any hopes for democracy there or elsewhere in the region are sunk in a genocidal religious war. Further, our own military is overextended, under-equipped and unable to respond to the very real threats of Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, or genocide in Darfur. Homeland security is a joke- an incovenience to Americans and no hindrance at all to our enemies. Intelligence has nothing to do with it!
OK, let me get this straight. George Tenant came to brief the president and told him that the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, had told them that Saddam had no WMDs. Which was, of course, just what Saddam had been telling everyone.
So, the article is about Bush rejecting the veracity of what a member of Saddam’s inner circle said?
WRONG AGAIN, KANSAS.
That’s exactly what we Progressives are demanding, that the Democratic leadership run against Bush and run hard.
Bush is everything hateful and despicable about today’s Republican party.
Hell, yes, we’re running against him, and all the SOB’s who backed Worst. President. Ever.
Is Bush on the ticket Capn?
If not, then I’m exactly right.
“Tarik Aziz, the foreign minister was a known propagandist and liar.”
Strangely however BushCo. had no problem believing that known propagandist and liar of Achmad Chalabi (he was so corrupt, even Bush Co turned against him) and the secret contact “Curveball.”
Both of them told what turned out to be a pack of unvarnished lies . . .
With the exception of Ron Paul I don’t hear any of the Republicans candidates saying this illegal occupation is a mistake. So they are running on Bush’s platform.
What does Achmad Chalabi have to do with the topic Capn?
Again Capn, with your lack of attention span, you simply cannot stay on topic and bring in extraneous, meaningless b.s.
Bush and the Repubs. ran against Clinton even though Clinton wasn’t running in 2000. Which is what sunk Gore, as the moral Repubs. were aghast that a politician would get a knobber in the WH!
“Is Bush on the ticket Capn?”
Maybe not but, with the exception of Ron Paul, they are all clones of bush.
Kans,”What does Achmad Chalabi have to do with the topic Capn?”
If you haven’t figured that one out, you should consider repeating First Grade!
“What does Achmad Chalabi have to do with the topic Capn?”
He and Curveball were the sources of the “information” Bush used to overrule the CIA.
WMD – Words of Mass Disinformation
“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.”
I skipped the first grade Jed. :)
Evidently, the main thrust of the topic was talking about Tarik Aziz who was the Iraqi foreign minister.
I figured it out Jed, why couldn’t you?
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS BELIEVED SADDAM HAD WMD
The Silberman – Robb Commission Found “[T]he Intelligence Services Of Many Other Nations Also Thought That Iraq Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction …” (“Report To The President,” Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05)
France:
French Foreign Minister Galouzeau De Villepin: “Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
Villepin: “Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and yperite.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
Villepin: “In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability.” (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
French Intelligence Supports Parts Of Secretary Powell’s Address To The UN Security Council. “Powell presented the Security Council with satellite images, intercepted phone conversations and other evidence which he said supported Washington’s claim that Baghdad was hiding mass destruction weapons. French Defense Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau said Thursday that French intelligence backed up parts of Powell’s presentation. ‘There are a certain number of questions evoked by Mr. Powell that we had information on.’” (Christine Ollivier, “Chirac Says U.S. Evidence On Iraq Does Not Change French Position,” The Associated Press, 2/6/03)
Germany:
In February 2003, The German Ambassador To The U.S. Said Iraq Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Ambassador Wolfgang Ishinger: “I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have – that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.” (NBC’s “Today,” 2/26/03)
German Intelligence Services Predicted That Iraq Would Have Nuclear Bomb Capabilities Within Three Years. “A report prepared by the German intelligence services in December 2000, based on defectors’ reports, satellite imagery, and aerial surveillance, predicted that Iraq will have three nuclear bombs by 2005. But that may be too optimistic. Before the Gulf War no one had a clue how far advanced Saddam’s nuclear weapons program was.” (Robert Kagan And William Kristol, “What To Do About Iraq,” The Weekly Standard, 1/21/02)
Russia:
Russian Intelligence Reports That Iraq Was Planning Terrorist Attacks Against The United States. “President Vladimir V. Putin said … that Russia gave intelligence reports to the Bush administration suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s government was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States or against American targets overseas. … Mr. Putin said Russia’s intelligence services received and passed along the information after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and before the American-led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. He did not give details of the nature of the intelligence or the type of attacks reportedly being prepared. … Mr. Putin said Russian ’special services’ had received information about plans for terrorist attacks ‘more than once.’” (Steven Lee Myers, “Putin Says U.S. Was Alerted To Possible Attacks By Iraq,” The New York Times, 6/19/04)
Great Britain:
Great Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair: “[W]hat we know from what has been going on there for a long period of time is not just the chemical, biological weapons capability, but we know that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons capability.” (Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping The Peace, Camp David, MD, 9/7/02)
Blair: “[I] was just reading coming over here the catalog of attempts by Iraq to conceal its weapons of mass destruction, not to tell the truth about it over — not just over a period of months, but over a period of years. Now, that’s why the issue is important.” (Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss Keeping The Peace, Camp David, MD, 9/7/02)
Blair: “There isn’t any doubt that Iraq has had weapons of mass destruction … That is not in dispute, not by anybody.” (Jane Wardell, “Blair: No Doubt Saddam Had Banned Weapons,” The Associated Press, 4/28/03)
Italy:
Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi: “I believe that the moment has arrived to find out where all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein said he had, where they ended up.” (Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, President Bush Meets With Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, Washington, DC, 1/30/03)
Berlusconi: “[Iraq has] to avail themselves of the biological, chemical weapons that we know were available as Saddam Hussein. Therefore, on the basis of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein has to reveal and account for the weapons that we know he has. So the decision on face rests in his hands.” (Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, President Bush Meets With Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, Washington, DC, 1/30/03)
Australia:
Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard: “Australia’s position concerning Iraq is very clear. We believe a world in which weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of rogue states, with the potential threat of them falling into the hands of terrorists, is not a world that Australia — if we can possibly avoid it — wants to be part of.” (Prime Minister John Howard, President Bush Meets With Prime Minister Howard Of Australia, 2/10/03)
Howard: “And that is the fundamental reason why Australia has taken the position she has. And it’s the fundamental reason why we believe the goals that the United States set of disarming Iraq are proper goals and they are goals that the entire world should pursue.” (The White House, President Bush Meets With Prime Minister Howard Of Australia, 2/10/03)
INTELLIGENCE REPORTS SHOW NO MANIPULATION OF INTELLIGENCE
The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence:
“The Committee Did Not Find Any Evidence That Administration Officials Attempted To Coerce, Influence Or Pressure Analysts To Change Their Judgments Related To Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Capabilities.” (“The Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
“The Committee Found No Evidence That The IC’s [Intelligence Community] Mischaracterization Or Exaggeration Of The Intelligence On Iraq’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) Capabilities Was The Result Of Political Pressure.” (“The Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
Silberman-Robb Commission:
The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction Stated They Found “No Evidence Of ‘Politicization.’” “Many observers of the Intelligence Community have expressed concern that Intelligence Community judgments concerning Iraq’s purported WMD programs may have been warped by inappropriate political pressure. … The Commission has found no evidence of ‘politicization’ of the Intelligence Community’s assessments concerning Iraq’s reported WMD programs.” (The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, “Report To The President,” 3/31/05)
The Duelfer Report:
“Saddam Husayn [Sic] So Dominated The Iraqi Regime That Its Strategic Intent Was His Alone. He Wanted To End Sanctions While Preserving The Capability To Reconstitute His Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) When Sanctions Were Lifted.” (Comprehensive Report Of The Special Advisor To The DCI On Iraq’s WMD, 9/30/04, Pg. 1)
Saddam Sought To “Recreate Iraq’s WMD Capability” When Sanctions Were Lifted. “Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability – which was essentially destroyed in 1991 – after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability – in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks – but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.” (Comprehensive Report Of The Special Advisor To The DCI On Iraq’s WMD, 9/30/04, Pg. 1)
Saddam’s “Lieutenants Understood WMD Revival Was His Goal.” “The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.” (Comprehensive Report Of The Special Advisor To The DCI On Iraq’s WMD, 9/30/04, Pg. 1)
Former Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay:
Kay: “Based On The Intelligence That Existed, I Think It Was Reasonable To Reach The Conclusion That Iraq Posed An Imminent Threat.” (NPR’s “Weekend Edition,” 1/25/04)
Kay: “[A]ll I Can Say Is If You Read The Total Body Of Intelligence In The Last 12 To 15 Years That Flowed On Iraq, I Quite Frankly Think It Would Be Hard To Come To A Conclusion Other Than Iraq Was A Gathering, Serious Threat To The World With Regard To WMD.” (David Kay, Committee On The Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 1/28/04)
oops, Tarik Aziz was the deputy minister, but also later a source for the U.S.
“capacity to produce”
“possible possession”
“Powell presented”
“we have to assume”
Not very convincing statements about your claim that they knew they had WMD. You weaken your case by referencing Bill Kristol who is constantly wrong about Iraq.
Face it Nathan, Bush lied. The evidence is overwhelming. The U.S. doesn’t go to war based upon the statements of Germany and France (who both opposed the invasion).
Thanks Nathan,
I remember when you posted that the last time and the Libs still haven’t learned their lesson, but instead believe magazine articles from rags and political hack Websites like Salon.
Here’s from the Report Nathan referenced:
“any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat … ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents”
I’ll agree with that Nathan, no WMDs. Moving on….
I get it Nathan. I thought he did too. Oppsoh.
He republicans, have you noticed how many liberals are saying Ron Paul? Most of American knows that we made a mistake taking on Iraq. Most Americans IMHO will vote for a president who will get us out of Iraq.
Ron Paul will take moderate liberal votes away from Hillary. If you really think about it, Ron Paul is the only hope for a republican victory in ‘08. All the rest of the candidates not only want to continue Iraq, but start Iran too. I don’t think the Americans have the stomache for yet another front in this war. If RP is not the GOP ticket, Hillary wins. Damn that is scary !!!
Oh heck, let’s continue with Nathan’s Duelfer Report.
“Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological physical infrastructure does not pose a proliferation concern”
“the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible. … there is no further purpose in holding many of these detainees”
The Bush regime tried out as many lies as possible (for some reason even when it’s exposed as a lie the fascists continue to believe it as fact, must be a mental problem). The Bushies used a graduate student’s thesis which was outdated since it was based on information before the first gulf war.
I guess stupid people never learn.
Damn Sol, it looks like I finally agree with you on something. The Republican primary is geared towards a very small segment of the population who still favors war. This can’t carry over well to the 70% who oppose the occupation.
Cut the Republican support if Romney wins because 36% of Southern Republicans won’t vote for a Morman. The anti-abortion faction won’t vote for Guiliani. The Democratic party is guaranteed to win on the Iraq issue alone.
I challenge Sen. Roberts to weigh in on this discussion. Did you know beforehand that an informant from Saddams’ inner circle, had passed along this info. to the CIA? Did you know of the meeting between Tenant and Bush in which the CIA said it didn’t believe Saddam had WMD’s. If not, did you evaluate this disclosure in your ‘oh so thorough investigation”?
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003
7 March 2003 | New York, USAStatement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
Nathan,
Nice job downloading posts–all of which are completely beside the point. Tenet briefed Bush on September 18, 2002. No mention of the CIA’s findings was ever released until 2006, long after the Duelfer report, the Robb Report, and the reports of the individual countries.
All your cutting and pasting proves is that Bush held back the information from everyone. Nobody had access to the info except Bush. Accordingly, all of the assessments you cite provide zero support for Bush’s assertion that Iraq had WMD, and that “everybody thought so.”
“Everybody thought so” is no defense when the President had demonstrable, exclusive access to evidence to the contrary, but withheld it.
Naji Sabri was quite credible: French intelligence thought so, as did the CIA who tapped his phones and extensively looked into his claims. They gave his claims and documentation the thumbs-up.
Here’s what the Salon story has to say.
“Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam’s WMD programs. “The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn’t, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons,” one of the former CIA officers told me.
On the eve of Sabri’s appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam’s case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a “cutout” who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was “excited” about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri’s information was at odds with “our best source.” That source was code-named “Curveball,” later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.
The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. “Tenet told me he briefed the president personally,” said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush’s response was to call the information “the same old thing.” Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. “The president had no interest in the intelligence,” said the CIA officer. The other officer said, “Bush didn’t give a f*ck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
But the CIA officers working on the Sabri case kept collecting information. “We checked on everything he told us.” French intelligence eavesdropped on his telephone conversations and shared them with the CIA. These taps “validated” Sabri’s claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. “They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war,” said one of the CIA officers.”
So, let’s review: George Bush knew there was credible evidence to the contrary of the claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and actively suppressed it. He took the nation to war on false pretences. And it’s only the continued efforts of ill-intentioned sheep like you, Nathan, that keeps him in office.
I think lying to get the nation to go to war counts as treason. If you enable such lies as this, what does that make YOU, Nathan?
It would seem to me that this latest info, combined with the UN’s own inspectors, make Bush out to be what he is: a liar and manipulator of the truth. His obsession with getting rid of Sadaam has cost this country way more than just lives, it has cost us credibility.
Bush has no idea what protecting this country means. Witness Katrina and Iraq if you have any doubt.
You neo-cons will still be blaming Clinton long after Bush is gone, so your mantra that Liberals will be running against Bush is as baseless as your rants against Liberals.
Liberals will be running to attempt to fix the system Bush broke. That could take generations.
From captured tapes post Invasion of Iraq
A meeting about WMD’s, Saddam Hussein Speaking:
The Saddam Tapes and Media Distortion
By Bill Tierney
Saddam makes an interesting comment in another taped meeting (ISGQ-2003-M0004444 page 5) prior to the presidential site inspections:
“When they pass Tikrit they are going to Al Makhoul. This we are learning from experience, between Tikrit and Makhoul the distance is 70 km, so we will know when they leave. We know that is a real complication, there is a complication… we do not need to divulge our position. I will tell them to please come in…this is what we have… we are going to move them during the week, take the entire Makhoul area…we don’t want to give up our position and don’t need to… the targets that we want them to deploy…we exhaust them so the real targets get lost.”
Intelligence from 1997 indicated that prohibited items were being held at Makhoul, and it was the only presidential site where an inspection was originally requested. It must have been understood among the attendees what “them” was going to be moved. We are left to guess at its meaning, but it’s a safe bet it was something Saddam wanted kept away from the Special Commission.http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles
“On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence. . . . ”
Whoa! Now there’s a change! Tenet in the Oval Office! If that had happened in the Clinton years there might not have been a 9/11!
Hank
Kansas, have I receeived a deal for you in my mail box! You can be a work from home Accounts Payable Mgr., All you have to do is cash the checks the company receives, cash them, keep 10% off the top for processing and record keeping, and forward the other 90%! Sweet, huh?
Hank, whoopee, went in one ear and out the other! Besides, I believe Clinton was much more engaged with the intelligence community, and held regular meetings. Most likely Tenants’ meeting in the oval office was an act of desperation on his part, to get dufus to listen.
Kans,”I skipped the first grade Jed. :)
Evidently, the main thrust of the topic was talking about Tarik Aziz who was the Iraqi foreign minister.
I figured it out Jed, why couldn’t you?
What I figured out before we even started this disaster was that the intelligence was not a consideration except as propaganda. Bush and Co. were going to find a way into Iraq no matter what the actual intelligence. Tarik Aziz was dismissed on those grounds, not whether he was credible.Maye you need to go back and pick up that First Grade. You seem to have missed a few crucual lessons.
And, ofcourse we have the Downing Street Memo, the intelligence is being fixed around the objective.
The Democratic party is guaranteed to win on the Iraq issue alone.
Posted by: Doug | September 07, 2007 at 01:53 PM
If that were true then Kerry would be POTUS.
“Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction”
That is the misleading headline of Blumenthal’s article. Misleading because there is nothing in his article from which to draw this conclusion.
There is evidence of reasonable judgment in doubting the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, had told them that Saddam had no WMDs. Which was, of course, just what Saddam had been telling everyone.
Kind of like you lefties saying that you would believe what Bush says if only Rove would vouch for him.
Recycled propaganda.
Kansas – then where are they? We have been searching for YEARS. And don’t try to give me the “Saddam gave them to his enemy” BS.
CF2K,
If I were the typical liberal here I think this is where I would start screaming about you calling me a traitor…
Since I am not the typical liberal, this was only one man vs a bunch of evidence.
Could Bush have dismissed it?
Yes.
Does it prove Bush lied?
No.
Gee, with Sadaam and his chiefs saying there wern’t any WMD, the UN inspectors telling the UN there wern’t any WMD, and there turning out to be no WMD, you’ld think anyone with intelligence would make a proper decision. Which leaves out Bushco.
stumper: So Bushco should have taken the fact that WMDs weren’t LATER found into consideration?
You know, the scary thing is that is going to make sense to some.
Outlander,
I just find is so convienent that the liberals live in a little world where there is no History.
Since 1998 the Democrats and even their Global Warming hero Al Gore had been saying what a threat Saddam was and how he still had WMD’s.
All the worlds leading intelligence agencies were saying Saddam still had WMD’s.
Saddam himself never accounted for the WMD’s he had.
But now all of a sudden we are supposed to ignore ALL of that because one guy in the administration said Saddam didn’t have any WMD’s?
It was not some big conspiracy.
It was a mistake… maybe.
We still do not know where those unaccounted for WMD’s are.
Sure we have not found any, but why?
Instead of asking that question the liberals are spending all their time trying to pretend like the Democrats were not saying the exact same things as Bush prior to the invasion.
outlander,
Would you trust Colin Powell and Condi when they said Saddam had no WMD’s?
Because they did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
Bush lied, innocent people died.
For the BILLIONTH time – the Democrats, Clinton included, only thought there were WMD’s in Iraq PRIOR to the UN Inspectors returning in November of 2002.
Had they been allowed to finish their jobs PRIOR to the invasion, there would have been NO NEED for a War on Iraq.
Christ.
So we invaded and found no WMDs. The fight was initiated to keep Iraq from having/using WMDs. No WMDs, no more reason to be there.
If no one is going to impeach Bush, why are we having this conversation?
WS Clark,
Those inspectors were being jerked around for years.
We were all of a sudden supposed to get full cooperation and access 12 years later?
How naive…
You have to love the contortions the Bush lovers go through to stand by their man. It is clear that Bush had been told by more than one source that Saddam did not have WMDs and he still chose to tell Congress, the American people, the UN and the world that he did. In the reality based world that is known as lying. If you are claiming that Bush was rejecting the findings of the weapons inspectors, his own CIA and the statements of Iraqi government officials and substituting them with his hope and opinion that Iraq had WMDs, that is worse than lying and constitutes intentional gross negligence that has resulted in the loss of thousands of American soldiers and an unknown number of innocent Iraqi civilians. Which is it, did Bush lie to build support for the war or did he blindly choose to invade another country based on nothing more than his wish to do so?
Nathan,I really don’t care what Gore (or Hillary) said at the time; I was willing to bet that Saddam had no WMD’s back in December of 2002, and that Bush & Co. knew it. I learned to spot propaganda a long time ago, and the administration’s statements reeked of it. They wouldn’t have needed propaganda if they had truth on their side.
Nathan, I am amazed at the fantasy world Republicans live in. In October 2002, Al Gore spoke out AGAINST invading Iraq. He predicted exactly what would happen if we invaded, it’s as if he had a time machine. He also said he didn’t believe Saddam had nuclear weapons.
They found a few old chemical warheads leftover from the 1980s — the Reagan years.
Get your head out of the sand and realize some of us tried to warn you against this stupid course of action. Bush took this stupid course of action anyway. Now you want to share the blame. Well I won’t share the blame with you. If you wanted to invade, you take the blame.
Scott,
For every piece of intelligence you have saying there were no WMD’s Bush probably had 5 more saying he did.
It is a matter of weighing those things to determine what is more accurate.
Figuring that most every major intellegence agency in the world all agreed that Saddam still did I don’t find your little either/or question to be very accurate.
It is quote time! Yeah!
Gore: “You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We’re Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 12/16/98)
Gore: “[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He’s Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons …” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 12/16/98)
If they arent going to impeach Bush, why are we having this conversation? It is truely pointless. We are in Iraq now. We made a mistake. What counts is getting the US out of the Mid-East.
Nathan do you have any basis whatsoever in saying that Bush had intelligence 5-to-1 that Saddam had nukes?
Nathan,
You keep saying that the Democrats were also saying that Saddam had WMDs, but you keep leaving out the part where the Bush administration destroyed or altered any reports that would have indicated otherwise. The Democrats were basing their comments on the doctored intelligence reports that Bushco was using to build support for the war, any information that didn’t support an invasion based on WMDs was withheld from Congress and the American people. Or in language that even a neocon can understand, Bush either lied to the American people and took part in a massive fraud and coverup of information that would have prevented his elective war against Saddam. Bush is a scumbag and war criminal.
Sen. Biden: “We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/4/02)
Sen. Biden: “Constitutionally, The President Has The Right To Act Preemptively.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/16/02)
Sen. Biden: “Does The President Have The Right To Preemptively Go Strike The Chinese, The Communist Regime? The Answer’s No. And So – But With Saddam, There Is–It’s Much More Tenuous Because He Has Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction Before. He Has Made Assertions About Intentions To Use These Weapons And, Therefore, It Gives More Credence To The President’s Capacity To Be Able To Go Act Preemptively.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/16/02)
Sen. Biden: “[W]hat Makes Saddam Hussein Different Is He Invaded A Country; He Lost A War; The Terms Of Surrender Were Specific Requirements Made And Commitments Made To The United Nations That He Has Violated.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/22/02)
“Biden Said He Was Open To Any Number Of Possible Changes [To The Iraq War Resolution] ‘As Long As The Bottom Line Is The Condition Upon Which You Are Authorized To Go To War Is To Deal With Weapons Of Mass Destruction.’” (Jon Frandsen, “Senate Poised To Begin Debate On Iraq As Talks Continue Over Resolution,” Gannett News Service, 10/2/02)
Sen. Biden: “Mr. Ambassador [Richard Butler], I Share Your View That Saddam At All Costs Will Agree To No Inspection That May Cost Him His Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/31/02)
Sen. Biden: “[I]f Saddam Were Successful In Building An Intermediate-Range Missile Or A Missile That Is Much Further Than 160 Kilometers, And If He Were Able To Provide A Nuclear Warhead On That Missile — As We All Know, It’s A Heck Of A Lot Easier To Put A Chemical Or Biological Warhead, For No Other Reason For The Laymen Out There, Other Than The Pure Weight Of The Object.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/31/02)
Sen. Boxer: “The Weapons They [Iraq] Have Are A Threat To The World. And Mr. President, The World Must Respond.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10252)
Sen. Boxer: “To Me, The Issue Of Iraq Should Be Approached In The Following Way. Iraq Must Be Held To Its Word That It Will Submit To Thorough Inspections And Dismantlement Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Let Me Repeat That: Iraq Must Be Held To Its Word That It Will Submit To Thorough Inspections And Dismantlement Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10252)
“[Boxer] Said The United States Cannot Stand By As Saddam Makes ‘Weapons Of Mass Destruction.’” (Felicia Cousart, “Boxer Hits The Campaign Trail In Selma,” The Fresno Bee, 2/19/98)
Sen. Boxer: “Anyone Who Questions The Timing Of His Decision Ignores The Fact That We Committed A Month Ago To Act If Richard Butler Reported That Saddam Was Not Cooperating. These Critics Are Blinded By Political Considerations.” (Michelle Williams, “Politicians And Voters Speak Out On Impeachment, Military Strike,” The Associated Press, 12/17/98)
“Butler, The United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector, Reported To U.N. Officials Tuesday That Iraq Had Reneged On An Agreement To Cooperate With Inspectors, Refusing To Allow Access To Weapons Sites. He Said Iraq’s Obstruction, Evasion And Subterfuge Made It Impossible For Him To Assure That Baghdad’s Weapons Of Mass Destruction Had Been Eliminated.” (Michelle Williams, “Politicians And Voters Speak Out On Impeachment, Military Strike,” The Associated Press, 12/17/98)
Sen. Boxer: “He Is A Threat, There’s No Question, Because He’s Got These Weapons, We Believe, But We Need To See The Extent Of It.” (Dan Eggen, “GOP Senators Defend Case For Strikes Against Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/12/02)
Good quote, Nathan. You demonstrated that Al Gore knew about Saddam’s nuclear program in the 1980s. BTW, that was destroyed by Israeli air strikes. Were you aware of that?
President Clinton: “We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us.” (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2/17/98)
President Clinton: “Earlier Today I Ordered America’s Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq… Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq’s Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors …” (”Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack,” Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)
President Clinton: “Saddam Hussein Must Not Be Allowed To Threaten His Neighbors Or The World With Nuclear Arms, Poison Gas Or Biological Weapons.” (President Clintion, Address To The Nation Announcing Military Strikes On Iraq, Washington, D.C., 12/16/98)
Sen. Clinton: “[E]verybody Knows This Is A Bad Guy And The Last Thing On Earth We Want Is For Him To Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction And A Delivery System By Which He Could Cause Havoc In His Region And Around The World. Therefore We Do Want To Get Rid Of Him.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 9/11/02)
Sen. Clinton: “I Can Support The President, I Can Support An Action Against Saddam Hussein Because I Think It’s In The Long-Term Interests Of Our National Security …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,’ 9/15/02)
NBC’s Tim Russert: “Do You Believe We Could Have Disarmament Without Regime Change?” Sen. Clinton: “I Doubt It.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,’ 9/15/02)
Sen. Clinton: “In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. … It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)
Sen. Clinton: “I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States.” (Senator Hillary Clinton, Press Conference, January 22, 2003)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “There’s No Question That Saddam Hussein Is A Threat To The United States And To Our Allies. …[I]f Saddam Persists In Thumbing His Nose At The Inspectors, Then We’re Clearly Going To Have To Do Something About It.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/29/02)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “I Believe That Iraq Does Have Chemical And Biological Weapons, And They Are A Threat To Many Nations In The Region, But Not To The United States.” (PBS’ “Newshour,” 2/25/03)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “Everything The President Says About Saddam Hussein Is True. He’s Evil. He’s A Liar. He Gases His Own People.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/22/02)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “I Would Be Surprised If [Hussein] Didn’t Have’ Chemical And Biological Weapons.” (Mort Kondracke, “Is Howard Dean For Real? Well, Not Entirely,” Roll Call, 1/27/03)
Sen. Dodd: “[O]f Course We’re Safer [Without Saddam]. I Mean, Consider The Option Of Him Still Being There, Knowing That He Has Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Knowing How Committed He Was To Do Everything He Could To Be Harmful To The United States And Our Allies.” (CNBC’s “Capital Report,” 12/18/03)
Sen. Dodd: “[T]his Issue Of Iraq Is Important, It Is A Threat. We’re Going To Have To Respond To This. If Saddam Hussein Is Still There Without Inspections Months Or Several Years From Now, Then We’re Going To Have To Remove Him One Way Or The Other.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/29/02)
Sen. Dodd: “[I] Think We Need To Operate On The Assumption Because Saddam Hussein Has Used These Weapons In The Past, That They May Still Be Out There, And Getting Ahold Of Those Scientists And Others Who Can Provide That Information To Us I Think Is Critically Important.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/29/03)
Sen. Dodd: “[T]he Longer We Wait, The Greater Risk … Posed By Iraq.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/29/03)
Sen. Dodd: “Obviously, There Is A Threat In Iraq. We All Know That.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/7/03, p. S3356)
Sen. Dodd: “Yes, Iraq Is A Threat …” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/7/03, p. S3356)
Sen. Dodd: “I Believe Saddam Hussein Poses A Global Threat, And That Certainly Needs To Be Addressed.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/7/03, p. S3359)
Sen. Dodd: “I Also Agree With President Bush That Saddam Hussein Is A Threat To Peace And Must Be Disarmed, To Quote President Bush Directly.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10177)
Sen. Dodd: “I Want To See Iraq Disarm. Every American Does.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/7/03, p. S3357)
Sen. Dodd: “I Certainly, Like Many Here, Have Never Doubted Whether Iraq Possessed Weapons Of Mass Destruction At All, And I Think The Evidence You [Colin Powell] Presented [To The United Nations] … Was Done In A Very Effective And Systematic Way.” (Sen. Christopher Dodd, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/03)
Nathan, did Al Gore support the invasion of Iraq? Did Barbara Boxer? Did Nancy Pelosi?
Nathan,”It is a matter of weighing those things to determine what is more accurate.”That only works when Bush keeps his thumb off the scales. It was obvious then as now that one of his thumbs was on the scale. We all know where the other one was.
Nathan, you need to find a quote where Al Gore says, “We need to invade Iraq in 2003.”
“Sen. Biden: “We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability.”
(NBC’s “Meet The Press,” ** 8/4/02 **)”
Posted by Nathan.
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003
7 March ** 2003 ** | New York, USAStatement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
Vote Republican… it’s easier than thinking.
The CIA did not tell Bush that Iraq had no WMDs. That’s not even what the article says. Why keep repeating the lie?
As if…
See folks, in Nathan’s world, “Saddam is a threat” is a synonym for “We should invade the country and occupy it.”
“It is quote time! Yeah!
Posted by: Nathan | September 07, 2007 at 03:55 PM
The clueless Nathan way justifies an invasion…
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp“Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction.
However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.
Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.” ”
Vote Republican… it’s easier than thinking.
Phantom you’re exactly right, Clinton had a lot more important things going on in the Oval office than briefings from Tenet.
It’s been documented that he got more blowjobs from Lewenski than briefings from Tenet.
Hank
Nathan- You are the man!
I’m surprised there aren’t any comments from the “conservatives” in regards to the video I posted at 3:49 of Colin and Condi stating that Saddam wasn’t a threat.
Oh wait…
No I’m not.
Gore opposed a preemptive invasion of Iraq.
Al Gore – September 23, 2002
‘IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM’http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
Hank, maybe you can answer the question:
Did Al Gore support the invasion of Iraq in 2002?
Did Nancy Pelosi?
Did Barbara Boxer?
fleetwood, since you agree with Nathan. Can you answer the question?
Here’s the link again for the Bush supporters who are too lazy or stupid to scroll up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
C’mon kids, let’s see if you can spin that.
Hey leftcoaster,
Yep, I can answer the questions, so what? Democrats only care about what can keep them in power another term. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hank
“Nathan- You are the man!”
Posted by: fleettwood | September 07, 2007 at 04:10 PM
Nathan and fleettwood don’t seem to know about Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.
They don’t seem to know about the inspection reports in early 2003.
Are they clueless, trying to deceive, or …?
“Are they clueless, trying to deceive, or …?”
I choose number 3, Bob.
Do I win a car?
“Are they clueless, trying to deceive, or …?”
Yes.
Hank, I was hoping you could address the facts, but if all you got is baseless accusations, the fine with me.
Anyone else care to answer the question? Nathan, you in particular must have a point to prove with all those quotes. So what is it? Did they support the invasion? You never say.
who cares about Sadaam’s supposed WMD’s anymore?
Today’s fighting in Iraq is against Al Queda who is supported by OBL who is our enemy. OBL said so much in his little video that leaked out today.
cosmos, it must take a special talent for these guys to hear one sentence out of a speech but not hear anything that precedes or follows.
rfl, maybe you don’t think a decision that ended the lives of 3,700 soldiers (and counting) is important, but some of us do.
And do you believe everything Osama Bin Laden tells you?
“So what is it? Did they support the invasion?”
The point is the Kumbaya, panty wearing, McGovern crowd will not defend this country. They are big on preparing for the response when we are attacked (we simply must spend zillions to get all the radios on the same frequency), but stopping the attack. Not so much.
Still no comments on the video?
Proof that Bush supporters are kool-aid swilling cowards, afraid to view something that will blow their shabbily constructed arguements out of the water.
Cowards.
And we are giving this much unsupported weight to a book written by ‘former Clinton senior aide Sidney Blumenthal lets loose.’ because it is something new? Not
Because it is supported by impeccible witnesses that will back it up? Not
Because George Tenet has all of a sudden become a reliable source? Not
More of the same ole same ole. We are at war because many dems and repubs believed as Bush did. They saw the same reports and have admitted as much. Hillary got her reports straight from Albright as she has admitted. They all came to the same conclusion. Dems when a prez makes a decision he doesn’t have the luxury of taking it back if years down the road the intelligence changes. Your candidate should learn this. They may have to know it. They will be a ‘test’ later.
LOL,
Did they support the invasion?
Well lets see, The vote authorizing the use fo force:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
The vote was 77 to 23
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), YeaDaschle (D-SD), YeaEdwards (D-NC), YeaFeinstein (D-CA), YeaKerry (D-MA), Yea
Duh.
ksgrm when a Prez makes a decision he apparently has the luxury of blaming it on his political opponents rather than take responsibility.
Let’s hear that greek tragedy chorus again: Oh, but the Dems wanted to invade too! Don’t blame me!
Cowards.
Nathan, what about Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer?
Did they support the invasion?
In the House:
296 to 133 in favor
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
“Hillary got her reports straight from Albright as she has admitted. They all came to the same conclusion.”
I didn’t realize Hillary was a “they”
Talk about cherry-picking! Tell your President to take responsibility for HIS decision and stop blaming his opponents.
Thanks for the links Nathan. You’ve proven that if it were entirely up to the Dems in 2002, they never would have passed that legislation authorizing Bush to make a stupid mistake.
Left when a decision is made in Washington do we take a poll of all out of office politicians (Al Gore) or just select ones? If Calif reps don’t go along then we scrap all plans even if the majority agree?
What am I supposed to take from your post?
Here’s a video of that evil President who said in no uncertain terms that Saddam Hussein has and is developing Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnceSIxxOYg
ksgrm, from my post you are supposed to take this: If Gore were President, we would not have made the stupid mistake of invading Iraq. He probably wouldn’t have taken a 6 week vacation his first year either, and he might have even read the briefing about bin Laden determined to strike the U.S.
Nathan- You are the man! Did the dems support the invasion?DUH!
Priceless.
Hey, Libs!
Suck it.
Kansas, if you support what Clinton said, why did Republicans oppose his action in taking out Saddam’s WMD programs?
Leftie do you know who Hillary is? She has always been shown by the drive by media to be the most important senator in the chamber. She is ‘running for prez’ don’t sha know?
You need to keep up with the cast. They just keep changing but if you don’t blink to often it’s easy.
I’ll give you a pass this time but you really need to know who is running as your candidate.
fleetwood, tell the families of 3,700 dead soldiers to “suck it.” Go tell Pat Tillman’s family. I double dog dare you.
Nathan has proven one thing by posting the Congressional vote. Since we all agree that invading Iraq was a mistake, and 100% of Republicans supported that mistake, and more than half the Dems opposed that mistake, it can only mean Dems are smarter on national defense.
In the future I suggest you will be better off listening to the Dems, given that their track record is much better than the Republicans.
Kansas,
I watched your video of clinton, you gonna watch mine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
Can’t promise you it won’t hurt a bit, because it will.
“…it can only mean Dems are smarter on national defense.”
Now, that was just silly. And weak.
ksgrm, since we both agree invading Iraq was a mistake, I’ll share my reasoning with you. I’ll support first those who tried to warn us against making that mistake (for example Al Gore). Absent that choice, I’ll take the candidate who recognized the mistake first.
Who would you rather have? Someone who was right all along? Someone who was wrong at first but then recognized the mistake, or someone who is still wrong today?
fleetwood, I’m saying that people who have been proven right on national defense are smarter. You disagree, and I understand that. You think people who were wrong are smarter. That is your right in a free country.
The voice of the American Secular Progressive Left.
Septemember 06, 2007
“Then Bush talks about his working with al-Maliki and his government to spread freedom in Iraq but he in fact is working with the leaders of one sect against another sect, in the belief that this will quickly decide the war in his favor.
And thus, what is called the civil war came into being and matters worsened at his hands before getting out of his control and him becoming like the one who plows and soes the sea; he harvests nothing but failure.”
Osama Bin Laden
Left if Gore is your choice of a smart ethical person then we aren’t ever going to agree. One thing he did years ago while campaigning told me all I need to know about his character. He told us how he planted, suckled, picked and barned those tobacco leaves and in the next ad (different location)told us with tears in his eyes that his only sister had died with lung cancer a result of lifelong smoking.
He isn’t an honest man. He speaks with a forked tounge, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Do you get the picture? You caught him on a day when he was against the invasion. Probably the next day he was for it. It just depends on his audience.
The people who knew him best in Tennessee defeated him not the Floridians as dems like to think.
C’mon Bush supporters, any comments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU
Well, other than the electoral college ‘defeat’ of Gore, at lot of Americans seemed to have liked him. More than GW
Speaker Pelosi on WMD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78
bloggus, don’t hold your breath on that one
Interesting ksgrm,
What’s the name of that river in East Tennessee that the Gore family ruined forever?
Tennessee, Clinton carried it twice, Gore’s home state. If he had only carried it once he’d be president today!
Hank
Brian,
I know.
It’s hilarious to me how they choose to ignore the words of Colin and Condi stating specifically that Saddam was no threat to us.
There’s no way they can deny it.
Last week’s finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq’s declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles. January 2003 condoleeza Rice
Brian the people who knew him best turned him down. This is not a ringing endorsement of his believeablity. For me that is enough.
If his hometown/state had voted for him the electroral college wouldn’t have mattered would it?
Well bloggus,
Hmmm, pre 9/11 assessments of Iraq. Did any other opinions change after the twin towers fell?
So what? It’s all irrevelent now.
Hank
Alright, who is the author of this quote?
“The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of ‘globalization’ in order to protect democracy.”
A. Michael MooreB. Capn AmericaC. Steven DavisD. Osama bin LadinE. Hank Price
So what? It’s all irrevelent now.
Oh, I forgot, 911 changed everything, didn’t it? Doesn’t matter that Colin and Condi both agreed and stated in no uncertain terms that Saddam wasn’t a threat to anyone, then turn around a year later and tell us he’s going to nuke us with those scary balsa drones of death.
So which Lib poster is bloggus?
Someone afraid to post under their regular name?
Have a great weekend, reality based peoples.
“So which Lib poster is bloggus?
Someone afraid to post under their regular name?”
I’m a lurker who posts occasionally.
Is that a problem?
That’s right, the good people of Tennessee decided that Bush was right and Gore was wrong. History says otherwise, but you can’t expect folks to know everything.
Or you can take Hanks “who cares” attitude towards the whole issue. Or you can fall back on partisan name-calling.
If you want to call names or say bin Laden speaks for me or anyone else in this country, then I don’t have to tell you what I think of that.
Personally, I think the people who were right about what a mistake it was to invade Iraq are smarter. If you think the people who were wrong are smarter, then we simply disagree.
Of course, we can all agree it was a mistake to invade Iraq. I haven’t heard any disagreement on that point.
Answer: Osama bin Ladin
Not only has the newly dyed bearded one been listening to ABC news, he seems to have been checking out other outlets, too.
http://www.philstar.com/index.php?News%20Flash&p=54&type=2&sec=91&aid=2007090810
Leftie you have heard the quote “Hindsight is 20/20″. While I agree with you now we shouldn’t have gone in when we invaded I was 100% behind it.
Man, you gotta be pretty dumb to still support Bush. But I guess he draws his own kind. I do enjoy watching the few nitwits rally to this crooked SOB’s support. Yeah, you republicans are real patriotic.
“Personally, I think the people who were right about what a mistake it was to invade Iraq are smarter.”
The beauty of being against this war against the terrorists is:
When you are finally proven wrong, and we do get a handle on this thing, you will not be held to account. The successes do not help you. In fact, the successes make your position weaker. And worse. But, in the end, you people will be still voted into office for reasons other than your willingness to protect this country. Your biggest fear is America is attacked again. Not for the obvious reasons, but because you know America does not trust the democrat party to protect us from our enemies. The goverment really only has one job and that’s to protect us from our enemies.
Fleet you of course are right and the dems have admitted this when saying that “success in Iraq is not good news for us”. The dems have to keep beating this drum of defeat. It is the only one they have. Now BinLaden has agreed with them.
What did Iraq have to do with the War on Terror(ism)?
Even George WMD Bush says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so why, again, are we at war with Iraq?
“…so why, again, are we at war with Iraq?”
Who gives a $hit. We are.
Find another drum to pound.Live in the now, yo.
Does “success in Iraq” mean 1)that the Sunnis and Shiites aren’t killing each other; 2) We have trained their police and military.
I heard that there are bipartisan groups forming in the Senate and House which are trying to set up goals that are more time limited – like training and then getting out.
And Grm, I was going to ask you, do you know who said the above quote. I did not recall hearing anyone say that. Not spending $3 Billion a week would be good news to any American: Republican or Democrat. This is what my google search of those words returned:
Your search – “success in Iraq is not good news for us” – did not match any documents.
“Who gives a $hit. We are.”
And we should trust the idiots that got us in to get us out?
Yeah, right.
Christ.
“And we should trust the idiots that got us in to get us out?”
Do mean Reid or Clinton or …
Nathan,The title of this thread says it all. If it is indeed correct, then Bush and company is guilty of misleading the American public, and both houses. This rewriting of intelligence has resulted in the deaths of thousands of your fellow American soldiers.
That doesn’t bother you? It does me.
“Do mean Reid or Clinton or …”
What about Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Armitage, Hassert, Lott, Handley, Frist, DeLay, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Wolfowitz, Rove, Roberts, Brownback, etc.?
Steven I’m sorry I don’t. I searched it also. I heard a male, democrat, congressman from a southern state say something similar to that. I will withdraw it until I find the link.
Steven Davis: You cant find that quote, because I dont believe it exists… What I HAVE heard is that Al Qaeda has said that if WE LEAVE Iraq, it is not good news for them….
Now there would be team to lead this country!
If Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage were in charge that would be wonderful.
They have my vote.
Gee Nathan, now we KNOW you are a bigot!! LOL
Steven Davis, that’s an easy.
Although not said in those exact words, House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn :
“acknowledgment that a positive report from General Petraeus on Operation Phantom Thunder could be “a real big problem” for Democrats”
Easy Squeazy Nice and CheeseyLib Style of Politics
Also from Wikipedia, Jim Clyburn,
“On July 31, 2007, Clyburn said in a broadcast interview that it would be a “real big problem” for the Democratic party if General Petraeus issues a positive report in September, as it would split the Democratic caucus on whether to continue to fund the Iraq War.”
ksgrm was correct, Jim Clyburn is from S.C. and a Democratic Congressman, the minority Whip in the House. :)
make that the majority Whip in the house
*crickets chirping*
“Do mean Reid or Clinton or …”
What about Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Armitage, Hassert, Lott, Handley, Frist, DeLay, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Wolfowitz, Rove, Roberts, Brownback, etc.?
Posted by: WSClark | September 07, 2007 at 06:43 PM
As much as they would like to try, the Republicans just can’t blame the War on Iraq on the Democrats.
The hypocrites can try, but it just isn’t going to work.
Christ.
bin laden’s cave must be like the bat cave!Ksgrm.Bush does not have hindsight; foresight; only tunnelvision.
The Header of this thread is the reason tenant received the medal of freedom.
WS Clark,
Blame?
My goodness man, who is trying to blame the Democrats for the war?
All we are trying to do is point out the glaringly obvious FACT that many of the key Democrats supported the war and voted for it too.
It is the liberals here who seem to live in some delusional world where Bush did this all by his self and no Democrat supported him or believed the same things Bush did.
President: Newt GingrichVice President: Sean Hannity
Cabinet Members:
Ann CoulterRush LimbaughMichael SavageNeil BortzBill O’RielyMichelle MalkinLaura Ingraham
One could only dream…
but… but… what clyburn said isnt what ksgrm “quoted”
barely close!!
the bigots are coming the bigots are coming!!!
However, Gingrich is smart enough, that the only thing he would assign to Hannity is doggee doo doo clean up on the white house lawn ROFL
Coulter – Sec’y. of Cross Dressing
Limbaugh — Sec’y. of Golf Club Cleaning, and Cigar Cutting…
Boortz — Sec’y. of Absurdity
Savage — Sec’y. of Insanity
O’Reilly — Sec’y. of Lying and
Hypocrisy
Ingraham/Malkin — Joint Sec’y. if Instant Stupidity
Kansas:”Easy Squeazy Nice and CheeseyLib Style of Politics”
What exactly is that supposed to mean? You’re not tipping the bottle tonight, are ya?
ksgrm:”I searched it also. I heard a male, democrat, congressman from a southern state say something similar to that.”
Seems like ksgrm had a pretty good memory.
I still think that if we could get our troops home and not have a complete mess on our hands in Iraq/the middle east, that it is hard to see how any American could have a problem with that.
Also, I am not seeing how demonizing the other side (here in the U.S.) is particularly helpful.
Steven Davis,
It shows how Democrats care more about politics than succeeding in Iraq.
That, is cheesey.
Bush wont stop now, till he brings down Iran’s Prsident Ibindoinmyjob — Did you notice a bunch of nuke warhead missiles flown to Louisiana???
Dont think they went there for their good looks… LOL
“All we are trying to do is point out the glaringly obvious FACT that many of the key Democrats supported the war and voted for it too.”
They voted to allow the President of the United States (supposedly an honest man) to use force against Iraq, based on his cherry picked intl, ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.
What is so hard for you cons to understand?
“ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.”
Hypocrites.
According to Ramsey Clark, Bush and his cronies had the entire Iraq war thing planned out nearly a year before the 2000 elections…. If I can find that letter, I will post it…
As much as they would like to try, the Republicans just can’t blame the War on Iraq on the Democrats.
The hypocrites can try, but it just isn’t going to work.
Christ.
Posted by: WSClark | September 07, 2007 at 08:24 PM
WS Clark,
Perhaps I missed where the Bill which was titled:
“A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”
said only as a last resort.
Besides, it was used as a last resort. Bush had given Saddam multiple occasions over the course of a year to cooperate.
I suppose it all depends on what “last resort” means?
Conservatives continue to distort Clyburn’s remarks to attack Democrats for being “invested in defeat in Iraq”
Following House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s (D-SC) July 30 remarks to Washington Post reporters that if Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, issued a report stating that the military effort in Iraq “is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it,” then it would cause “those 47 Blue Dogs … to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” conservative pundits have seized on and distorted Clyburn’s remarks to accuse Democrats of, among other things, being “invested in defeat in Iraq,” and “want[ing] the United States to lose” in Iraq.
As Media Matters for America has noted, during a July 30 “PostTalk” interview for washingtonpost.com, Post reporter Dan Balz asked Clyburn, “What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, ‘This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it’?” Clyburn responded: “Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.” In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats, as many conservatives have suggested. Rather, he said that a recommendation from Petraeus against “back[ing] away” from the current course in Iraq would impede Democrats’ efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: “None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that.”
On July 31, the Republican National Committee issued a “research briefing” titled “They Said It!” that cropped the quote from Clyburn to read: “[It Would Be] A Real Big Problem For Us.” The “research briefing” reads, in full:
They Said It!
My Ramsey Clark Letter is on my old computer… in storage… oh well…
In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats, as many conservatives have suggested. Rather, he said that a recommendation from Petraeus against “back[ing] away” from the current course in Iraq would impede Democrats’ efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: “None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that.”
So it’s all the DEMOCRATS fault, right Nathan?
Yeah, right.
You bastards were all cheering for Bush as a great WAR PRESIDENT just a few years ago – now the war is all the fault of the Democrats?
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Christ.
“Besides, it was used as a last resort.”
So, if war was a last resort, why did the UN Inspectors have to leave on the eve of “shock and awe?”
WS Clark,
(Where is the cosmos reading police when I need them)
I did not blame anything on the Democrats or say it was all their fault.
I don’t recall anyone saying it was the Democrats fault or try to blame them for the war.
Where are you getting this from?
Clark, If you say “Shock and awe” the way Bush pronounces words, it comes VERY close to sounding like Shakinah (Hebrew for “Glory of God”)
And we wonder why the Middle East peoples dont trust us much??
Nathan – see Clark’s post 9:26 PM
chas: Don’t bother looking for the quote if you are trying to post something substantive. Ramsey Clark is loony tunes.
In YOUR opinion…
Ramsey Clark is a former Cabinet member… in a previous administration…
Hell, even the libs think he is.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/
Chas,
Where does WS Clarks 9:26 post show anyone blaming the Democrats for the war?
Shekinah is a place where you can explore the divine feminine presence of God.
Chas this is a little different than your explanation. Better beef up on that Hebrew.
“All we are trying to do is point out the glaringly obvious FACT that many of the key Democrats supported the war and voted for it too.”
That was your god damned quote, Nathan.
What were you trying to suggest?
Hypocrite.
An 8 year old link is as good as you got??? geez
Chuckle… Yeah chas, he got more credible by defending Saddam. He’s advanced loony tunes these days.
Ummm Baldy…. I believe its YOUR Hebrew that is faulty… Shakinah has nothing to do with a PLACE…. It means “The Glory of God” or “The Glory of the Lod” It isnt a PLACE at all…
WS Clark,
It is true, many Democrats, including some of the key ones, voted for the war.
Usually (if not always) the word ‘Blame’ is associated with fault. i.e. to find fault with someone.
I do not find fault with the Democrats voting in support of the war. Thus I do not blame them.
I was pointing out an undisputable fact.
Are you trying to say that many Democrats, including key ones, didn’t vote to support the war?
It is the Republican/Neocon/George W Bush War.
And the Democrats will never let you forget it.
Ever.
Just as you bastards refuse to admit that Eisenhower was the first president to send advisers to Viet Nam, we will never let you forget that it was George WMD Bush that wanted to go to war in Iraq.
You sons-of-bitches can whine all you want – you were ready to declare GWB KING in 2003 – now you can eat the shit pie that he made for you.
Hypocrites.
On top of that, how does that make me a Hypocrite?
OK, Outlander… The LETTER I have on my old machine, is not a letter Clark wrote… It is one he received prior to the 2000 elections… and one he then posted…. So, it isnt HIS words…
Reposted for the willfully ignorant….
They voted to allow the President of the United States (supposedly an honest man) to use force against Iraq, based on his cherry picked intl, ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.
What is so hard for you cons to understand?
“ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.”
LAST RESORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Christ.
Nathan, if the Democrats who voted FOR the War, would have had the information that is the basis for this Thread… before they voted… The vote would have been MUCH MUCH different… as John Kerry pointed out in 2004…. When the Reich Wing made fun of him because the man changed his vote when he found out he had been DUPED…. I call him a hero for that kind of change… Takes a big man to do that…
WS Clark,
Where did the bill authorizing the President to use force say:
“Only as a last resort?”
Once again, the definition of “last resort” is kind of subjective.
Did you not read the many quotes where key Democrats clearly thought we needed to act against Saddam?
I could repost them for you if you would like.
Chas,
If we would have had the information about Hitler that we do today we could have acted much sooner and prevented countless millions from loosing thier lives.
Hindsight is 20/20.
If you embrace and accept Item X as being something good… and so, endorse it… And then you find out that Item X is actually something BAD… And you revoke your endorsement… That is a GOOD THING…. And that is what MANY Democrats did… But others were SCARED to do that… a bunch of wimps…
OK chas. Moot point then.
Chas you might want to check your list. My Hebrew dictionary tells me there ain’t no such word.
Nathan, we DID have information about Hitler…. People like Prescott Bush kept much of it from the American public, and from the Administration of the time…
What can I say Baldy… you’re just wrong, or just trying to pick a fight… which is it???
If we had knowed those Japanese was going to bomb our boats at Pearl we coulda got them out of there.
Chas just tryin to keep you honest ya know. So people just take your word if you say something is so.
Gotta go. Past my bedtime.
Yes, it is a “feminine” form of a word meaning the Presence, or Holiness of God… It comes from the Hebrew root word SAKAN, which means Dwelling, or Dwelling Place… English doesnt use Masculine/Feminine/Neuter “article”in grammatical formulations like many many languages do…
http://www.crystalinks.com/shekinah.html
If we had knowed those Japanese was going to bomb our boats at Pearl we coulda got them out of there.
Posted by: baldy | September 07, 2007 at 10:07 PM
=======================Some have said we DID know about Pearl… at least the White House knew… I have never seen enough evidence either way to have a firm opinion of that…
= > POINT
= > Chas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ((POINT))^^^^^^^^^Chas Head
I think you mean Richard Clarke counter terrorism guy Under Reagan Bush and Clinton not Ramsey Clark kooky attorney
And what kool aide you drinking, Nathan??
No — I mean Ramsey Clark, a former Attorney General…
I like Grape and Fruit Punch.
I usually only drink Kool Aid while I am in the field training.
Nothing like a cool glass of Kool Aid after a hard day training.
get yourself all sexually worked up nathan………….
You are one disgusting, bush-apologist reichwinger
Obviously, Nathan there is no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Like Kansas, and his friends, you are reduced to scroll over territory.
If you would like to discuss an issue, try using facts, not insults, to support your position.
“Did you not read the many quotes where key Democrats clearly thought we needed to act against Saddam?”
Many of your previous quotes are not complete… and as well, many are BEFORE the 9/11 incident… AND… many of those Democrats were speaking based on information they were TOLD was accurate by the Administration… which obviously was FALSE information…
THAT is why they didnt vote for the WAR… Actually, they voted for a use of force (as a last resort) NOT for INVASION of a sovereign nation…
WS Clark,
Is tonight the Twilight zone night?
You have repeatedly called my a Hypocrite and every time I simply try to answer your questions.
Where was I using insults towards you?
Looks like I need to post them again…
Sen. Bayh: “Bill, I Support The President’s Efforts To Disarm Saddam Hussein. I Think He Was Right On In His Speech Tonight. The Lessons We Learned Following September 11 Were That We Can’t Wait To Be Attacked Again, Particularly When It Involves Weapons Of Mass Destruction. So Regrettably, Saddam Has Not Done The Right Thing, Which Is To Disarm, And We’re Left With No Alternative But To Take Action.” (Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” 3/17/03)
Sen. Biden: “Does The President Have The Right To Preemptively Go Strike The Chinese, The Communist Regime? The Answer’s No. And So – But With Saddam, There Is–It’s Much More Tenuous Because He Has Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction Before. He Has Made Assertions About Intentions To Use These Weapons And, Therefore, It Gives More Credence To The President’s Capacity To Be Able To Go Act Preemptively.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 6/16/02)
Marine-boy…………you ARE a hypocrite
Sen. Clinton: “I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States.” (Senator Hillary Clinton, Press Conference, January 22, 2003)
“Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs.”
That’s right Ken, Clyburn thought politically first before saying that good news from Iraq would be welcomed, he said it would be bad for political reasons because of the bluedogs.
It was pure political spin after that.
You can watch the video yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/30/VI2007073001325.html
3:19 time marker video two
Sen. Clinton: “I Can Support The President, I Can Support An Action Against Saddam Hussein Because I Think It’s In The Long-Term Interests Of Our National Security …” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,’ 9/15/02)
Well, Nathan, I guess its just what I said… Those remarks are made based on intelligence supplied by the White House… which, as this thread points out, was FALSE information!!
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “There’s No Question That Saddam Hussein Is A Threat To The United States And To Our Allies. …[I]f Saddam Persists In Thumbing His Nose At The Inspectors, Then We’re Clearly Going To Have To Do Something About It.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/29/02)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “I Believe That Iraq Does Have Chemical And Biological Weapons, And They Are A Threat To Many Nations In The Region, But Not To The United States.” (PBS’ “Newshour,” 2/25/03)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “Everything The President Says About Saddam Hussein Is True. He’s Evil. He’s A Liar. He Gases His Own People.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/22/02)
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: “I Would Be Surprised If [Hussein] Didn’t Have’ Chemical And Biological Weapons.” (Mort Kondracke, “Is Howard Dean For Real? Well, Not Entirely,” Roll Call, 1/27/03)
“Did you not read the many quotes where key Democrats clearly thought we needed to act against Saddam?”
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS, IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!
Christ.
Are you really that LAZY, Nathan?
Must I keep going?
How much more clear does it get that the Democrats ( at least a good chunk of them ) all supported acting against Saddam.
What on earth do you think giving the President permission to use force meant?
That we were going to invite him to a pillow fight?
Chas,
The information was presented from the intelligence agencies.
Why dont you stop wasting space?? You are only doing what you always accuse Cosmos of doing… posting a bunch of junk here that is OLD NEWS… Because they had BAD INTELLIGENCE!!! Like Clark just said!! Geez!!
The two hardest heads on the Blog.
Chas and WSClark
heads of stones
Kansas and Nathan are getting off while posting copy/paste from the Drudge report!
Nathan, the Marine Spin Doctor…..
And chief blog hypocrite.
See ya’ little boy!!!!
Nathan, according to the beginning premise of this Thread, the Intelligence had been re-worked to make it what BUSH wanted it to be!! And that formed the basis of the VOTES and the statements you post here ad nauseum… And they did NOT vote to INVADE IRAQ…. And no, use of force does not mean INVADE…. Clinton used force on Saddam…. he didnt INVADE a sovereign nation…
Also, the inspectors had not finished their work… And many of your so-called “quotes” came before the reports were in from the Inspectors!!!
Sort of makes many of them moot points!!!
The Washington Post is not the Drudge Report, asspophis.
I dont know where they are pasting from Apophis… but it is all phony spin….
Last week’s finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq’s declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles. January 2003 condoleeza Rice
That was after the inspections.
oops forgot the “?”
LOL Kansas… that is more full of coulda woulda mighta than a bad testimony at a divorce hearing… It could have done this, It Might have been used for this, if he had it… That isnt evidence of ANYthing… It just says they found something that might have done this, if they woulda had that, if it could have been mounted on that there thing… Geez…
That was LAME Kansas… cause thats the best there is… LAME junk to let Little Georgie go play in the big sand box!!!
should have read “after the inspections?”
Apophis: Is the extent of your contribution to be sitting in the peanut gallery throwing rocks at the players?
Interesting to see the magical reappearance of Osama just when Bush needs rescuing the most!
the troll and marine-boy…………reichwing lovers……….LOL
missiles that can carry chemical ordinance are definitely WMD’s.
Of course the chemical isn’t stored in the missile. It is delivered right before launch.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why I’m a hypocrite.
Specifically why WS Clark is calling me one while at the same time getting upset about me calling him names (which I have not)
Just another night on the blog…
It’s only lame to Chas, because it proves the existence of chemical warfare missiles.
Chas is so hard headed he has to say things like “LAME junk to let Little Georgie go play in the big sand box!!!” which shows his lack of maturity in discussing an issue with intelligence.
ohh boy, out comes the endless string of ad hominems from the Reich Wingers…. Brace yourselves everybody!!
Kansas that kind of crap is why they call you “the troll”
They might have found a few missiles… but they didnt find any chemicals… and nothing to launch them with!! Sounds fairly harmless… Kind of like having a bunch of bombs without any B-1 bombers to carry them…
Must I keep going?
How much more clear does it get that the Democrats ( at least a good chunk of them ) all supported acting against Saddam.
What on earth do you think giving the President permission to use force meant?
That we were going to invite him to a pillow fight?***********************The vote was for force “if all other means failed” including diplomacy. Bush lied to the American people, he lied to congress, and a lot of wonderful young soldiers are dead because of his lies.
I won’t print what they call you Chas. :)
And Iraq never had ANYthing EVER that was big enough to do anything to the USA… His Scuds could barely reach Israel… And Israel could turn the whole place into glass if necessary… They hardly needed our INVASION of Iraq…
Nice spin Elizabeth K, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Another Democratic revisionist of history on the blog. :)
Alright,
So let me get this right…
-Many Democrats support President Bush in using force against Iraq and even are quoted as saying so.
-This was before the inspections.
So what I am missing is how their saying those things before the inspections makes a difference.
Was there something that happened during the inspections which made them all change their minds?
I don’t see anything to that effect.
Don’t you think that if somehow the inspections made some huge difference more of the Democrats would have been up in arms about the invasion?
My memory could be failing me on this, because I don’t remember anything like that from the Democrats who authorized the President to use force.
On a side note:
Doesn’t it make the Democrats look worse for saying all those things and giving the President authorization to use force before the inspections?
Ummm …. the inspectors said there WERE no WMD… meaning that Saddam was NOT the threat that some intelligence thought there was… It was not the first time in history that intelligence was wrong….
And while I am thinking of it, it sure is convenient the way Bin Laden’s video turns up just a few days before Petraeus’ report comes out… How nice of OBL to help out his old family friend, Bush… ROFL
Oh, yea, and they WERE up in arms about the Invasion, when they found out that the intelligence the White House gave them was WRONG….
Remember???
Chas,
What inspectors said there were no WMD’s just before the war?
Chas,
They were up in arms way after the war began, when we didn’t find any WMD’s.
What does that have to do with their support to go to war in the first place?
The inspector that came back and complained becaues Bu;sh wanted him out… THAT GUY… I cant remember his name off hand… He said BEFORE the war, that there was no evidence of WMD… but he wanted more time to look some more…
Nathan, you arent that stupid… I have been typing all this time, that the INTELLIGENCE they were given when they took their vote, was BAD INTELLIGENCE manufactured by BUSH and CO so he could go to war!!!
THATS why they voted to give Bush the use of force… but NOT a vote for INVADING a sovereign nation….
And then when they found out BUISH was WRONG about WMD, and Cheney (still arguing for WMD) was WRONG… THEN they changed their minds… at least the ones who werent a bunch of wimps about it…
Nathan,
Chas has 20/20 hindsight and the ability to revise history as he sees fit.
Chas could care less about how history was actually laid out.
but Kansas, that IS the way it was laid out… BUSH LIED SOLDIERS DIED… Iraqi’s DIED…
Support our Troops… Bring them home NOW!!
“So let me get this right…
-Many Democrats support President Bush in using force against Iraq and even are quoted as saying so.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 07, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Thank you for again proving that you have reading problems.
Many Democrats only voted yea on the AUMF to help force diplomacy, and they were opposed to a preemptive attack of Iraq.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003
7 March 2003 | New York, USAStatement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
Chas, you are thinking of Hans Blix, the head of the UN weapons inspectors that found no evidence of WMD and the group that Bush kicked out of Iraq so he could justify an invasion.
Thats the one, Doug… thanks!!
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Oct 2, 2002 released to the Public
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677″;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688″;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Hans Blix was the Swedish inspection leader who reported he was finding no WMDs. IIRC they found one stockpile of non-serviceable pre-1990 chemical warheads, whose compounds had decomposed into harmless substances.
If the inspectors had found WMDs we wouldn’t be having a faulty-intelligence vs. willful deception debate.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
What are you prattling on about now, Kansas??
Chas it looks like once again Nathan has found you out. Your entire string of arguments last night was based on the premise that S Blumenthal, a senior advisor to the Clintons, wrote a book and used correct facts. No substantiated facts – just those un-named sources once again. Tenet has already been lambasted after investigations were completed because he didn’t tell the prez things he should have.
Remember the – no sharing policy written under Clinton between the CIA and FBI. Just another reason intelligence was wrong.
All of this was presented a long time ago and now that Sydney B has a book to plug it becomes news again with a new twist.
Don’t let yourself be manipulated like this.
Thanks Kansas… Now we can all see clearly, that not one word of that resolution approves, or encourages the INVASION of a sovereign nation!!
Isnt that amazing???
Chas, with that last statement of yours, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that you are truly an idiot.
Why?? Because there is NOTHING in your long post of the Resolution about approving an INVASION??? Just put me in there with the rest of the 70% of Americans who think we are there by virtue of Bush Lied… Looks like YOU are in the strong minority!! Ha!!
___ with that last statement of yours, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that you are truly an idiot.
Posted by: Kansas | September 08, 2007 at 09:02 AM
When all else fails, resort to personal attacks.
When all else fails, resort to personal attacks.
While Kansas may do that, so do all the neolibs on this blog. If it is not right for him to do it, why is right for the neolibs to do it?
This blog has more personal attacks on it than 50 of the other blogs I visit combined.
WE if you want to be taken seriously ban the trolls and delete the personal attacks from all sides.
Funny how the people doing the most personal attacks are the first to deny they are doing it.
Just like the trolls are the first to call anyone that respectfully challenges their comments are the first to accuse the other person of being a troll while at the same time denying that they are trolls themselves.
Per wikipedia, a very unreliable site but relevant in this instance.
Flamer: Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls. Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject.
Troll, but this is not the best definition:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.
Better definition of troll:
troll1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.
2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand – they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he’s just a troll.” Compare kook.
3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.
The use of ‘troll’ in any of these senses is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning “Do not feed the troll” as part of a followup to troll postings.
CapnAmerica and his crew definitely fit item #2.
And so it goes…. Yawn
I want to see all trolls banned, regardless of political or ideological view. I know it is a pipe dream since the Eagle rarely acts on the blog. I wonder if they pass around the blog comments just so they can laugh at the silliness of some of them?
The comments echo the comments on the opinion line. I listened to the audio ones and they are a trip. You can hear tones of voices that are not in the written ones.
“I want to see all trolls banned, regardless of political or ideological view.”
Several people has expressed this view, Ø, but the devil is in the details.
Nathan, outlander, and others,
Well. It’s been great to see all the Wingnut sound and fury vented on this thread.
I started the thread by stating that Republicans can no longer claim that “Democrats saw the same intelligence, and voted to invade Iraq,” because it now has been demonstrated, by George Tenet and the former agents interviewed in Blumenthal’s story, that Bush was shown evidence that no one else ever saw.
This point, of course, went missing in Nathan’s feverish attempt to demonstrate, in effect, that “everyone else did too” with regard to attributing WMD to Saddam. I feel sort of sorry for Nathan, because if I had been sent to Iraq, I’d be grasping at whatever straw I could to keep from having to admit that I’d been lied to.
All you’ve done, Nathan, is show that the Bush Administration did a good job lying to everybody about what the intelligence showed regarding WMD in Iraq. For your argument that “everbody thought Iraq had WMD” to have legs, you can’t pretend that the evidence to the contrary, which was concealed by Bush, wouldn’t have changed what “everybody” thought.
If you and outlander want to reject the story in Salon as false, then prove that it’s false. Saying something like “it’s from Salon and they’re a member of the liberal media” is an Ad Hominen, which is another word for a non-argument.
And frankly, Nathan, I trust the editors of Salon to vett such an explosive article more than I trust you. A lot more, in fact.
So, let’s review:
-Democrats, foreign intelligence services, and the various commissions that were set up to investigate the “intelligence failures” regarding Iraqi WMD NEVER SAW the evidence from Sabiri disproving the existence of WMD’s;
-Therefore, their statements are meaningless as political cover for George Bush; saying “everybody thought so” doesn’t count if “everybody” wasn’t given access to the same data.
Of course, understanding such arguments require logic and honesty, neither of which has been much in evidence in the predictable Wingnut spin to which we’ve been subjected. When it comes to defending Bush, Wingnuts lie as easily as they breathe.
George Bush wanted to invade and occupy Iraq, and WMD was the best pretext for doing so. The fact that Iraq had none, and the fact that George Bush was presented with the evidence to prove it, was completely beside the point.
In the end, I come back to SolDevVB’s question:
“If no one is going to impeach Bush, why are we having this conversation?”
Why, indeed. I wonder whether impeachment still is “off the table?”
“I feel sort of sorry for Nathan, because if I had been sent to Iraq, I’d be grasping at whatever straw I could to keep from having to admit that I’d been lied to.”
So, so true.
I don’t think people realize how true this is. When you’re sent to die across the ocean, you HAVE to believe that you’re defending freedom, or preventing terrorism, or avenging 9/11 because the alternative–that you’ve been used, that we’re there for no reason and on false pretenses–is so much worse. It essentially shatters everything you’ve believed in the past 6 years, it destroys your faith in the people whom you’ve held the utmost respect and trust for.
You HAVE to believe that you’re fighting for a great cause or it would be too easy to just give up hope.
It’s not until we come back and can reflect is when we can begin to entertain that horrible thought–that we were placed in danger, that we had to see the kinds of things we saw–for absolutely nothing.
Don’t be too hard on people like Nathan, I was him once. How can you ask someone to give up faith in their country’s leadership when they’ve fought under it for so long? How can you ask them to admit that everything they’ve been through hasn’t been for America and for our freedom, but for a corrupt administration?
b.s.
So, if a soldier that served in Iraq agrees with Bush, he is a hero, but if he disagrees he is b.s.?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………….
No no, he can’t be a real soldier because real soldiers obey authority without question, toe the line and don’t think for themselves, amirite?
I heard something similar to that sentiment when I talked to a army guy in a bar last year for a few hours–he was there by himself, just drinking away and looking dead on the inside. It was quite haunting.
Sorry, I’ve been around military most of my life. Most do not write like that or would express their statements in that manner – at least not a combat veteran.
If this person was overseas, he certainly wasn’t in Iraq or near any combat. The likelihood of some combat soldier posting on the blog in this particular topic is slim and none.
“The likelihood of some combat soldier posting on the blog in this particular topic is slim and none.”
Nathan does – remember, you said that he was a Marine hero.
Nathan acts like a Marine, not a neo-lib blog plant.
So combat Marines can’t be liberals?
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmm…………….
You’re contributing nothing to the blog really bad troll but following me around and making objectionable comments after I post.
Keep doing what you’re doing, it will stack up against you.
So combat Marines can’t be liberals?
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmm…………….
Posted by: WSClark | September 08, 2007 at 08:53 PM
Well, I think I can put that theory out of it’s misery….