Wow… it’s amazing what one can learn listening to the BBC.
As reported yesterday in The Sunday Times (still the UK’s paper of record, despite the fact that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch,) a secret memo, conveniently leaked during the final frenzied days before parliamentary elections, has thrown a wrench into the campaign of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his ruling Labour Party. Marked “Secret and Strictly Personal — UK Eyes Only,” the memo discusses a July 23, 2002 meeting between Blair and his top advisors regarding the impending war with Iraq. I say “impending” because it is clear from the contents of the memo that both the US and Britain had already decided on their course of action, at least eight months before the invasion, at a time when President Bush was routinely pooh-poohing talk of war as media speculation.
The big scandal for Blair is that he apparently ignored warnings by his Attorney General and Foreign Office that the war might be illegal. But Americans should be outraged that a President who likes to portray himself as a “straight shooter” was, surprise… blatantly lying.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
(Emphasis added.)
Of course, as we now know, Saddam had no connections to Bin Laden or 9/11, and had no WMDs. As to the lack of discussion about the war’s aftermath, well, I think this fact was made abundantly clear by the war’s aftermath. But the truly criminal revelation confirmation is that the Bush administration was fixing the intelligence to fit the policy. This war wasn’t the result of an intelligence failure… it was made possible by a complete and utter disregard for the intelligence we had.
The other scandal this memo reveals is its nearly total lack of coverage by the US media. One Murdoch mouthpiece, The Times, is eager to plaster it on the front page if it helps bring down a Labour Party prime minister. But here in the US, where the memo could harm a Republican president, another Murdoch mouthpiece, Fox News, apparently has never heard of it. Nor has anybody else.
So much for “fair and balanced.”
Interesting post goldy.
I would this this holds about as much credibility as the investigation of your being a pedophile.
Correction:
Interesting post Goldy.
I would say this holds about as much credibility as the investigation of your being a pedophile.
Since the memo is the story in all of Europe’s leading media, including the Financial Times, the Guardian, London Times, etc., and since Goldy’s story did not make any media other than the local blogsphere, the above analogy is erroneous. If the intent was to belittle the story, hoping against all hope that no one in the US pays any attention whatsoever, then prr might be right. It is simply not going to play here, since it undermines the very legality of the US actions in Iraq, as well as framing a timeline that reeks of our Administrations lies and deceptions, it is best if it is avoided at all costs.
Yeah like we didn’t know this before, The only reliable newsman anymore ( besides you goldy) is Jon Stewart.
Democrats: Internal parasite terrorists.
Unfortunately, I suspect it won’t make much difference in the UK election either. Most Brits really seem as unphased by it as the American electorate has been, judging by the polls.
In inevitably the truth will come out and both countries are going to come out smelling pretty bad when it does. We may “all be dead” when History passes judgement on Bush and Blair (as Bush once said), but some of us will end up dead because of what they did, not just due to the passage of time.
This won’t come as a surprise to Bush’s opponents and will likely endear him to his supporters. That a nation of sheep has been shorn is not at all surprising. The best, albeit feeble, hope for sanity is the 2006 elections. Until then, let’s hope for the best in Iraq.
The central questions still apply about this story:
Why would Blair go to war on a lie?
Why then did Congress approve military action (and explicitly authorizing action without a UN resolution) on the same intelligence everyone else was seeing?
Why were folks like George Tenet and William Cohen (Clinton appointees) saying that there was no question about Saddam having WMD’s on the eve of war?
I don’t following the logic behind saying ‘Bush lied’; then why did Britian, Italy, Poland, Austraila, etc. go along with it?
Jon asked,
Because he was pressured to? Because he felt in his heart it wasn’t a lie?
Because they didn’t think the most powerful man in the world would lie to them? Because they were voting to give the President the necessary support to have all options available to him? Because it would have perhaps been viewed as risking America’s safety to not do so? Because they saw intelligence that was cherry picked to help make the case?
Because they were told to? Because they were lied to themeselves? Because they had drunk the cool aid?
Because we made them deals to join in? Because they felt there was political gain in backing the US? Because they were duped?
You’ve got questions, but they aren’t unanswerable.
come on, are you kidding? CNN would be all over this story if it were true. Wishful thinking.
Typical lefty’s, you believe everything you hear. who’s the sheeple?
Chard @10,
If the story were true?! The memo exists! Blair admits its a genuine memo! Nobody is suggesting it doesn’t accurately represent the discussion at this meeting. The memo is true, and it’s being reported all over the world… but HERE!
Now, you could try refuting my interpretation of the memo — I can think of plenty of good arguments to rebutt me — but claiming the story isn’t true is just plain stupid.
(Really. It’s STOOPID, Chard.)
Charredass @ 10 “CNN would be all over this story if it were true. ” Since when has the Conservative News Network ever told the truth about Bush’s misadventures internally or internationally?
If this were Clinton you can bet they and all the other Defense Industry News Outlets would be hyping it 24/7.
Put the glass down Charredass, you have had enough Kool Aid.
the designs on iraq, are not new.
The middle east has been carved up on paper, for many years.
But you all have to remember that the far right is the only truth in ‘our’ world. In the rest of the world they are the laughing stock of the USA…..as they try to change the United States into a religious state, such as Palestine or Saudi Arabia. Everyone sees the ‘news’ in their own ‘colored’ glasses. Much like uSP. The thread over there about the hearing in Chelan is all ‘Hip Hip Hooray’, ‘the judge ruled for us’, ‘now the Dem’s are sunk and gone’. (except for maybe jeffb and prr)
Bush lied?!?
Ya mean like the statement almost exactly 2 years ago…”Mission accomplished”! Is it a lie if your too clueless to know the truth?
And we all know CNN is the only source of true media reporting in the entire world…In todays CNNews, “She (Laura Bush) outlined a typical evening: “Nine o’clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep and I’m watching `Desperate Housewives’.” Comedic pause. “With Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife.” “If you really want to end tyranny in the world, you’re going to have to stay up later.
She outlined a typical evening: “Nine o’clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep and I’m watching `Desperate Housewives’.” Comedic pause. “With Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife.”
Laura Bush added that she and her husband obviously were destined to be together as a couple because “I was the librarian who spent 12 hours a day in the library and yet somehow I met George.”
I rest my case.
jpgee:“….as they try to change the United States into a religious state, such as Palestine or Saudi Arabia.”
Do you like it when folks on the right accuse liberals of trying to make the US into a socialist utopia with no morals? Do you think that it’s fair? Please read the following quote from this story (your eyesockets won’t bleed if you read it):
“If we are going to ask the Christian right to stop engaging in demonization, we need to inspect some of our own language,” Chip Berlet of the human rights watchdog Political Research Associates said in his talk Friday night. “I’m uncomfortable when I hear people of sincere religious faith described as religious political extremists,” he said. “What does that term mean? It’s a term of derision that says we’re good and they’re bad. There is no content.” Afterward, in an interview, Mr. Berlet added: “The Democrats do just as much name-calling as the right. It’s great for fundraising. [But] it’s a heck of a way of building a social progressive movement.”
Both sides need some perspective and stop these extremist labels which just piss people off and don’t advance the discussion.
…lets add another tidbit from that article
“Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
“We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would help with the legal justification for the use of force.”
Funny, isn’t that the same info presented recently by our own folks to the president. Like here; http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....ar2005.pdf
and here; http://www.globalsecurity.org/....._index.htm
…but since CNN didnt report on this, it must not be real news.
Sorry about the double quote in 15. I guess the idiocy is contagious.
Goldy, you forgot this other quote from the memo:
“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”
Hmmm….sounds like there’s a definite presumption and belief about not only possession but capability, don’t you think? I suppose this part of the memo was a lie, too.
Jon @ 16 “Both sides need some perspective and stop these extremist labels which just piss people off and don’t advance the discussion.”
Fuck You! It’s just like the fascist right to tell the left to “be civil, be kind, be meek..”\
Ain’t gonna happen this time, ass wipe! The WingNuts have kicked us in the balls too many times while we played “civil”
Again, I say, FUCK YOU! It is far too serious now.
Jon @ 19 “Hmmm….sounds like there’s a definite presumption and belief about not only possession but capability, don’t you think? I suppose this part of the memo was a lie, too.”
From Rumsfield!?!?! Are you completely nuts, or just a liar for the 43rd Reich? Rumsfield would lie anytime for anything. Even if it cost hundreds of billions of dollars 1,600 + American deaths, thousands of Americans maimed and hundred thousand Iraqi women and children killed.
What a sad pathetic soldier for the right wing you are. And what a pathetic post you made.
The ignorance of all of the American “chicken doves” (that’s liberals who have never spent any time in contact with the military/intel services but feel free to speak with total authority on those matters) is really amusing. I guess it never occured to you that “fixed” in this context might actually mean “focused.”
Donnageddon: It’s not me telling the left ‘cool it’, it’s liberals themselves, as referenced by the quote. Also, I said BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY.
If you don’t like what I say, fine, but what about what Joel Connelly said back in January… “The Democrats will be a long time in opposition if they succumb to such thinking.”, or Mr. Berlet’s quote? These guys are liberals, are you going to curse them, too?
Do you honestly think your immediate use of labels and swearing will change any minds? Win any elections? Do anything positive? Can you answer any of these questions rationally? I certainly don’t begrudge you your passion, but passion alone won’t fix anything.
Donnageddon @ 21: “What a sad pathetic soldier for the right wing you are. And what a pathetic post you made.”
Go read the link Goldy provided and you’ll see the memo references the BRITISH defense minister, sir, and my point was that there was no doubt in the memo about Saddam’s possession and capability of WMDs, as far as Blair’s cabinet was concerned. It wasn’t about Rumsfeld at all. Please try to do some research before throwing out such labels and making yourself look as bad as the folks you’re criticizing.
Jon @ 23, There are many lost souls of what once was the democratic party who think the only way they can win is by sitting beside the orad and watching the far right hate mongers lie, abuse, and destroy what is left of our democratic republic. And to them I say fUCK YOU and get out of the way, you shit for brains jerks.
We ain;t gonna get bsck our country by letting the wingnuts to continue to get the publics attention with flashing lights and scandalous outrageous behaviour.
But I should have not jumped down your throut.
I apologise.
And the article was not talking about Rumsfield, it was the British Sec. of Defence. Same difference. But this was all before the inspectors spent months in Iraq, find nothing.
So such wondering about mythical WMD based on distorted “evidence” from the Bush administration, was weak and immoral.
JOn @ 24 “no doubt in the memo about Saddam’s possession and capability of WMDs” I concede I misplaced the Sec of Defence, but, sir, where do you see “no doubt” in the statement “what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.â€
That is not a statement of No Doubt, it is a “what if” based on trumped up evidence.
20 Donna… when you’ve been kicked in the balls as much as you have, no balls are left. does profanity make you feel tufer tho?? now I’m scared, wimpy….
Robbed @ 20 “20 Donna… when you’ve been kicked in the balls as much as you have, no balls are left. does profanity make you feel tufer tho?? now I’m scared, wimpy….”
No, but a post like yours certainly makes me feel more intelligent.
Now FUCK YOU robbed, and go back to your bomb shelter.
Ranger @ 22…from the memo… ‘But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.’
Substitute your word focused rather than the used word fixed and it still means they manipulated with the intelligence to get the results they wanted. Focusing on what they wanted to rather than presenting the entire picture resulted in 1600+ young American dead folks not to mention the thousands of Iraq’s dead…in a criminal court, civilian or military, that’s murder.
Your insinuation that those of us progressives/Dems here can’t/have never comprehended military lingo is absurd and condesending.
yes, Donna, your language shows alot of brains AND guts. wimp.
Ranger @ 22
For clairification, what context that used “fixed” accually meant “focused”?
Jon @ 24
The article Goldy provided a link to is only part of whats floating around. I personally dont think theres any question to Saddam’s short range capabilities. He was allowed to posess missles usable within a specific range limit (I don’t recall what the limit was off hand). What this memo also contains are questions on “what if’s” and “for instance’s”, not positives or facts.
It also brings to light the complaint many world wide were eager to voice. “The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
Now we have more information, and the same facts remain presant.
Too little, too late, too bad (for the dead).
Looks like the “secret memo” is actually HELPING Tony Blair and the Labor Party. Labor now has a 10 point lead over the Conservatives 39 to 29. It was 36 to 34 in the same poll a week ago. The Conservatives have recently been attacking Labor for Blair’s decision to go to war on false intelligence and against legal advice. The results of these attacks have apparently been to shift a few percent of the Conservatives support to backing Labor instead. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein seems to be politically beneficial in both the U.S. and in Britain.
Also, you don’t see Bush and the GOP giving any sort of encouragement to Britons to support the Conservatives in this election. Back when Reagan and Bush Sr were in power, the GOP was a strong backer and ally of the British Conservatives (and also of the Canadian Conservatives).
Of course, Labor isn’t exactly the kind of socialistic party that it used to be back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The political trends in Britain have been to the right over the last quarter century. Labor has managed to attain and retain power by moving to what used to be the center of the British political spectrum.
Most analysts rate the British economy as the strongest and most dynamic in all of Europe (with perhaps Ireland showing a somewhat higher growth rate). The British (and Irish) economies haven’t gotten to where they are today by pursuing increasingly socialistic and leftist policies, but instead by moving towards the political center and pursuing a more free-enterprise oriented policy.
Jon @ 24
How’s it feel to be “just a liar for the 43rd Reich”? Some of these guys need stronger meds. I appreciate your post 16 and hope some of these cretins go back and read it.
Goldy states that “much of my vitriol is for entertainment purposes only”. Unfortunately many of the “Progressive” commenters feel like they are obliged to go over the top.
For more coverage on this issue go to http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/2/16258/65970
which is a posting on DailyKOS by Congressman John Conyers on the British memos and how the American press has been too busy with the “Runaway Bride” to cover. I know conservatives will not be impressed by either DailyKOS or Rep. Conyers, but those looking for more thoughtful information will find it and the comments interesting.
Danny
Ah, zip @ 32 “some of these cretins go back and read it.” Yes, I geusws wile you call us cretins we should just say “Oh my that is uncivil of you!, I regret dear man, that you must not be so offensive!”
How about this zip, Go screw yourself into a light socket and fuck yourself, you loud mouthed, nuckle dragging, Kool Aid drinking son of a syphalitic whore!
Donnaggedon @ 25: Hey, no problem, I do the same sometimes, but let me ask you this: Do you think that the “rhetorical excesses” of the DeLays of the R’s are making the election chances of the party better or worse? I’m guessing your answer, so how do you think the “rhetorical excesses” from the left is going to help Democrats?
Donnaggedon @ 26 (and DamnageD @ 31):I don’t understand your ‘trumped up’ statement, especially in light of 8 years of the Clinton Administration pounding on the “facts” of Saddam’s possession, capability, and desire to share WMD’s. Also, the British have a capable intelligence service of their own, so they weren’t relying on our information alone.
I also don’t understand the fact that practically everyone of consequence in the Democratic Party agreed that Saddam had WMD’s before the war (especially the ones who were definitely in the know – Clinton, Albright, Cohen, & Tenet, to name a few), but they told the truth, and ‘Bush lied’. It’s one thing to be against the war; but don’t sit there and say that that only the Bush Administration was saying Saddam had WMD’s, because it’s simply not true.
Danny @ 33: Hey, great, so you’ll give the same thoughtful consideration from quotes from Tom DeLay and Powerline?
G Davis @29
Well, lets look at the specific sentence in question:
“But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Notice that it starts with “But” which implies some controdiction to the previous sentence:
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the .”
If “fixed” meant what the “chicken doves” are saying it means, then why not say “Therefore” or “So.” Using “But” actually implies the opposite of what Goldy is claiming. It implies that though the current thinking was to justify the war by “conjunction of terrorism and WMD” the situation was not entirely clear, and “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” The broad policy was regime change, the specific justification was still being developed and subject to change depending on what developed, as the next sentence indicates:
“The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record.”
So, just waiting for sanctions to produce regime change was not seen as an option as it would take too long, and just reminding people what a nasty guy Saddam was wasn’t popular either.
As to your comment “Focusing on what they wanted to rather than presenting the entire picture resulted in 1600+ young American dead folks not to mention the thousands of Iraq’s dead…in a criminal court, civilian or military, that’s murder.”
I guess that means you think Clinton is just as guilty since 5,000 to 7,000 (on average) Iraqis died every month that he was in office under UN sanctions and coalition bombing to support the No Fly Zones. And Maddy Albright said that it was worth killing 500,000 Iraqis over 8 years to keep Saddam “in his box.” By the way, that sort of backs up the NSC’s lack of enthusiams for “for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record” since people like you really didn’t give a damn how many Iraqis were dieing under Saddam.
As to my insinuations about “us progressives/Dems here can’t/have never comprehended military lingo is absurd and condesending.” Don’t you think calling some people “chicken hawks” is the same?
P.S. Possible other meanings for “Fixed”
To focus effort on
to lock into place
zip @ 32: Look, I’m just as disgusted by the over the top language fellow conservatives use on this blog and elsewhere. As I said, it doesn’t solve anything.
Donnageddon @ 26:“That is not a statement of No Doubt, it is a “what if” based on trumped up evidence.”
Why would Blair’s cabinet play ‘what if’ games on information they knew to be false? Why else would you draw up scenarios unless you believed that it could happen?
5
JCH = Irritating parasitic troll
Jon @ 39 “Why would Blair’s cabinet play ‘what if’ games on information they knew to be false? Why else would you draw up scenarios unless you believed that it could happen?”
Why would Bush? Why would anybody of power?
GREED! That is the rational amswer. If it is not that, it must be complete insanity! I do not doubt the later any more than the former.
I also assume the felt they would find an aged mustard canister or two that they could use to justify the money grab.
Jon @ 16
Okay, I’ll try. Mr. Cynical (gulp) isn’t a bug-eyed, wacko, extremist BIAW shill (gasp), he’s a cute (choke) fluffy (gag) puddy tat (puke).
There, is that better?
Jon @35- I don’t want to bring up old discussions, but if you need a definitive ‘Bush lied’ moment, you could refer back to the previous conversation we had over the ‘smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud’ line when all of our intelligence discredited any functioning nuclear capability.
As for this intelligence, you are conflating the belief that Saddam probably had WMD’s – which could refer to a couple of mustard gas artillery shells buried in the desert – with the evidence needed to justify invading a country, creating thousands of terrorists and deposing its government. Not to even mention our cost in $XX,XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX, lives and international credibility.
Donnageddon – It is one thing not to roll over to the attacks and the destructive rhetoric from the right, but going over the top on Jon is not going to help.
Now for the trolls feel free….
Alan @ 42: Geez, I don’t think I could say the same, so my compliments!
Goldy,
This memo will prove to be a great source of evidence for Bush’s visit to the Hague in 2009, don’t ya think?
41
Ya, it might have something to do with 179,000,000,000 barrels of oil.
45
I can’t say it either without choking on it.
Nindid @ 43: Sorry, I never did get back to you on that “mushroom cloud” discussion, my apologies. Again, my point was the Bush wasn’t the only one saying these things about Saddam, so you have to say a lot of other people (Clinton)’lied’, too. Wrong information doesn’t make you a liar.
Also, don’t forget that the Clinton Administration used their evidence of Saddam’s WMD programs (chemical, biological, and nuclear) to rebut efforts to weaken or abolish the economic sanctions against Iraq – even though, if you believe the numbers coming from sanction opponets – way more people died from them than the war supposedly killed. So who truly has more blood on their hands?
Nindid @25, You are correct, I apologized to Jon. He was not a fair recipient of my wrath.
Jon, you won’t find me defending Clinton on much of his foreign policy. But all in all, Clinton was the best republican president we have had since Lincoln.
Jon @ 50 “Wrong information doesn’t make you a liar.”
But warping intelligence to justify a pandora’s box in the middle east makes you a liar, a murderer and a fit candidate for the a war crimes trial at the Hague.
Donnagedon @ 42: We’re talking about internal cabinet discussions, here, right? So, again, why talk about capabilities they believed Saddam had if they didn’t believe it? They could say “Well, we know he has no WMD’s, so let’s talk about the plan, as we don’t have to worry about them”. This document was never to be seen by the public, so why not tell the ‘truth’ in their discussions?
As far as greed, why not just make a deal with Saddam and get the oil, if that was the only concern? Saddam would have been more than happy to sell all the oil he could, if it meant the end to sanctions and/or inspectors. Why go through all this to get oil when there were multitudes of different ways that would have been easier and more profitable?
Jon @ 50
“Bush wasn’t the only one saying these things about Saddam, so you have to say a lot of other people (Clinton)’lied’, too. Wrong information doesn’t make you a liar.”
Clinton may have suspected Saddam had weapons, but more likely he was playing tough to get the Iraqis to cooperate with UNSCOM and the AEC. But, the big difference is that Clinton didn’t use flakey, uncertain and speculative information to justify sending Americans into battle. Bush got people killed. Not just Americans, either. Possibly up to 100,000 Iraqi, a number bordering on genocide. Also, Bush, unlike Clinton violated international law by going to war without a legal justification. Clinton may have been misinformed on some things, but Bush’s actions make him a war criminal.
Donnageddon @ 52 & 53: If you’re willing to combine those two posts, then fine. Let’s be clear: If Bush lied, then so did Clinton and his folks, too.
Jon @ 54 “We’re talking about internal cabinet discussions, here, right? So, again, why talk about capabilities they believed Saddam had if they didn’t believe it?”
Please read the memo again the comment is “You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.” YOU SAID. he was lied to by the Bush administration. The Def. Sec was not stating what he knew, but what he was told! He, like our congress, the US public, and the world were LIED to! Don’t you get it when it is right in front of you?
Jon # 56, read dj @ 55
Jon @ 50
“Also, don’t forget that the Clinton Administration used their evidence of Saddam’s WMD programs (chemical, biological, and nuclear) to rebut efforts to weaken or abolish the economic sanctions against Iraq”
This is factually incorrect. By the late 90s when the weapons inspectors pulled out, the AEC was willing to certify Iraq as having no nuclear weapons or capabilities–they held off only to help pressure Iraq to cooperate with UNSCOM. UNSCOM, however, could not certify the last 5-10 percent of the biological and chemical weapons because Iraq had destroyed them without proper oversight or documentation. Nobody thought that Iraq actually had the weapons (in any useful form, at least), but the certification process required reliable verification that they had been destroyed.
A major difference between Clinton enforcing economic sanctions and Bush invading, is that the former was legal and UN sanctioned. The latter was not.
dj @ 55: How were we supposed to interpret these quotes in the 90’s:
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
You said: “But, the big difference is that Clinton didn’t use flakey, uncertain and speculative information to justify sending Americans into battle. Bush got people killed. Not just Americans, either.”
So it was okay for Clinton to use ‘flakey, uncertain and speculative information’ to justify sanctions that were supposedly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while lining the pockets of Saddam and his willing cohorts in the West? It was also okay for Clinton to launch a war without UN authorization against Serbia, over the strong objections of Russia & China? Don’t condemn Bush using standards that don’t seem to apply to anyone else who held the office.
I find it interesting that folks are soOOoo concerned for the welfare of the Iraqi people AFTER we’ve gone to war. If I recall over the past, oh 15 years or so, we didnt give a flying whatever about their welbeing. I also seem to remember the reason we went to war was because we were so positive Saddam had massive weapons, not because we didnt like how he treated his people.
But I digress, if its so important we go upend a countries government because of the atrocities commited within, WHY are there no troop concentrations in those African nations where MILLIONS have been slautered? I don’t buy the “oh we needed to rescue those poor Iraqis” story. We cant fix the world! The primary argument FOR invading Iraq has been completly and throughly debunked. If the UN inspectors had been allowed to finish their rounds, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved AND millions (billions?) of dollars would not have been spent.
I’m not saying the guy wasn’t a monster, or that prior leaders may or may not have done such and such. The point i’m saying (again) is that y’all have been duped, and bought into this BS “war” while we let bin Laden dig a deeper hole. I wonder if that crainial bleach erases the blood from sand too…
JOn @ 60 “Clinton to use ‘flakey, uncertain and speculative information’ to justify sanctions that were supposedly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while lining the pockets of Saddam and his willing cohorts in the West?”
Good point, send Clinton to the Hague too, I don’t give a rats ass. But he never did the horrifically outrageous act of actually invading the country. He wasn’t that stupid or that greedy.
“It was also okay for Clinton to launch a war without UN authorization against Serbia, over the strong objections of Russia & China?”
Absolutely! And the rest of NATO would agree with me.
“Don’t condemn Bush using standards that don’t seem to apply to anyone else who held the office.”
Agreed, so now will you help us get this mass murdering thug Bush and his henchmen to the Hague for trial?
Bin Laden…. where have I heard that before? Oh yes! He was the guy Bush was gonna bring in Dead or Alive!
Then 6 months later he “really doesn’t think about him.”
BUSH TO THE HAGUE LOWER THE RAMPARTS!
Donnageddon @ 57: I think we have crossed wires again. The memo outlined internal Blair cabinet discussions, and the writer (Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide) was talking to David Manning, also from Blair’s administration. There were no Americans involved in the discussions. The British were not solely relying on our intelligence. Do you think Blair would commit troops only on our say-so? Most, if not all, of the other intelligence services around the world thought Saddam had some WMD program. The debate within the Blair cabinet wasn’t about his possession of WMD’s; it was about what he was going to do with them and what justification there was for going to war.
Don’t forget, Saddam put a ransome on Bush Sr. after the first gulf “war”.
Sound’s like a bit of chilled revenge to me…
Donnageddon @ 62:“But he never did the horrifically outrageous act of actually invading the country.” So starving to death supposedly several hundreds of thousands is somehow better than blowing up 100,000 (supposedly)? Sorry, I don’t see the logic there. Dead is dead.
“And the rest of NATO would agree with me.” If Bush can’t decide what is for or against international law, what gives NATO that power? Why should Bush be held to the UN standard if Clinton didn’t need to? Would you have been against an invasion of West Germany during the Cold War if the Warsaw Pact decided it was ok?
Goldy stated that, “The memo is true, and it’s being reported all over the world… but HERE!”
Well there is some reporting of it going on here:
Washington Post: “Could Leaks Sink Tony Blair?”
The Olympian: “Blair takes hit with Iraq memo”
NY Times: “Blair, on Defensive, Releases a Secret Memo on Iraq War”
It’s a start.
Jon @ 64 “There were no Americans involved in the discussions.” I understand that, Jon. But the fact remains the ruminations by the Sec. of Def, were based on what he was told, which were lies. Your basic point seems to be (*and that is why you used the quote) to infer that he was confident that the WMD lie was true. It does not say that, He based his supposition based upon what “you said”. The pertenant part of the memo was the KNOWLEDGE that the Bush administration was “fixing” the intelligence to trump up what has become a disasterous war costing hundreds of thousands of lives and 100s of billions of dollars.
There is a place where such crimes are tired. You seem intelligent. Help us stop these murderers.
DamnageD @ 61: To be honest, I can’t argue with too much of your post. I didn’t see a whole lot of hue and cry out of much of the left (and certainly none on the right) when sanctions were in place. I supported Clinton and the sanctions then, and the decision to go to war by Bush. You are also correct about the slaughter in Africa that we ignore; but we aren’t the only ones, as the Chinese and French have been dragging their feet on the Sudan currently and nobody seemed to care about Rwanda ten years ago.
For the rest, you have to remember about what we know now and what we thought we knew then.
Donnageddon @ 68: We’re beating this horse, but I’ll say it one more time: The British were not relying solely on our intelligence. They had their own sources and they DID believe ON THEIR OWN that Saddam had WMD’s. I understand your opposition about the decision to go to war; I don’t understand why you are arguing wether or not pretty much everybody of power around the world believed for a fact that Saddam had WMD’s, based on their own sources. Even the French thought so too, of course, they didn’t think it was worth fighting. Two different questions.
For what it’s worth, thanks for the good discussion. These are important issues, obviously, so we need to hash ’em out.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that leftists will go to defend tyranny and Iraq as it existed under Saddam.
This veiled dissaproval of the war in the form of yet another mention of WMDs, is straight from the leftist play book as this is what your great hero Michael Moore did with his movie full of deceits. And please leftists, don’t start in with a defense of Farenheit 9/11, the deceits are well documented, go look them up.
Keep this up, it’s exactly this kind of thinking that assures that the Democrats will continue to be the minority party.
Donnaggedon: “There is a place where such crimes are tired. You seem intelligent. Help us stop these murderers.”
Boy, The Hauge is going to be full as you’ll have to haul a whole LOT of leaders from around the world if this is the war crime standard you want to enforce. If that’s what you want, fine, but we all have blood stains on us to various degrees, I’m afraid.
Jon @ 60
Those quotes are just ordinary political chest thumping. Clinton was trying to force the Iraqis into doing something they didn’t wish to do. The difference was, he didn’t slaughter people. You are an idiot if you cannot see the difference between verbal threats and sending people into battle.
“So it was okay for Clinton to use ‘flakey, uncertain and speculative information’ to justify sanctions that were supposedly killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while lining the pockets of Saddam and his willing cohorts in the West?”
Clinton did not use that information to justify the embargo.
He didn’t have to justify sanctions in that way because there was a UN resolution authorizing it.
Clinton was engaging in chest thumping to entice Iraq to comply, in order to bring an end to the sanctions.
“It was also okay for Clinton to launch a war without UN authorization against Serbia, over the strong objections of Russia & China? Don’t condemn Bush using standards that don’t seem to apply to anyone else who held the office.”
Technically that was NATO, not Clinton. Stopping genocide can be a legal reason to attack another country. But, if it makes you feel any better, I have no objection to Clinton or NATO officials being investigated for war crimes, charged if appropriate, and tried (though I doubt this will happen for that situation)—I am particularly happy with with this if it increases the probability that Bush will spend some time in the Hague for his illegal actions.
Jon @ 69
I too was inclined to believe the intel provided to Bush, however my gut told me something was seriously missing. I completly support the troops in the theater, and deeply regret the loss of life because of this. I am truly happy for the Iraqi people, because everybody deserves freedom and security. But the unevenness of who we “rescue” and the underling motives are deeply troubling.
My hunch is likely that, what econimcal benefit would any country have to gain in a major rescue effort in those countries. Damn shame…as mentioned above “dead is dead”.
A complete and utter disregard for intelligence? Sounds like the trolls around here. (rimshot)
Yup George WWWWWWWWWWW Bush is in your opinion the son of satin -He only chose to achieved a total freedom in Afaganistan, then went on to achieve total freedom from the Sadam Slayer in Iraq a total freedom in Iraq – You F’rs are full of SHIT
GS @ 77
How “free” are people who can’t leave their homes without getting shot?
It’s damage control time for Bush & Co.
Iraq … quagmire
Social Security proposal … DOA
Economy … tanking
Dollar … in free fall
Deficits … out of control
Bolton nomination … in trouble
DeLay … in hot water
Gas prices … skyrocketing
Approval rating … plummeting
Public … madder ‘n’ hell
GS @ 77
“Yup George WWWWWWWWWWW Bush is in your opinion the son of satin. . . “
No, not at all. He is, in my opinion, just an ordinary war criminal.
“He only chose to achieved a total freedom in Afaganistan.”
Sure, freedom to grow poppies.
Alan @ 79
“It’s damage control time for Bush & Co.”
Shit! That must mean we are about to plunge into N. Korea. . . or Iran. . . or Syria. . . or Cuba. . . .
Ranger @ 38 I actually have very little idea what you said in that post but I suspect it’s similar to Clinton’s ‘it depends on how you define is’. Spin it however you want the intelligence was massaged to tell the world what the powers wanted the told and folks died.
The folks that are hollering back and forth about he did it so it’s ok if my guy does it, don’t you get it that to the world WE are taking these actions…does it occur that this might be why other cultures truly hate us as a nation?
Whoever instigated whatever ation against another people especially under false pretenses is wrong and should be held accountable.
BTW anyone who believes our actions in Iraq were taken for any other reason than oil is simply naive…and Bill gets 3 points for his rimshot! ;0
@ 77
son of satin….BWAAAHAHHAHAHA, sounds like a great porn!
…but your missing the point, and it’s too late to rehash stuff i’ve already written. But thanks for telling me my opinion, what would I do without ya?
son of satin?
BWAAHAHAHAHA
A bit off topic but an eye opener for anyone who thinks this administration stands for a “culture of life.” This article is about an EPA scheme to test pesticides on babies.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040905Z.shtml
Goldy, this is probably the only time I almost agree with some of your premise. I have travelled around the world almost 10 times in my life and have seen and heard many things. This issue I have with the argument that Bush rushed us to war is:
1.) The democrats said go to the UN – We did
2.) The democrats said ask other countries – Jordan, Eqypt, Russia, Italy, Germany, UK & others said Saddam had WMD.
3.) The UN said Saddam didn’t destroy them all. The UN said there are missing documents. Now some UN people think they (WMDs) went to Syria. It’s in the Darfour and Senate reports but the MSM will NOT report that. I have read some of the reports have you Goldy?
4.) The senate report and the 911 commission both said there WAS a connection to Saddam and Osama. Read the report Goldy. Can you read anything not associated with democrats? Just because the MSM doesn’t report it, it’s not true? Come on that’s transparent!!!
5.) The asseshorses who agree with you need to read more. France & Russia sold weapons against the UN sanctions of 1998. I bet you didn’t read about the M1-A1 or M1-A2 Abrams tank anti-tank missles they found from France and Russia in large stockpiles in crates dated 2002. But again the NYS the SP-I, the WAPost, are your papers of record.
Finally, I do agree something was amiss in the CIA. But thank ex-senator Torricelli who passed that stupid law gutting the CIA back in 1995. Forgot that too right Goldy?
Talk to me Goldy.
Pudster
Alan, your comment regarding war for oil has been debunked even by your favorite senators, Kerry and Clinton. Kerry admitted it was an election race ruse, he had no evidence of war for oil, it just sounded good. Clinton went to Iraq and said we were not looking for their oil. You must listen to Scare America, and the soon to be felon Randi Rosen who simulated shooting the President, a felony! Bang goes that stupid comment.
Also if we went for oil, why did we not take over Kuwait’s oilfields? We had them back in 1991. With the price around $50 we could just talk in there and take them over. Or, we could just guard the Iraqi pipelines and take all the oil from the terminals and ship it to the US. No, the Iraqis sell it on the open market. This coming from a lawyer I expected more in the IQ. Sorry your comment left me lacking.
Pudster
DamnangeD @ 75: “My hunch is likely that, what econimcal benefit would any country have to gain in a major rescue effort in those countries. Damn shame…as mentioned above “dead is dead”.”
I have to agree with you, but I would like us to be inconsistently right on these ‘rescue efforts’ than consistently wrong.
Mudster @ 86 ” The senate report and the 911 commission both said there WAS a connection to Saddam and Osama. ”
That is a damn lie and you know it Mudster. Prove their is ANYTHING connecting Iraq to Osama and 9/11.
Can’t, can you?
Damn liar!
Donnageddon – I said read their reports. Did you? Unless the bipartisan senate and 9/11 commission reports wrote lies into the Congressional Record (I thought it was Page 111, but I could be wrong) Hmmm…
This response just proved to me that you didn’t. If it ain’t from MoveOn.pork you don’t believe it. If the NY, LA or Seattle Slimes didn’t print it can’t be true? Do you own Google Search and read it, unless your small shriveled mind has lost that capacity.
Pudster
Jon @87
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Donnageddon @ 89
If I recall the report as well, hes correct. It’s an enormus report and I can link you to it. But to be fair, theres more to it than just that single loose connection, alot more!
Thank you DamnageD. These simple minded democraps don’t read. They may be college edumicated with high GPAs but they can’t comprehend the written road. Yes, I meant that last sentence. Written Road!!! You have to travel down it with your own eyes.
They get all of their silly thoughts from the minds at MoveOn.pork. When confronted with the truth, they will start sliming you! All I ask Goldy and his friends to do is read the reports. Open your eyes and you will be converted. But types like Alan, Torridjoe, Donnageddon, etc. want their information handed to them instead of performing the due diligence of studying to show themselves approved. I don’t take Rush or Sean or Mike Savage at their word. I read to see if they are correct too. That’s why the SLimes newspapers will never get my subscription money ever again.
Pudster
@90 @ 91, I see a lot of talk but not much proof.
Liars.
Uhhhhh….the secret memo was RELEASED by Blair (No. 10 Downing’s website). Murdoch didn’t flog anything.
Furilla.
Facts can be annoying.
Donna @92. I know the facts. You don’t, and being a disciple of MoveOn.pork proves your inate stupidity. You must stop chewing on their pork. A pathetic and ignorant stupid rant. If you don’t plan to look for the two documents I will post the links. Goldy, where do you cultivate these people? Are the test tube babies, with no frontal cerebral lobe knowledge? MoveOn.pork frontal lobotomies.
GOLDY: Please put http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/ on the main web page for dumb Donna for the 9/11 Commission.
GOLDY: Please put http://intelligence.senate.gov/ on the main web page for dumb Donna for the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence.
Donna @92: I realize the report may be above your reading level, but ask Alan as he is a barrister and he can provide translation synonyms for the words greater than six letters.
Happy Reading Donna. The truth will set you free..
Pudster
I have read the, Mudster. What you state is not in them. I have no responsibility to prove what is NOT there. It is your responibility to prove it IS there.
You dumbass.
Donna, I will not provide the information for you. You told the readership I was wrong. I provided the link and told you it was in the Congressional Record. The Senate Hearings said it was there. The 9/11 Commission said it was there. It was on C-Span, but then you were watching “Soap Operas” right? You have not read them. You are like many liberals who never reading a document you depend (diaper implied) on others. If it ain’t on MOveOn.pork must not be true? Well you swallowed the white sticky stuff my friend. Constipated yet? I provided the link and I even told you what to look for and you haven’t a clue. Maybe Goldy will help you. DamnageD backed me up but NO ONE is backing you up.
Try again.
Pudster
Mudster, I rest my case…. you cannot provide the evidence because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. You heard Rush LIE about it,. and Hannity LIE about it, and Savage-weiner LIE about it, etc… and you drank the Kool Aid, you filthy lying scum!!!
I have read the reports, yoou haven’t, and I cannot prove a negative, you have to prove your DAMN LIE!
You ought to be ashamed of yourself!
And, Mudster, I do know which LIE Rush and the other LIARS told about the reports. It has to do with futile attempts by Al Queda to get support from Iraq, which Iraq ignored. YThe conclusions in both reports arte that ther was no substintive connection between Al Queda and Iraq.
Why? Because Saddam was a trecherous ruler who would not support anyone he could not control. And he also knew that Al Queda despised Saddam as much as he dispised the US.
So blow it out your ass, Mudster. I know one hell of a lot more about those reports than you know about the sunday funnies that are your only reading material.
Hello everyone. Donna did a search on Osama or Al-Qaida. The Senate Committee did not provide the cross referencing to the document. Their choice. I went to a page where Committee was clearly there and I typed committee. It does not cross reference. Why, they put tight controls on the document, their choice. Self evident from Donna’s post. She won’t read it but does call me a liar.
I just reread my copy and I see it in big bold letters. Donna, rant on all you want. It’s there, it’s in the Congressional Record and it’s in the 9/11 documents. I have work to do so I won’t be back for a while.
Pudster
@92
Call me a liar after you finish this…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....index.html
…understanding what i’ve read doesn’t make me a liar. Ease off!
DamnageD, miusunderstanding what you read does not make you a liar, I agree. But Mudster is just blowing bullshit out his ears when he makes the claim that Saddam had a connection to Osama, that is a complete lie and if he read the actual reports I will eat a copy. He does not know what he is talkiing about and I love watching the little warf rat running around trying to find evidence for something that does not exist.
I regret you were mistaken in suppoorting Mudster, but the fact remains there was no proven connection between Sadam and Osama.
When and if I am proven wrong I will ease off.
Please people quit posting the entire reports. I have read them. I cannot prove a negative. that is irrational. If the evidence is there, then freaking site it by page number.
All I ask.
@ 101
A few points…a) I’m not supporting anybody. I said “if i recall” there was mention of a connection. It’s beem months since I read that doc and I do not remember all the contents by page #. I’d be happy to go over it again…when I have time. b) Last time I checked, Goldy ran this site…and honestly, I will only stop doing something if he askes me to. Maybe others might want to read them for themselves.
Pudster is back. Donna, who is blowing BS? DamnageD gave another link to the same 9/11 report. Looks like another link to the same information for you to read. You’ve been on my case all afternoon, when you won’t take the time and look at this report or the Sentate Report Conclusions starting >85 for the next 8-10 which said there was a connection, albeit small and there was an Al-Qaeda base in the norteast Iraq near the Iran border.
Butt you didn’t read it, called me a liar and sneered in your response. So DamnageD brings home the information from another link, albeit the same report and he is not a liar? Who is slinging it no? Please don’t ask me anymore about this because you have now been shutup twice. I read it, DamnageD read it and maybe others read it. Take your time and read. That’s all I asked, if you want to argue it later, cite page and paragraph you want to argue.
Read it and shut up. Liar!
Pudster
Oh Donna, How do you want the reports served? With spaghetti sauce, with curry, with fried onions? You said you would eat one of them, well you better get them mandibles working!!! You can’t even tell me when they were published without going to Google first to download them today.
Pudster
Mudster… I am waiting you foolish shill! Put up or shut up!
You are cute when you have been called to the mat and can’t produce. Just like a child with his hand in the cookie jar. Spout off all you want, I read the reports know the contents and both reports concluded no relationship (connection.. however you want to spin it)between Sadam and Osama.
That is the final fact until you can show me the contents that demonstrate your lie is true.
Goldy is coming on KVI @ 7:00
Dounmnba: X between Donna and Dumb: I told you look at the report paragraphs and the conclusions 85->on in the Senate report you dumb ass! Start with the acknowledged Al Qaeda base in Iraq, the READ the other info in the report. Then DamnageD refers your LAZY BUTT to the same 9/11 report at a different link and you still call me a shill? You say “Do I have to read it?” to DamnageD. DamnageD says I am correct about both reports and you call me a shill? When it comes to brains, your mother said no thanks please, she’ll be stupid for life, and they locked yours your deliverable up somewhere in heaven.
That’s the problem with liberals, you see red when you are called on your lies and stupidity. I will ask you about the same question Michael Medved asked a MoveOn.porker last year: Before this afternoon you could not answer either question: How many pages in the Senate Report? How many pages in the 9/11 Report. Then you went to Google. Lying sack of pork banta.
Go cry at your MOveOn.pork web site! They want the US overrun by Al Qaeda, just like you. Then who’s yo master? Rant on forever Donna because I am done with you. No one from your own party is coming to your defense. NUFF SAID for ME!!!!
Pudster
Mudster… you [pathetic tic of a man.
Let me help you. Chapter 2 page 66
“But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier
contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing
or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”
Now, don’t you feel foolish. Crawl back to your bunker and cry yourself to sleep already!
And by the little man Mudster. When you have the facts behind you. You don’t need anyone else to back you up. I imagine most of them were either on other threads or enjoying the game of watching you squirm like a slug on a hot griddle.
Learn something from this encounter and leave the blogging to the adults.
Tapping fingers… waiting for Mudster to backpedal and try to put a FOX Spin on the facts.
Now. my frail Mudster, regarding the Senete’s report, here are the pertanent conclusions. Read them and eat some more spam rations from your bunker.
Conclussion 96 THE CIA’s assesment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Quaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.
Conclusion 97 The CIA’s jusdgement that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach – al Quida – to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest Saddam did try to employ al-Quida in conducting terrorist atacks.
Conclusion 99. Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped determine the Iraq regime’s possible links to al-Quida
Now, Mudster, if you wish to apologise, as I have done to Jon when I was wrong, you may. I will accept it.
Hey Pudster: I’m down here in in Governator land. You were right, Donnageddon fell for your trap. You never said Saddam used Al-Qaida/Al-Qaeda to attack the US, you said there were ties.
So Donnageddon what about Conclusions 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95? Cherry picking them for the attack angle. Where did Pudster say that Saddam attacked the US with A-Q? Looks like 97 is useful for Pudster’s argument. What happened to 98? Skipped that one too because it didn’t work for your argument. I read all of Pudsters comments Donnageddon and you owe him an apology. He said there were links. You said there was a connection to 9/11. He said the 9/11 report said there was a link between Saddam and A-Q. I think the apology should be arriving from your fingers.
Just my humble opinion.
PacMan
PacMan: Thanks PacMan. I will answer you. I don’t owe Donna anything. I was not trying to trap Donna. Butt now that you say it, BANG! She did cherry pick the only two about the link to 9/11. Where did I say that? Not from my keyboard.
Thanks again PacMan. Nice name from an old game.
Pudster
Pudster, when you are right you are right. Did she call you a shill? Definition:A shill is an associate of a person selling a good or service, who pretends no association and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. Donnageddon, do you need a dictionary?
Goldy, please provide a dictionary link so your friends can implement English correctly.
Thank you.
PacMan
Let’s see:
Pudster – 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98
Donna – 96, 99
Tie – 97
Winner by Preponderance of evidence: Pudster
Pudster
He Pudster, as in the state wide elections, you might have won the first 6 rounds, but Donnageddon got the knockout in 96 & 99. Go back to your family and worry about your side’s unsurmountable task in their bogus election contest
Mudster @ 86 “4.) The senate report and the 911 commission both said there WAS a connection to Saddam and Osama.”
If Mudster and his alter ego PacFeces care to post the additional conclusions, they of course may. The fact that Mudster caught lying refuses to admit it just provides more cowpies for the fire.
On case you can’t hear it Mudster/PacFeces the sound being played now is people laughing at yest another right wing troll caught with his pants down and nothing to show for his effort but a red ass. :)
Goldy:
I heard about your election contest on KSFO, Melanie Morgan and Lee Rogers Show. They talk about it so often for the last few months. At least down here we don’t allow felons to vote or ballot stuffing, just many illegals seem to get in. So I have viewed your and Stefan’s blogs. Interesting take both ways. I have no dog in this fight as we like Ahhhnold, but I see some of your (im)posters do. Why the im in front of posters? Donnageddon is accusing me of being Pudster. Donnageddon, the name is PacMan not what you supply a your child’s toothpaste.
Goldy, you can see my IP address when I post unless your blog is not as powerful as Stefan’s? Please explain to Donnageddon that I am down here South of San Francisco. You can see my IP Address has a Pac Bell net on it, right? Donnageddon, is your silly argument so weak you accuse people of things you have no idea about?
Now Donnageddon and winehead, 96 and 99 do not make up a knockout. All they say is there was no link of Saddam using A-Q to attack the US. Again I ask you, what happened to Pudster’s claim of links? He proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt. It wasn’t until Pudster told Donnageddon where to look could she write any COGENT to this dicsussion thread. I hope all of you understand that, but this is a democratic blog right?
He said it was in the Senate report and DD backed him in his posting. Ok, you read it and then you disclaim it. Well you can I suppose, but remember he didn’t write anything egregious about the attack of 9/11 regarding Saddam, Donnageddon did. All he said was their reports said there were links, Donnageddon first called him a liar, then had to retract it on DD, but to me and others has not proved anything else to as being correct. The Senate written word says it in multiple conclusions and in the full report gives specific details, which as I see from Donnageddons answer she took the easy road, reading the Cliff Notes conclusions only. Poor way to perform research for an argument.
Donnageddon, the wise man Desmond Tutu said “Don’t raise your voice, Improve your argument”. I say that to you this morning. Another wise person Krissy said:” A friend tells you what you want to hear, but a best friend tells you the truth.” Last but not least Zoe Calder said: “An unaware person lives in the past, mentally experiencing all the things that might have happened, but didn’t.” Donnageddon, that has you written all over it.
Donnageddon, seems to me that Pudster told you the truth. All he said in the document was “there were links”. I hope your are better looking than your written postings, because your argument is weak and has little basis in fact. Pudster, keep them on their toes. I for one will be watching from afar.
You all have a “sunny day” in WA State.
PacMan
Hello PacMan, what’s the weather like in South San Franscisco? The democratic mantra in WA State is to slime you when they start losing their argument. Hence the feces comment. I apologize to you for Donna. She has mental issues, too deep to discuss. But she get psychological assistance from MoveOn.pork. I told Donna I proved my point and I was through with her.
Those are funny wise sayings. Dr. Tutu is a great man. We have Anglican friends from Capetown, when I worked there in 97-98. Yes many of the posters live in the past bringing up Florida 2000, but then you probably have read some of them.
Thanks for the support as few on the “right” side say much here. Have a great day!
Pudster
Hey Donna:
Another one of your A-Q friends, #3 in control of A-Q, Abu Farraj al-Libbi was arrested in Pakistan. I wanted to break the bad news to you because I realize you now must be in mourning. I expect some gnashing of teeth at MoveOn.pork!!!
Pudster
Secret memo? Have you been emailing Dan Rather again?