“I am saying that if anyone was involved in that type of activity which I referred to, they would not be working here.”
– Ron Ziegler, press secretary to Richard Nixon, defending the presidential aide Dwight Chapin on Oct. 18, 1972. Chapin was convicted in April 1974 of perjury in connection with his relationship to the political saboteur Donald Segretti.“Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn’t be working here at the White House if they didn’t have the president’s confidence.”
– Scott McClellan, press secretary to George W. Bush, defending Karl Rove on Tuesday.
Sometimes I think I should stop blogging on national issues, and just provide a permanent link to Frank Rich’s columns in the NY Times. He’s not only one of the finest writers in the business, he also has a unique talent for using historical and cultural references to hack through the thicket of “facts” and “opinions” that tend to obscure most major news storys. In his latest piece, “Follow the Uranium,” Rich once again makes an ironic comparison to Watergate to illustrate that the “cover-up” is not the core issue in the outing of Valerie Plame. Rich sweeps away the “subplots,” and gets to the heart of the matter:
This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit – the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes – is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.
Yes, Rich acknowledges, “of course, Karl Rove did it.” Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper is now talking about his grand jury testimony, and he not only names vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby as his second source, he also apparently contradicts Rove’s testimony. It was Rove who told Cooper about Plame, and that she was a CIA operative… and in so doing, perhaps even Rove knew that he was crossing a line:
“Although it’s not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, “I’ve already said too much.” This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don’t know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.”
While unmasking Plame may not in the end prove to be a prosecutable offense, it is clear that Rove’s goal was to trash the Wilsons the way he has previously trashed John and Cindy McCain or Ann Richards or any number of other political adversaries. And maybe Rove perjured himself, maybe he didn’t… but as Rich points out, to focus on Rove is no more illuminating than to focus on Judy Miller or Matt Cooper or Robert Novak.
This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.
Libby and Rove and other White House henchmen and surrogates went after Wilson — destroying his wife’s career — because he dared to ask a single question:
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
As we’ve subsequently learned from the Downing Street Memo, and from our own post-invasion intelligence on the ground in Iraq itself… the answer is yes.
Follow the uranium, as Rich suggests, and we can come to only one conclusion: the President of the United States led us into war under false pretenses. That is the scandal that makes this affair worse than Watergate.
Dream on twerplets and get used to the GOP running the country!
Goldy,
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
There is a large problem with this story. In summary, Yawn!
Basically, like the DSM, there is no “There!” there, and the public’s reaction will continue to be this…
Demonize the messenger. Same shit, new day.
Kettle @2
You’re black…
oh, carla….coming from YOU that is truly rich…….
Y-A-W-N………
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S history. Let’s clear up one fact (I know the word “fact” is a bad word to the Liberals), but the fact is WE were the ones who were attacked by terrorists on 9/11.
Liberals paint Bush as a person who is bent on thirst for power and world domination in his bid to be the first “global Emperor” of earth. They paint Bush as a war-mongering President who has an un-quenchable thirst for war and conflict. They paint him as a “rebel” for going against UN pleas.
Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims.
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did…. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us…. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
The Liberal Messiah, Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia, even though the UN and France expressed their opposition (what a war-mongering rebal Clinton was). Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by the Sudanese governemnt, and each time, allowed Bin Laden to run free.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people, and put other terrorist-sponsering nations on notice. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? I don’t think so!
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Goldy (Quoting Rich):
“Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?”
Goldy:
“As we’ve subsequently learned from the Downing Street Memo, and from our own post-invasion intelligence on the ground in Iraq itself… the answer is yes.”
So your proof is one line from a memo, written by someone from another country who uses English words differently than we do. The reporter who broke the story typed copies and destroyed the originals. There is no way a reasonable person can be sure that the memo is authentic under those circumstances. In addition you are relying on the statements of Joe Wilson, who’s been caught in several exaggerations and lies about his mission to Niger. Doesn’t sound like a strong case to me.
As far as finding out after the fact that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, are you really saying here that you didn’t think Saddam had WMDs before the war? Being wrong isn’t an impeachable offense.
pbj @ 5
So, you are not content at trying to change the subject with “It’s Clinton’s fault! Clinton did worse!’
Now you are dragging FDR in as a distraction?
Bottom line, THE PRESIDENT WE HAVE NOW, Bush lied to us to get us into a disasterous war, and taking resources away from the real fight on terror. In doing so he has created a country wide terrorist training camp, with our brave soldiers as the targets.
Bush and his whole administration should immediately resign for the good of our country, and the world.
reply@7,
Bottom line, THE PRESIDENT WE HAVE NOW, Bush lied to us to get us into a disasterous war, and taking resources away from the real fight on terror. In doing so he has created a country wide terrorist training camp, with our brave soldiers as the targets.
Bush and his whole administration should immediately resign for the good of our country, and the world.
Bush did not lie to us. Every Democrat was working off the EXACT same intelligence and came to the SAME conclusion. Let me refresh your memory:
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983” — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating Americaís response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddamís existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqís enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrationís policy towards Iraq, I donít think there can be any question about Saddamís conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Perhaps a better question to ask is why Bush was getting such bad intelligence from a CIA infested with liberals like Valarie Plame.
pbj you disingenous Moron!
“Bush did not lie to us. Every Democrat was working off the EXACT same intelligence and came to the SAME conclusion. Let me refresh your memory:”
BULLSHIT!!! They worked off of the intelligence that Bush and Cheney “FIXED”!!!
That is the whole fucking thing about them LYING!!!!
They fed the country and the congress LIES!
No matter how you Neo-Con assholes try to spin it it comes out the same.
It is too bad the Congress trusted the president, and we should expect a president to not lie about things like WAR.
That was our mistake trusting our president. Now we know better. They are a gang of thugs and LIARS!
pbj, you fucking dumbass, I proudly repeat:
George Herbert Walker Bush, liar, theif, incompetent businessman, US AIR Force deserter, WORST. PRESIDENT.EVER.
I don’t care how much crap you vomit on this blog. You are wrong, you are being proved wrong every day. Get used to it. Craphead.
Actually rujax, drop the “herbert” and you have it exactly right.
pbj @ 6 “It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!”
That is so wrong in so many ways, that I am ashamed a member of my species uttered it.
“Bush did not lie to us. Every Democrat was working off the EXACT same intelligence and came to the SAME conclusion. Let me refresh your memory:”
BULLSHIT!!! They worked off of the intelligence that Bush and Cheney “FIXED”!!!
That is the whole fucking thing about them LYING!!!!
They fed the country and the congress LIES!
No matter how you Neo-Con assholes try to spin it it comes out the same.
It is too bad the Congress trusted the president, and we should expect a president to not lie about things like WAR.
That was our mistake trusting our president. Now we know better. They are a gang of thugs and LIARS!
I know the left is losing the argument when they start sputing F-bombs.
No, Bush did not lie. He was using the same intelligence that the likes of little Val Plame was providing. Or didn;t you hear she was a covert agent advising on WMD issues int he CIA? Ooops . Did I just ‘out’ her?
All of the Democrats were coming to the EXACT same conclusions based upon the information provided by Val and her gang of libs at the CIA.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983” — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating Americaís response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddamís existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqís enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrationís policy towards Iraq, I donít think there can be any question about Saddamís conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
George Herbert Walker Bush, liar, theif, incompetent businessman, US AIR Force deserter, WORST. PRESIDENT.EVER.
I don’t care how much crap you vomit on this blog. You are wrong, you are being proved wrong every day. Get used to it. Craphead.
Translation: You could care not a whit about facts – your unholy idealogical alliance to the evil that is the Democrat party remains solid. Are you going to ‘zieg heil !’ for us too?
Donna @ 10
So much for the “checks and balances,” huh? Congress – Dems & Reps alike — is a bunch of incompetent morons who can’t think for themselves?
Do you REALLY think that if a Dem had ANY inkling that the info was questionable that s/he wouldn’t go out of their way to try and discredit the President? Your whole raison d’etre is to be obstructionist.
pbj @ 14 “No, Bush did not lie. He was using the same intelligence that the likes of little Val Plame was providing. Or didn;t you hear she was a covert agent advising on WMD issues int he CIA? Ooops . Did I just ‘out’ her?”
pbj…. do you even think about the rap you post? Even for a second?
Valerie Plame provided the fixed intelligence to Bush? Do you live in a fantasy world? Why do you even bother typing this crap when you have to know that anyone with an IQ above 50 will immediately see it as the bullshit it is?
Oh, but then you don’t type this crapola, you just copy and paste it from Neo-Con talking points sources.
What a waste of oxygen you are.
@ 9
No the best question to ask is why didn’t Bush exhaust weapons inspections before extinquishing lives, limbs and 300 billion in treasure in a ill-advised invasion and subsequent nation-building exercise. It’s not like Saddam couldn’t see the troops massing on the border.
After two disastrous wars and then many years of bombings and sanctions, Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and very little threat to its neighbors – politicians’ posturing and rhetoric for whatever reasons doesn’t change that.
Bitter leftists:
You lost in 200 and you lost in 2004 even despite you vote fraud, such as that for which the St Louis Democrat party was convicted:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltod.....enDocument
Making the fuax ‘scandals’ up only shows how bitter and out of ideas you really are. Yeah, your liberal media will follow lock step ideologically with you and mouth your propaganda and flights of fancy at the drip of a hat. But people now can get the news from other than the official mouthpiece of the Democrat party – US media.
Froth on Donna, froth on Roger, from on Blitend and Donner. Man if spittle were valuable you’d all be very rich right now!
Mark @ 16 “So much for the “checks and balances,†huh? Congress – Dems & Reps alike – is a bunch of incompetent morons who can’t think for themselves?”
No, as I said I do not believe anyone figured that after 9/11 the POTUS would go so low, be so EVIL and traiterous as to FIX intelligence to fight an unnecessary war.
We were wrong. Bush is that low, evil and traiterous.
Live and learn.
Or as Bush has said “Fool me once, .. uh, shame on me, fool me.. but… uh… you can’t get fooled again”
Donna @ 10
“B*******!!! They worked off of the intelligence that Bush and Cheney “FIXED”!!!” (expletive deleted)
The Downing Street Memo was written 23 July 2002. I’m assuming this is what you mean by “fixed”. Assuming the one line in the memo is accurate and authentic (a big assumption), for conjecture’s sake let’s eliminate every statement on or after that date. Here’s what you have:
pbj @ 9
“From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998”
“Tom Daschle in 1998”
“From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others”
“From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002”
“Madeline Albright, 1998”
“Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998”
“Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998”
“National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998”
Unless they invented a time machine, they couldn’t have “fixed” the intelligence that any of these people read.
pbj @ 9
“Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002”
In addition, the French reached the same conclusion, and I doubt they were reading briefings from the CIA. Are you saying that Bush “fixed” French intelligence reports, too?
pbj, the only bitter froth on this blog is supplied by the blinded-by-the-right crowd. You cannot logically argue so you dredge up lies from every corner of the right-wing echo chamber of bullshit.
It really is pathetic.
reply@17,
pbj @ 14 “No, Bush did not lie. He was using the same intelligence that the likes of little Val Plame was providing. Or didn;t you hear she was a covert agent advising on WMD issues int he CIA? Ooops . Did I just ‘out’ her?”
pbj…. do you even think about the rap you post? Even for a second?
I post rap? “Hoo ya . Yo mamma. Its a Drama. Hoo yeah!” (My rap)
Valerie Plame provided the fixed intelligence to Bush? Do you live in a fantasy world? Why do you even bother typing this crap when you have to know that anyone with an IQ above 50 will immediately see it as the bullshit it is?
Psst. Rumor has it that Valarie Plame worked for the CIA. ANd apparently so do a lot of other liberals left over from the Clinton Administration. Psst. Bush got bad intelligence regarding Iraq – the very same intelligence that all the Democrats in congress got and they all came to the same conclusion. Could it be incompetence at CIA that is infested with liberals?
Oh, but then you don’t type this crapola, you just copy and paste it from Neo-Con talking points sources.
It is all original PBJ. I only have to copy and paste the responses because you leftists use the same talking points that have already been debunked over and over and over and …
There are plenty of facts, pbj, plenty of sources…lots of evidence to support everything I know to be true. You know, for some reason the bar of “proof” seems to be so much higher for opponents of this corrupt bunch of criminals. Well, buddy, all of us here have done at least our share of homework. Many posters here have gone way above and beyond with their research and their posts. You always bring up the same crap hoping this time it will be true.
There is no lockstep ideology like there is among you on the right. We, unlike you believe in diversity and allowing different opinions. You assholes won’t let your precious idiot king go among the real, regular people. He can’t even answer a straight question without sounding like an nincompoop.
Are you so stupid that you swallow any old line they feed you? Black is white, down is up, Iraq is a self-sustaining democracy?
pbj, you are just off the cliff, man. I truly feel sorry for a person who is so seriously unhinged. I hope you get better soon.
Neo-Con 1st @ 21
That is the point you idiot! That was before the Bush coup in 2000! And there was NO WAT in Iraq. At that time it was being handled with inspections, control of flight, and kweeping Saddam in a box.
Once Bush stole the presidency, he FIXED the intelligence, used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretence, and started the most disasterous war since Vietnam!
Don’t you get it? Bush lied, ….. get ready for it……people died.
He needs to be removed from power and tried at The Hague.
Simple.
reply@22,
pbj, the only bitter froth on this blog is supplied by the blinded-by-the-right crowd. You cannot logically argue so you dredge up lies from every corner of the right-wing echo chamber of bullshit.
It really is pathetic.
Well so far I have provided facts, a practice which seems foreign to you. Other than variations of frothing f-bomb remarks, you seem to even lack the ability to think critically or logically. I have provided the quotes from Democrats who came to the exact same conclusion as Bush did from the same intelligence. Since we now know that the intelligence was faulty and looking back over the Clinton years, the liberal all excuse him too from missing Bin Laden because of faulty intelligence. We can perhaps fault Bush for not cleaning house and getting rid of the Clinton appointees. It was Bush’s thought to maintain continuity of policy, but since the Clinton policy got us nothing but Khobar Towers, African Embassies, USS COle, Somalia and the 1993 WTC bombinb, then for that we can fault Bush.
However, since 911, Bush has kept terrorists from again striking the continental US and no navy ships nor embassies not in a war zone have ever been blown up. Bush may be the greatest US president of this century.
Ruj@24,
There are plenty of facts, pbj, plenty of sources…lots of evidence to support everything I know to be true. You know, for some reason the bar of “proof” seems to be so much higher for opponents of this corrupt bunch of criminals. Well, buddy, all of us here have done at least our share of homework. Many posters here have gone way above and beyond with their research and their posts. You always bring up the same crap hoping this time it will be true.
There is no lockstep ideology like there is among you on the right. We, unlike you believe in diversity and allowing different opinions. You assholes won’t let your precious idiot king go among the real, regular people. He can’t even answer a straight question without sounding like an nincompoop.
Are you so stupid that you swallow any old line they feed you? Black is white, down is up, Iraq is a self-sustaining democracy?
pbj, you are just off the cliff, man. I truly feel sorry for a person who is so seriously unhinged. I hope you get better soon.
In all that blather was not a single fact nor a single source of information cited. You prove my point better than any words I could write.
Diversity of opinon? What a load of dung. You beleive in diversity of opinion as muh as your idealogical hero Che Guevera:
“To send men to the firing squad, Judicial proof is unnecessary. This is a revolution and a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”
Ernesto “Che” Guevara”
pbj @ 24 “Psst. Rumor has it that Valarie Plame worked for the CIA”
You are the KING of Non Sequiter. How do you make a bridge from Valerie Plame working at the CIA and the FIXING of intelligence that Bush and the rest of the gang of Neo-Con criminals did?
You can’t, and that makes you preposterous postings shamefully ignorant.
Donna@25,
That is the point you idiot! That was before the Bush coup in 2000! And there was NO WAT in Iraq. At that time it was being handled with inspections, control of flight, and kweeping Saddam in a box.
Once Bush stole the presidency, he FIXED the intelligence, used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretence, and started the most disasterous war since Vietnam!
Don’t you get it? Bush lied, ….. get ready for it……people died.
He needs to be removed from power and tried at The Hague.
Simple.
You missed the whole point of his post Donna. But why bother explaining to you since you can only remember idiotic sycophantic slogans with simple rhtym such as “hey ho, hey ho, Traitor Reid has got to go!”?
Reply to 1
Yes, you may be right; the difference between the Watergate era and today is that in 1974 the Democrats in Congress were strong enough to hold Nixon and his hench thugs accountable, whereas today the GOP has enough of a lock on Congress, the courts, and possibly even the election process to put themselves beyond the reach of any law, decency, or accountability to the voters.
Donna@28,
You are the KING of Non Sequiter. How do you make a bridge from Valerie Plame working at the CIA and the FIXING of intelligence that Bush and the rest of the gang of Neo-Con criminals did?
You can’t, and that makes you preposterous postings shamefully ignorant.
We already knew that Liberals like Valarie Plame apparently held much sway within the CIA as evidenced by her ability to get her hubby assigned to go to Niger. What other incompetent liberals were at work when the Democrats in congress as well as Bush were given the faulty intelligence?
pbj @ 26 “Bush may be the greatest US president of this century.”
He is the best president of this century. I agree. He is also the only one.
More importantly, he is the worst president since Herbert Hoover. And that is perhaps unkind to Pres. Hoover.
Roger@30,
Yes, you may be right; the difference between the Watergate era and today is that in 1974 the Democrats in Congress were strong enough to hold Nixon and his hench thugs accountable, whereas today the GOP has enough of a lock on Congress, the courts, and possibly even the election process to put themselves beyond the reach of any law, decency, or accountability to the voters.
You are back Roger. We all thought you were gone for good.
Roger –
Please provide proof that anyone here ever accused Wilson of being a pedophile or child molester (the accusation you made in the “Rove Confirmed Plame Was CIA” thread @22). It should be quit easy to go back and copy the posts.
I am STILL waiting…
Reply@32,
More importantly, he is the worst president since Herbert Hoover. And that is perhaps unkind to Pres. Hoover.
Whew! At least that puts him above Carter! Even in YOUR eyes!
Rove did nothing wrong, no crime was committed and therefore neither an indictment nor conviction for this tempest in a teapot shall ever materialize. It will give bitter leftists (aka so-shial-lists) something to regurgitate for the next 100 years in place of critical thought.
Uh, pbj, have you suddenly gone insane? Carter was far after Herbert Hoover. That making Carter above both Hoover and Bush jr.
pbj @ 35 “Rove did nothing wrong, no crime was committed and therefore neither an indictment nor conviction for this tempest in a teapot shall ever materialize.”
Yes, you have gone insane.
reply@36,
Uh, pbj, have you suddenly gone insane? Carter was far after Herbert Hoover. That making Carter above both Hoover and Bush jr.
Donna, I know you are slow, but chronology of presidential service has nothing to do with naming the ‘all time worst’ president. Carter is tha champ on that one. Look Donna, for once – your side actually won something! And you didn’t even have to fraudulently buy votes to do it, as you did in St Louis during the 2004 election:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltod.....enDocument
Donna@37,
pbj @ 35 “Rove did nothing wrong, no crime was committed and therefore neither an indictment nor conviction for this tempest in a teapot shall ever materialize.”
Yes, you have gone insane.
Well, where is the indictment? Where is the conviction?
I showed you the conviction fo the Democrats. Where is your proof of an indictment or conviction?
John @ 18
“No the best question to ask is why didn’t Bush exhaust weapons inspections before extinquishing lives, limbs and 300 billion in treasure in a ill-advised invasion and subsequent nation-building exercise. It’s not like Saddam couldn’t see the troops massing on the border.”
Saddam is a lunatic, why would you expect him to act rationally? We know now that Saddam had an extended period of time, perhaps years, to fess up he had no WMDs. He could have ended this by allowing free and unfettered access to the inspectors, something he never did.
How long would you have allowed the inspections to continue without Saddam’s cooperation? How could the inspectors reach a definitive conclusion without Saddam’s cooperation?
pbj @ 33 gives the same simplistic nonsense “Please provide proof that anyone here ever accused Wilson of being a pedophile or child molester (the accusation you made in the �Rove Confirmed Plame Was CIA� thread @22). It should be quit easy to go back and copy the posts.
I am STILL waiting� ”
RR has responded several times that I have seen. He never said ANYONE at HA had made those claims. You keep repeating this bullshit as if it gives you points. It doesn’t. It just proves that you like the rest of the Neo-Cons feel that if they repeat a lie enough times it becomes truth.
It doesn’t.
Where are the F-Bombs? DJ? Donna? Roger? Ruj?
Youa are rather silent.
pbj @ 39 “Well, where is the indictment? Where is the conviction?”
pbj you stated “there will never be a convition of indictment. Now you ask me to show you an indictment and conviction.
Sorry, I do not have the time machine required to do that now.
You know pbj, refuting the idiocy of your posts is about the easiest thing I can think of to do on a Sunday afternoon. Like playing ping pong with a man with no arms.
Donna@41,
pbj @ 33 gives the same simplistic nonsense “Please provide proof that anyone here ever accused Wilson of being a pedophile or child molester (the accusation you made in the �Rove Confirmed Plame Was CIA� thread @22). It should be quit easy to go back and copy the posts.
I am STILL waiting� ”
RR has responded several times that I have seen. He never said ANYONE at HA had made those claims. You keep repeating this bullshit as if it gives you points. It doesn’t. It just proves that you like the rest of the Neo-Cons feel that if they repeat a lie enough times it becomes truth.
It doesn’t.
He has never responded truthfully. He accused us ‘rightwingers’ of having accused Wilson of “everything from pedophilia to being a child molester” (Thread: “Rove confirmed Plame was CIA” post #22)
Here is the full quote:
“By the way, right wingers have accused Wilson of everything from pedophilia to being a child molester, demonstrating what subhuman garbage some wingers really are.” – Roger Rabbit , thread “Rove confirmed Plame was CIA” post #22
Donna@43,
You know pbj, refuting the idiocy of your posts is about the easiest thing I can think of to do on a Sunday afternoon. Like playing ping pong with a man with no arms.
You haven’t refuted anything. All you ever do is spew spittle driven hatred about our president during time of war. We know whose side you are on now don’t we?
Once again, I will ask you: Where is the indictment on Karl Rove? Where is the conviction?
Until you can priovide such things like that, things we like to call evidence, you really ought not be calling for anyone’s resignation – it makes you look, well petty and bitter.
But then again, you probably are petty and bitter.
pbj, you believe I have not refuted your bullshit, because you are programmed not to see the truth.
Your posts have been completely shattered, all you need to do to know this is quit drinking the Kool Aid.
Reply to 33
Pbj, you are a fucking liar, I NEVER said anyone “here” (on HorsesAss) called Wilson a pedophile or child molester. I posted that right wing haters had made such smears against Wilson on right wing blogs elsewhere. So stop putting words in my mouth that I never said, you lying fucker.
pbj @ 44 qouting RR “By the way, right wingers have accused Wilson of everything from pedophilia to being a child molester, demonstrating what subhuman garbage some wingers really are.†– Roger Rabbit”
I am aware of the post.
Now, show me where in that post he said someone in HA had made that claim against Wilson? Hmmm
I’m waiting…
tick tock.
I’m waiting pbj.
Reply to 47,
Pbj, you are a fucking liar, I NEVER said anyone “here” (on HorsesAss) called Wilson a pedophile or child molester. I posted that right wing haters had made such smears against Wilson on right wing blogs elsewhere. So stop putting words in my mouth that I never said, you lying fucker.
There you go with reference to your carnal pleasures Roger. Does anything else ever cross your mind?
You said ‘rightwingers’. You have never used the qualifier ‘here on HA’ to characterize your conversation with us before. You merely call us all ‘right wingers’. I am quite clear in my mind that you meant those of us that don’t drink the koolaid.
Now will you apoligze? Or are you too dishonorable to admit you mistake?
Hmmm … Cooper’s sources were Bush’s top aide and Cheney’s top aide … doesn’t that tell who made the decision to “out” Plame? President Cheney and his organ grinder monkey, that’s who.
It’s hard to believe that after today’s revelations the winger trolls are still trying to defend Rove and Libby. Doesn’t this tell you something? They’re America-hating apologists for treason! You can quote me on this, pbj, and I posted it on HorsesAss.
reply@48,
Now, show me where in that post he said someone in HA had made that claim against Wilson? Hmmm
I’m waiting…
The perjorative that you kool-aid drinkers use to refer to us at HA is ‘rigth wingers’. Now you are trying to add a Clintonesque ‘nuance’ by questioning what the meaning of ‘is’ is. I am not buying it and neither are any of the reat of uf ‘right wingers’.
If Roger is not honorable enough to apologize for his slander, then it say more about him that anyone else and says something about the ideological soulmates of the left. Apparently dishonor, slander and lies are among the characteristics that define the left.
Reply to 50
“You said ‘rightwingers’. You have never used the qualifier ‘here on HA’”
BINGO!
“to characterize your conversation with us before. You merely call us all ‘right wingers’. I am quite clear in my mind that you meant those of us that don’t drink the koolaid.”
I’m not responsible for your reading into my posts things that aren’t there.
reply@51,
It’s hard to believe that after today’s revelations the winger trolls are still trying to defend Rove and Libby. Doesn’t this tell you something? They’re America-hating apologists for treason! You can quote me on this, pbj, and I posted it on HorsesAss.
Why bother quoting you Roger. When proven wrong, you will just give a Clintoneque deflection based upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
By the way, pbj, when I call you a “fucking liar” or a “lying fucker,” there is no carnal meaning intended. It’s an epithet — that’s a big fancy 3-syllable liberal term for name-calling. When I refer to you as a “fucking liar” I’m calling you names, OK? It’s also an accurate description of your character with an adjective added for emphasis. As for “lying fucker,” I’ve probably taken some literary license there, I can’t imagine you having a carnal relationship with anything but a goat.
reply@53,
“You said ‘rightwingers’. You have never used the qualifier ‘here on HA’”
Editing and changing my posts won’t work Roger because people can go back and read them to see what they really said.
BINGO!
“to characterize your conversation with us before. You merely call us all ‘right wingers’. I am quite clear in my mind that you meant those of us that don’t drink the koolaid.”
I’m not responsible for your reading into my posts things that aren’t there.
You know what you meant, I know what you meant and so does every other poster here. Your shame is yours Roger.
Donna @ 25
“That is the point you idiot! That was before the Bush coup in 2000! And there was NO WAT in Iraq. At that time it was being handled with inspections, control of flight, and kweeping Saddam in a box.”
Clearly many of the statements Democrats made in 1998 weren’t from fixed intelligence. Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. Only after Bush was elected and gave his “axis of evil” speech and told the UN to enforce their own resolution or the U.S. will, did the inspections start again in 2002. The facts contradict your assertion.
“Once Bush stole the presidency, he FIXED the intelligence, used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretence, and started the most disasterous war since Vietnam!”
Please see my previous post on the Downing Street Memo on this thread. The “fixing” claim seems extremely tenuous to me.
“Don’t you get it? Bush lied, ….. get ready for it……people died.”
Since there were no inspections from 1998 to 2002, how would anyone know, if it was likely Saddam had WMDs? When you say Bush “lied” that implies he knew there were no WMDs. So again, what changed between 1998 and 2002 to indicate to anyone that Saddam didn’t have WMDs?
Wrong? What’s there to prove wrong? The reporter said on “Meet the Press” that his sources were Rove and Libby. Rove’s lawyer admits Rove talked to Cooper about Plame. What’s left to discuss? A CIA agent was “outed” by high-ranking Bush administration officials. You want to defend THAT? Go right ahead, you America-hating apologist for treason. Show the whole world (or at least such of it as reads HorsesAss) what you are.
Reply@55,
By the way, pbj, when I call you a “fucking liar” or a “lying fucker,” there is no carnal meaning intended. It’s an epithet – that’s a big fancy 3-syllable liberal term for name-calling. When I refer to you as a “fucking liar” I’m calling you names, OK? It’s also an accurate description of your character with an adjective added for emphasis. As for “lying fucker,” I’ve probably taken some literary license there, I can’t imagine you having a carnal relationship with anything but a goat.
There you go again Roger – referring to matters which should be between you and the goat. The goat isn’t telling, must you?
BTW: When you finish with the goat, you might want to stay away from the horses – I hear they can be fatal. Seems another of your idealogical bretheren tried the horse and was killed – OUCH!
Roger Rabbit, Amen. The Trolls here obviously hate America. While else would they defend this America-Hating, Soldier-bashing, Constitution-dispising Neo_con administration.
We WILL get our country back from these traiters. And then we will roll up our sleeves like good Americans and repair the damadge they have done.
Reply to 56
“Editing and changing my posts won’t work Roger because people can go back and read them to see what they really said.”
It’s amazing how you can regurgitate verbiage without ever having absorbed its meaning. This is exactly what I have been trying to pound through your thick skull for the last several days with no success.
PEANUTBUTTERJELLYTIME
peanutbutterjellytime, CF @ all“Irrelevant, straw man, straw man, outdated, irrelevant, straw man.”
That about sums up your debating points. How incredibly Stalinist of you.
(additional aside to CF: saw your shout-out from Luntz too late to respond. He is such a sweetie-pie, isn’t he?)
IT@8: A history lesson is always good for the soul, unless of course IT, you ain’t got a soul!!!
IT@10: Please hallucinate us [too] wid dem drugs you be takin! What solid evidence do you possess (yes, go to the Internet) and link us into every lie that has been debunked. This Bush Lied, People Died is straight from MoveOn.Org. We all know Clinton told CNN in 2003 that every major intell service said Saddam had WMDs. What is wrong with you lefties. Oh that’s right, you all still have the 2004 John Kerry for President play book!
Rujack@11: Air Force Deserter? Are you talking to Dan Rather again? Herbert is the father, theif is is an imaginary Rujax person.
IT@13: What is your species again. Hello IT, I am a human being. What are you?
IT@22: PBJ provides verifiiable material from Googleable sites!
IT@25 NO WAT? No what? No Watt? Please clue us in on this revelation!!!
It is fascinating pbj’s obsession with beastiality. I imagine it is like most wicked acts that Neo-Cons commit, the convince themselves that everyone else is doing it.
Very sad.
Reply to 59
Listen, buddy, I have lotsa friends in the animal world, and the goat told me what you did to him.
@ 40
The UNMOVIC inspectors found and destroyed those missiles didn’t they?
Yes Saddam stonewalled the inspections effort – for political reasons. It didn’t stop inspectors from making a good amount of progress that was cut short by Clinton’s desert fox operation.
Any political solution that prevents any unneeded loss of life and economic or political credibility is preferable in my opinion.
CF @ 57
Correction to my last post:
In the last paragraph, I meant to say “anyone know definitively if Saddam didn’t have WMDs”.
PacMan @ 63 “We all know Clinton told CNN in 2003 that every major intell service said Saddam had WMDs.”
Yes, a private citizen believed Bush’s FIXED intelligence. Hardly a revalation.
As to the rest of your comments… uh… you truly are one confused cultist.
Reply@60,
In Donnas mind,
Bruning your flag, fighting for the Talbian against US troops, urging release of terrorists at Gitmo, spying for Saddam (aka Susan Lindauer) = Patriotic
Figthing against taliban, fighting against bin laden, securing the country, spreading Democracy in the Middle East = unpatriotic
Traitors of the left will be relegated to the trashbin of history as they should be.
John@65,
Any political solution that prevents any unneeded loss of life and economic or political credibility is preferable in my opinion.
Surrender meets those goals nicely. So you support surrender?
Geo@62,
Man you can’t even make a witty comback. You are the Homer Simpson of the so-shia-list idealogues. Please come back when you can post more intelligently than a 3rd grader.
pbj @ 68
“In Donnas mind,
Bruning your flag, fighting for the Talbian against US troops, urging release of terrorists at Gitmo, spying for Saddam (aka Susan Lindauer) = Patriotic”
Um, are you realying on Bush’s fixed intelligence to make that claim? Just for the record, Donnageddon abhores anyone fighting for the Taliban aginst anyone. I do not urge the release of “terrorists” from Gitmo. And Spying for Saddam by anyone should be punished with a noose around their neck.
Any other delusional slander you wish to try to paint me with, pbj?
Addendum to 72
Burning the flag may be patriotic, depending on the situation. Like if it touched the ground.
@ 70
Surrender to what?
John @ 65
“Any political solution that prevents any unneeded loss of life and economic or political credibility is preferable in my opinion.”
I’d draw the line at “any”. The English tried to political solutions with Hilter in the 30s and look what it got them. And yes, hindsight is 20/20, but I think it’s a good example of a political solution that caused uneeded loss of life.
I should have been more clear in my previous response to you. What I really wanted to know is how long you would have wanted to see the inspections continue in 2002 before starting military operations if the inspectors could not be sure that Saddam wasn’t still hiding WMDs or the capability to start his WMD programs again. Would you have waited 1 year, 2 years, 10 years? Or would you never have started military operations because you oppose them completely?
All this brouhaha and yet where is the indictment? Where is the conviction? We can all independently verify the story about the St Louis Democrats being convicted of vote fraud. Yet, all there is on the Rove story is a bunch of hot air from the Amrican Taliban (Democrats).
Please, my Che loving freedom hating so-shia-list friend – please provide the proof of an indictment and conviction of Karl Rove.
Until such time as you CAN provide that (no, those made up ones on the leftist conspiracy sites don’t count), you have nothing but hot air.
Pssst. Hint for the so-shia-lists: Rove isn’t a target of the investigation.
Donna@72,@73,
Um, are you realying on Bush’s fixed intelligence to make that claim?
Valarie Plame told me so. She works at the Cia you know. Oooops. I just outed her didn’t I – me bad.
Just for the record, Donnageddon abhores anyone fighting for the Taliban aginst anyone. I do not urge the release of “terrorists” from Gitmo. And Spying for Saddam by anyone should be punished with a noose around their neck.
Well, I have been looking for th eposts of outrage that Susan Lindauer hasn’t been hanged already for a crime of which she has been indicted and convicted (the same of which cannot be said for Karl Rove). Where are your posts of outrage? Or does the fact that she was a former Seattle PI reporter and aide to several America hating Democrats have something to do with your lack of outrage?
My charges stand Donna.
John@74,
To our enemies – Saddam, the terrorists. Surrendering to them meets your criteria – no loss of life and no economic penalty. So is that what you advocate?
pbj @ 76 “please provide the proof of an indictment and conviction of Karl Rove.”
Wow, pbj, you are one slippery lying idiot.
We covered this ground. There has been no indictment or conviction of Rove. No one has nade that claim. You are again building a sand castle at high tide. No one is ever going to even read your posts if you keep this crap up. Quit building strawmen out of your wild imagination.
I am one or two posts from just putting you in the “ignore, he is insane” pile.
PEANUTBUTTERJELLYTIME
peanutbutterjellytime@71Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me: I forgot to include “lie, deliberate misrepresentation, deliberate misrepresentation, lie.”
Man, you freaks from the Star Trek mirror universe are really sending up the emergency flares over this one, aren’t you. I’m guessing you’re starting to feel those cold fingers of panic wrapping around your throat as your rationalizations collapse.
Geo @ 62
“Irrelevant, straw man, straw man, outdated, irrelevant, straw man.”
“That about sums up your debating points. How incredibly Stalinist of you.”
Attack the post, not the poster. Apparently you can’t refute these arguments so you create a straw man by calling my points straw man arguments. If my arguments are so thin, shoot them down. Maybe you can answer the question I posed to Donna.
To lie Bush had to know there were no WMDs. So what changed while the inspectors weren’t in Iraq from 1998 to 2002 to give anyone definitive knowledge that Saddam didn’t have WMDs?
“(additional aside to CF: saw your shout-out from Luntz too late to respond. He is such a sweetie-pie, isn’t he?) ”
He’s a good guy, pays well too. You really should get a gig with Zogby, I hear he’s hiring, and go post at SoundPolitics.
pbj @ everywhere. You are insane.
Donna@79,
We covered this ground. There has been no indictment or conviction of Rove. No one has nade that claim.
Yet you all are calling for resignations, firings etc. Perhaps a messy thing like You keep up this distraction to keep the public from realizing once again that yours is the party that has no ideas, no solutions for our country.
Perhaps you are just following Che’s advice:
“To send men to the firing squad, Judicial proof is unnecessary. This is a revolution and a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”
Ernesto “Che” Guevara”
Geo@80 and everywhere,
An yet, all you can do is post insults. I guess that will have to do when you cannot refute my arguments. Don’t worry Geo, as it was when they passed you through the 10th grade even though you only qualified for the 3rd – we don’t have high expectations of you.
So look at yourself in the mirror right now and say ” I am smart enough and ‘gosh darn it!’ people like me.”
Should we call you stuart smalley?
Well, liberals, shreadding your statements on this topic has been real fun. But there is sunshine out there and I am going to enjoy it! I recommend you all do the same.
@ 75
Of course you also understand that Germany before WWII and Iraq after Gulf War I and sanctions were entirely different.
If the inspectors had been allowed to do their job then the conclusion would have been that Iraq posed no WMD threat, i.e. no mushroom clouds and therefore military action wasn’t necessary.
pbj, you are out of touch with reality. You are completely bat crazy, insane.
Stay away from the windowpane, pbj. I think that is what got you into this mental state.
@ 78
To Saddam? He posed no threat. Containment and sanctions held him in check.
To terrorists? Giving them free reign means things like 9/11 – significant loss of life – that happened on Bush’s watch by the way.
John @ 86
“Of course you also understand that Germany before WWII and Iraq after Gulf War I and sanctions were entirely different.”
I understand that both were countries lead by dictators that wanted to invade their neighbors and a danger to our allies and freedom and appeasing them doesn’t make the world a safer place.
“If the inspectors had been allowed to do their job then the conclusion would have been that Iraq posed no WMD threat, i.e. no mushroom clouds and therefore military action wasn’t necessary.”
While your statement is true it relies on a big assumption. Saddam wasn’t allowing the inspectors free and unfettered access, so they couldn’t do their job. How long would you wait with the inspections to continue while under those conditions? 1 year, 2 years, 10 years? Never? Can you not accept the possiblities that the inspectors might not have been able to reach the conclusion there were no WMDs even given more time? Yes, post invansion, it’s clear Saddam didn’t have WMDs. Pre invasion, the entire world thought he did.
My, my, the Bushies must be nervous. Are you guys getting time and a half for working on such a beautiful Sunday?
67
“In the last paragraph, I meant to say ‘anyone know definitively if Saddam didn’t have WMDs’.”
Nobody found any, did they?
One of my favorite stories by “Bad Bill” Clinton is the difference between a decision made because of policy and one made because of politics.
If you make a decision to start a war: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/......irq.main/ ),
Claim the decision was successful and toot your own horn: (http://www.commondreams.org/he.....030-02.jpg),
And then discover 2 years later that you have totally screwed up and have in fact dug yourself into a hole that is getting bigger and bigger:
(http://apnews.excite.com/artic.....DUJ80.html)
With no end in sight:
(http://rdu.news14.com/content/.....38;SecID=2)
You have two choices; depending on whether you’re your original action was policy or politics. If it was based on policy, thenSTOP DIGGING.
(http://www.onnnews.com/Global/.....v=LQlCb9UT)
If it was based on politics, GET YOURSELF A BIGGER SHOVEL.
(http://www.eitb24.com/noticia_en.php?id=73408)
Which option for the Flight Suit in Chief?
I THINK THEREFORE I AM DANGEROUS!
@ 70
Interesting the rationalizations some people use to justify killing other people. I’m glad I was born a cute fluffy little bunny!
@76
Gotta give pbj credit for creative name-calling although I’m sure he didn’t think of any of those epithets himself. Must’ve got them off Free Republic. Yeah, I’ll bet that doofus reads Free Republic. He’s the type.
@84
The evidence against Rove and Libby is good enough to fire them or at least pull their security clearances. No one has a “right” to a White House job or federal security clearance. The employment is “at will” and security clearances are issued for the convenience and benefit of the government and may be revoked at any time.
There is no war on terror.
Terror is a tactic that people (idiots) use.
The war is against those who use terror.
We should never confuse the two.
@78
Interesting how pbj, the liar, tries to link Saddam with terrorists. There were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush came along, you lying fucker.
Neo_Con 1st @ 89
“While your statement is true it relies on a big assumption. Saddam wasn’t allowing the inspectors free and unfettered access, so they couldn’t do their job. How long would you wait with the inspections to continue while under those conditions? 1 year, 2 years, 10 years? Never?”
Absolutely! Just think, if we had kept inspectors in Iraq forever They would have found nothing and 1750 + American soldiers would be alive fighting the real terrorist threats.
We would still have a place of respect in the world community and saved 300 billion dollars and counting to use for homeland security.
Your question is the question of the day Neo_con 1st, and the answer is FUCKING YES!
Saddam was in a BOX, and Iraq was one country FREE of terrorists. ANd the Bush fucked the country and the world over with a pack of lies.
IT@99: Saddam was in a box. Yes he was continually killing people who opposed him. But lefties don’t care about poor people dying. I wonder what Kerry would have done to people who opposed him?
IT@99: Iraq was free of terrorists. Abu Nidal was living with Zarqawi on the Arabian Sea. Salman Pak was a terror free zone. The Ansar al-Islam base in Kurdistan. Naaah no terrorists in Iraq. IT are you naturally stoopid?
IT@99: Did you read the suggest link from Australia? If so you would have learned something about what the Aussies’ think regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Dr. Freud @ 90
“My, my, the Bushies must be nervous. Are you guys getting time and a half for working on such a beautiful Sunday?”
Double time actually.
Now tell me about your mother.
Did someone fart @ 100?
Someone crack a window will you please?
RR @ 91
“Nobody found any, did they?”
Nope, but did you know that in 2002? Or 1998, or 1992? If you did you must have been the only one, and clairvoyant.
Donna @ 98
“Your question is the question of the day Neo_con 1st, and the answer is F****** YES!” (explitive deleted)
Fair enough, so war is never an option for you, and consequences for not complying to UN Resolutions is not important either. Why bother having the UN in that case? The next despot that decides to threaten his neighbors, invades his neighbors, uses WMDs on his people will hardly take any threat from the UN seriously using your approach to solving the world’s problems.
Actually, you’ve posted several times since I posed the question “What changed between 1998 and 2002 to indicate to anyone that Saddam didn’t have WMDs?” If Goldy’s headline, “Bush lied, people died”, while catchy, is to considered accurate, then the question I’ve posed needs to be answered. Apparently no one here wants to do so, they just want to curse, and/or attack the poster.
Remember lie means “A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.”.
Neo-Con 1st @ 103
“Donna @ 98
“Your question is the question of the day Neo_con 1st, and the answer is F****** YES!†(explitive deleted)
Fair enough, so war is never an option for you,”
For the record I said “Fucking Yes!”
Also for the record, I never stated, nor do I believe that war is never an option.
You see, Neo_con 1st, when you try to put words in the mouth of others, you just end up looking like a dipshit.
BEHOLD: ConservativeFirst a class A DipShit!
Neo_con 1st @ 103 “Remember lie means “A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.”.”
Then Neo-Con 1st said to me “Fair enough, so war is never an option for you” This is a false statement diliberately presented as true.
This ConservativeFirst makes you a Liar.
So shall you be known from now on.
@ 89
I understand that both were countries lead by dictators that wanted to invade their neighbors and a danger to our allies and freedom and appeasing them doesn’t make the world a safer place.
Germany pre-WWII was arming for aggression and hadn’t invaded anyone. They were appeased and bad things happened.
Iraq post Gulf War I had taken action against two countries and had gotten its rear-end kicked. They had hostile air forces enforcing no-fly zones on their northern and southern regions. Their economy was a basket case due to U.N. sanctions. Iraq was hardly a country able to invade anyone in March 2003. I doubt they were being “appeased”.
I doubt the “whole world” thought Iraq had WMD. Rolf Ekeus the head UNSCOM inspector thought in 1997 that the Iraqis were pretty much disarmed.
How long would I wait? Until the inspectors finished the job that was interrrupted in 1998. Inspections and monitoring worked in the 1990’s – they would have worked in 2003.
Donna @ 104
“Also for the record, I never stated, nor do I believe that war is never an option.”
So when is war an option? Based upon your stataements you clearly didn’t think war was ever an option in Iraq. What about Afghanistan? Should we have attacked them?
While you did a great job of attacking me personally, you did not address my arguments. Either you agree with them or you can’t refute them. They certainly aren’t strawmen, and are central to the main point of the thread. So if you can’t support the statement “Bush lied”, please stop saying it, or back up your assertion with some facts, instead of personal attacking me.
Neo-Con 1st a known Liar asked @ 107
“What about Afghanistan? Should we have attacked them?”
YES!!! And we should have finished the job! But Bush had another agenda having nothing to do with the war on terror and 9/11; Thus we have the quagmire in Iraq which has increased our vulnerability to terrorism (ie. soldiers stretched thin, wasted dollars spent on a quagmire rather than homeland security) See how much more civilized and fact based it is to ask questions rather than putting out false statements, Neo-Con 1st?
Also you stated “While you did a great job of attacking me personally, you did not address my arguments.” This is, of course false. Every post I made regarding you was a response to your comments. You are the one who has made false statements about me.
I will accept your apology if offered, and I hope you quit drinking the Kool Aid.
IT@Everywhere: What’s up? Skunk smelling it’s own scent. IT maybe you need to call Charmin, so he can wipe you up, being an asswipe. Did little Pudster stir up the ITs’ nest? Awww you can’t address legitimate questions from him. How about your worthless retorts to PBJ? Your meds regimen not working? Better see Dr. Phil tomorrow!!!
Since you won’t answer Puddy, I’ll ask? You said: “Iraq was free of terrorists.” Yeah, and Abu Nidal was living with Abu Zarqawi on the Arabian Sea. Salman Pak was a terror free zone. The Ansar al-Islam base in Kurdistan didn’t exist. Naaah no terrorists in Iraq. IT are you naturally stoopid?
DIT, did you read the suggest link from Australia? If so you would have learned something about what the Aussies’ think regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda. I read it IT, why not you?
IT@108: How can you finish a job when they are hiding in the mountains? Do you drop Neutron Bombs? If you say yes then you must have supported Barry GOldwater. He said nuke ’em!
John @ 106
“Germany pre-WWII was arming for aggression and hadn’t invaded anyone. They were appeased and bad things happened.”
Not correct. Germany remilatrized the Rheinland, against the armistice treaty signed in 1918, in 1936. England and France do nothing. Sudentenland “annexed” in 1938. Same story. German occupies Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. Same story. German invades Poland in September 1939, after which England and France declare war against Germany.
“I doubt the “whole world” thought Iraq had WMD. Rolf Ekeus the head UNSCOM inspector thought in 1997 that the Iraqis were pretty much disarmed.”
Agreed, there’s almost always someone who disagrees, and a better statment would have been that the general consensus of world goverments in the West in 2002 was that Iraq had WMDs. Which is what I really meant but did a poor job of saying it.
“How long would I wait? Until the inspectors finished the job that was interrrupted in 1998. Inspections and monitoring worked in the 1990’s – they would have worked in 2003.”
But what if they couldn’t finish due to Saddam’s obstruction? What would you do? It’s easy to say after the fact “wait, until they find there are no WMDs”. While the inspections removed what turned out to be the rest of Iraq’s WMDs that the Iraqs themselves didn’t destroy (if they destroyed any), it was impossible to know that given Saddam’s gamesmanship at the time.
CF: Of course most western nations thought Saddam still had WMDs. But IT, L00cy, Charmin and their friends continue to say otherwise. If they admitted it, then one of their arguments to Bush Lied, would become a non sequitor, and they know they can’t admit the truth. Democrat lefties and the truth are diametrically opposed objects, like North and South Poles on a magnet.
ConservativeFirst @ “But what if they couldn’t finish due to Saddam’s obstruction?”
The UN Inspection Team had some complaints, but nothing that actually kept them from doing their job. The whole world was wqtching what was going on in Iraq, from spy satelites to U2 Spy planes. It is really disengenous to think that Saddam was in a box that he would never extricate himself from.
Bottom line: Bush wanted a war, he lied to get it, and he ignored the reality of Inspectors on the ground finding nothing.
This is a silly argument. Bush never should have invaded Iraq, and everyone (including the soldiers who have died, and will die, for this nonsensical war) would be better off if Bush had never left Texas.
The western nations (including Britain re DSM) did not KNOW that Saddam had WMD. The intelligence was FIXED to give that impression, and assholes like PacMan are willing Neo-con dupes to this massive death cult lie.
Donna @ 108
“Every post I made regarding you was a response to your comments. You are the one who has made false statements about me.”
No, I made a supposition based upon your statements since you didn’t answer the questions I asked. You corrected me. So your position is now clear.
“Also you stated “While you did a great job of attacking me personally, you did not address my arguments.” This is, of course false.”
So calling me an idiot in post 25 isn’t attacking me personally?
How is accusing me of drinking Kool Aid in post 108 supposed to refute the substance of my posts?
Calling me a “known liar” in post 108 is not a personal attack? Please show where I’ve made a false statement or even a misstatment which I didn’t restate for clarity or retract completely. This thread or any thread will do.
Despite all this, you still refuse to answer the central question. How did Bush lie? To lie he’d have to have made a knowing false statment. To make a knowing false statement about WMDs in 2002, he’d have to know that Iraq no longer had WMDs. How did he know this when the general consensus of Western intelligence agencies was that Iraq had WMDs in 2002? Or did he lie about something all together? Seems pretty central to a thread entitled “Bush Lied, People Died”.
So both parts of my statement are true, you attacked me and didn’t attempt to refute my argument. This would negate your statement “This is of course, false”.
“I will accept your apology if offered, and I hope you quit drinking the Kool Aid.”
No apology offered, but I won’t take the ad homenim attack personally, I really prefer beer to Kook Aid. You don’t have to apologize to me for calling me a liar or an idiot, it really doesn’t bother me other than it detracts from debating the issue at hand.
Donna @ 113
“The western nations (including Britain re DSM) did not KNOW that Saddam had WMD.” The intelligence was FIXED to give that impression, and assholes like PacMan are willing Neo-con dupes to this massive death cult lie. ”
Not sure who’s post you are addressing, if you are addressing my comment to John in 110 or PacMan’s post 111, neither of said that Western nations “knew” Iraq had WMDs. For someone so offended when they think someone else is speaking for them, you should be more careful when you paraphrase other people.
You’ve still failed to address my arguments about the “fixing” claim from the DSM. See post 7:
“So your proof is one line from a memo, written by someone from another country who uses English words differently than we do. The reporter who broke the story typed copies and destroyed the originals. There is no way a reasonable person can be sure that the memo is authentic under those circumstances. In addition you are relying on the statements of Joe Wilson, who’s been caught in several exaggerations and lies about his mission to Niger. Doesn’t sound like a strong case to me.”
You want try Bush as war criminal in the Hague on this evidence? Good luck. Let’s try Saddam as a war criminal he has a much longer record.
Again, how did Bush lie? I’ve asked you numerous times, and outlined how he couldn’t have lied about WMDs, but you refuse to answer.
Neo-Con 1st ” calling me an idiot in post 25 isn’t attacking me personally?” No it is a supposition :)
“Calling me a “known liar†in post 108 is not a personal attack? Please show where I’ve made a false statement or even a misstatment which I didn’t restate for clarity or retract completely. This thread or any thread will do.”
eo-Con 1st @ 103
“Donna @ 98
“Your question is the question of the day Neo_con 1st, and the answer is F****** YES!†(explitive deleted)
Fair enough, so war is never an option for you,â€
That was a lie, a misstament of fact, NOT a supposition. You are a known liar
“Despite all this, you still refuse to answer the central question. How did Bush lie? To lie he’d have to have made a knowing false statment.”
Read the DSM, also he lied about yellow cake from Niger. Bush is a known Liar, you are in good company.
“No apology offered” That is sad. I have made mistakes before on this blog, and I apologized everytime. I geuss I am just more honest and a better man than you. Sad for you, and people you know.
“You don’t have to apologize to me for calling me a liar or an idiot” Correct. That you are a liar is self evident by the facts, that you are an idiot is a supposition.
Liar. Idiot. That is you Neo-Con 1st.
Shame. But that is the way it is.
IT, in Spanish there is a name for you – Pendejo! It fits!!!
IT@116: IT, do you use a MAC to make your cryptic copies? Most PC people here have copying skills. I mentioned this months ago. That last post was unintelligible. You still on that no WMDs kick? IT you need to move on, else this WMD thing will drive you crazy. Any legitimate news site has agreed with Clinton’s assessment. Why can’t you? Ooops… Bush lied, you need it to keep the “dream” alive. Who cares about the truth? Democratic liberal HA lefties don’t!!!
@ 110
You’re bloviating about Germany and Iraq. Germany re-arms, is appeased then does bad things. Iraq gets knocked on its ass from two wars and then is not able to do much of anything. The world had learned from the past. Sanctions wasn’t appeasement. Inspections and monitoring wasn’t appeasement. Desert Fox (ill-advised as it was) wasn’t appeasement. No fly zones wasn’t appeasement.
So what was the threat? One of the silliest things I’ve ever heard is that Saddam would give WMD to terrorists. Why would a dictator sew the seeds of his own destruction by arming Islamist loose cannons with the deadliest weapons around? If the terrorist targets don’t end the dictator’s regime when they find out, then the terrorists end the regime themselves.
The inspectors knew all the facilities and personnel Iraq used to produce WMD. They knew all the outside players that supplied Iraq with technology. They had cameras monitoring dual-use facilities. It sure was a cheaper means of ensuring regional and international security than an invasion.
Reply to 177 @ 118
Cuando usted entra en la iglesia, Jesús llora. Usted profana suyo nombre con sus acciones y palabras.
117 and 118 above
Reply to 103
“Nope, but did you know that in 2002? Or 1998, or 1992? If you did you must have been the only one, and clairvoyant.”
If our government can’t figure this out, why the hell are we spending upwards of $40 billion a year on intelligence gathering and analysis? We elect presidents to get this kind of stuff right.
Wingers are fond of quoting Clinton about Saddam’s assumed WMDs, but Clinton — unlike Bush — did not rush headlong into a major war.
There are bold gunfighters and old gunfighters, but no old bold gunfighters. Between Bush and Clinton, guess who’s bold and who’s old …
Actally, “brash and reckless” is a better way to describe Dubya.
RR @ 123 “, but Clinton – unlike Bush – did not rush headlong into a major war.”
Especially after 9/11 when we knew the source of the terrorism was Al Queda harboured in Afghanistan! Bush pulled troops out of The War On terror, to fight a war in Iraq, and did it with Trumped up intelligence!
What a bastard. What an American Hating, terrorist-loving bastard.
It is so sad that some people forgive these deplorable actions.
A real shame.
To tell the truth, I could go either way on getting rid of Saddam; he was a murderous dictator and a monkey wrench in the Mideast. My biggest beef is with the total fucking incompetence of how the military intervention has been managed, and of course, the surrounding corruption and the shameful misuse and exploitation of the very fine men and women of our armed services.
It goes without saying that wingers’ criticism of Clinton’s Kosovo intervention is absurdly hypocritical. Milosevicz is of the same ilk as Saddam.
IT@120: Jesus llamó a los Pharisees cuando estaban engañando a las personas. Es similar al lo lo que estamos haciendo hoy contra los Partido Demócrata. Los Pharisees eran sepulcros vacíos, similar a sus peleas.
¿Por qué combina usted Puddy y mí? ¿Tiene usted momentos de Otro yo en sus habilidades de la lectura esta noche?
IT: No WAT, No What or No Watt? Which one. If No Watt, yes your arguments don’t illuminate anything!!!
RR @ 126 you make a good point, but I still believe that the timing for the removal of Saddam was completely fucked up. We needed to stay in Afghanistan, clear that country up, and clean out the Taliban, whether in Afghanistan or Northern Pakistan. Bush still coddles those who harbour terrorists.
He doesn’t care about them. He is just protecting the areas around the pipelines in Afghanistan, and spilling more brave blood in Iraq.
It is just mind numbingly stupid and traitorous.
We need to get these Neo-Cons out of power and get back to protecting America.
Comment on 125
Afghanistan had more area and population than Iraq, hosted Al Qaeda’s training bases, and was Osama’s hideout. Iraq did not attack or threaten the U.S., had nothing to do with 9/11, was not an Al Qaeda ally or sanctuary (Saddam and Osama were rivals).
So … Bush sent 11,000 troops to Afghanistan and 140,000 troops to Iraq. Go figure.
The conclusion is inescapable that Bush (a) had a side agenda, and/or (b) is a fucking idiot.
IT: Ditto, as PacMan requested. He is more liberal than me!
RR: Our use of Clinton seems to be the only discussion tool you lefties understand. Since he said it it has to be true. Since he knew the multiple definitions of “is” and his was the best economy ever, I suppose his definition of WMDs and who thought they were still in Iraq is correct too? Otherwise Clinton’s wasn’t the best economy ever, right?
Pudster @ 32 “IT: Ditto, as PacMan requested. He is more liberal than me!”
I dare you to make less sense! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!
Reply to 130
Of course the timing was fucked up! Bush’s military adventure in Iraq sucked up so many troops and resources that it has compromised the fight against Al Qaeda. The Afghanistan mission has been seriously compromised. The U.S. controls only 1 city, Kabul, with the rest of that country under the sway of hostile warlords; opium production is up 1,900%; the Taliban is resurging and staging attacks; and Osama remains at large. All for want of resources that were unnecessarily diverted to a war that has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. The initial campaign against the Taliban was brilliant, but the follow up has bogged down for want of troops and assets to finish the job. Bush made the same mistake in invading Iraq that Hitler made by invading Russia — one country too many, a few bridges too far.
Question re 132
“RR: Our use of Clinton seems to be the only discussion tool you lefties understand. Since he said it it has to be true. Since he knew the multiple definitions of “is” and his was the best economy ever, I suppose his definition of WMDs and who thought they were still in Iraq is correct too? Otherwise Clinton’s wasn’t the best economy ever, right?”
Is there a point somewhere in this gibberish? I have no clue what you’re trying to say. Not that anything you say ever makes any sense … you’re not quite as incoherent as pbj, but close.
Yahoo news headlines:
Saddam to Face Trial; Attacks Kill 22
AP – 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Suicide bombers killed 22 people in the Baghdad area Sunday, as insurgents stepped up a relentless campaign that claimed more than 90 lives a night before in a bombing near a Shiite mosque south of the capital.>>>>
According to you libs, he should still be in power! Why are we allowing this innocent man to be degraded by a trial?
Puddy @ 100
… playing word games as usual.
Item 1 – Saddam committed most of his killing during (a) the Iraq-Iran War, (b) the Shiite uprising after the Gulf War. While his police state and terror apparatus remained in continuous operation, there is no evidence of MASS killings after about 1993.
Item 2 – Retired terrorists don’t count. Sure it would have been nice to nab Abu Nidal but was that worth a war? The guy died of natural causes even before Bush invaded. Salman Pak was an Iraqi Army training camp, for God’s sake — nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11 — and what is the difference between Iraq, a sovereign nation, training and maintaining special forces. and the U.S. training and maintaining SEAL and Delta Force commando units? Ansar al-Islam is a Sunni fundamentalist splinter group; Iraq has religious and political factions, some of them extremist, this is news??? Kurdistan, far from being allied with Saddam, was a semi-autonomous region that resisted Baghdad’s control. As for Zarqawi, he’s a Jordanian able to easily slip back and forth across the Iraq-Jordan border who almost certainly did not enter Iraq until after Saddam fell from power — it’s inconceivable that Saddam’s secret police would have allowed Zarqawi to operate autonomously on Iraqi territory — and Zarqawi may not even be alive. He has, in any event, evolved into a convenient scapegoat for every dastardly act committed in the Middle East, and his actual deeds have been embellished by a good deal of mythology, or at least so says the informed conventional wisdom. Geeez … you are sloppy with facts — and you do NO research, you just regurgitate spin from the right-wing propaganda machine. Well get this, I’m calling you on your bullshit!
Puddybutt is one of the biggest winger bullshitters on HorsesAss. Of course, everyone already knows this.
You liberals are SO dumb.
Our president’s friendly advisers claim Saddam is a WMD threat and use bogus material to back those claims. Republicans and Democrats say, gosh, it looks like Saddam is a threat. Our vice president asks the CIA, is Saddam a threat? The CIA looks and says, no, he’s not. The administration ignores that information and says, even louder this time, Saddam is a proven threat. Everyone else says, gosh, looks like Saddam is a threat.
Enter war, stage right.
Fortunately, now with Saddam captured, the threat is completely over! That’s why all the American soldiers are back home. And all the Iraqis are safe to live their lives in peace.
You liberals are SO dumb.
Chuck @ 136
‘
What? Does Non Sequitor mean anything to you? Saddam is in a jail cell. He is not responsible for the insurgency. Have you had a blow to the head lately? Any diagnosed tumors in your brain?
I am just trying to make some sense out of your post.
PacMan @ 110
Neutron bombs are effective against troops in the open, in armored vehicles, or above-ground structures but can penetrate only a few feet of earth and would be ineffective against terrorists hiding in caves or deep bunkers.
P.S., in Afghanistan’s rugged terrain, to suck the oxygen out of the caves, you would need to create a huge fireball with airbursts from one or more powerful thermonuclear weapons, and of course neighboring countries and those in the potential fallout path, including Russia and China, would object.
112 and 113
Donna, I think your argument at 113 is more cogent than your comment at 112. It’s true the CIA, Britain, UN inspectors, and others were uncertain about Saddam’s WMD capabilities. Saddam was bluffing, but to a considerable extent he brought the invasion upon himself by buffaloing other countries into believing he had WMDs when in fact he had little or nothing. He truly outsmarted himself.
But this doesn’t support the righty arguments in any way. U.S. taxpayers pour vast resources into intelligence gathering precisely so the U.S. president doesn’t have to rush into war based on ambiguous information. What if the U.S. were to launch a full-scale nuclear strike against Russia based on information that Russia MIGHT be preparing a first strike against the U.S.? Unacceptable! Rushing into the Iraq war is no more excusable. There was no pressing need for Bush to act. Iraq had not threatened the U.S. and there wasn’t any reason to believe Iraq had any means to deliver WMDs to U.S. territory even if Saddam had them. Moreover, Saddam’s thought process was not mysterious, and U.S. analysts were well aware that Saddam’s weapons programs and bluster were aimed at neighboring Arab countries and restive factions within his own country, not the U.S. Saddam’s objectives were no mystery — he wanted to achieve Arab hegemony in the Persian Gulf region by consolidating fragmented Arab power under his leadership, by force if necessary. His military capability was aimed at bringing other Arab leaders into line, not attacking the U.S.
Bush did indeed have ulterior motives in attacking Iraq. This is clear from the revelation that Bush planned to invade Iraq even before the 2000 election. In addition, neocon objectives have been clear ever since Wolfowitz wrote his 1991 paper, which has been in the public domain for years — the neocons advocated using U.S. military superiority to pursue neo-colonialist policies, especially in the Middle East and with a view to securing U.S. access to Persian Gulf oil in the coming era of dwindling world oil production. Bush has pretty much marched in lockstep with neocon ideology, and installed top neocon leaders — Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, et al. — in the highest ranking policy positions in the Pentagon and State Department. It couldn’t be clearer — Bush is pursuing the neocon imperialist dream.
Had to war in Iraq been successful, it would have been followed by invasions of Syria and Iran, among others. And one can’t dismiss the notion that Bush and the neocons who do his thinking for him also had their eye on Saudi Arabia, home of the 9/11 terrorists and the biggest oil prize of them all.
In other words, these guys were planning World War 3, and they intended to start it.
Cheesy Chuckie @ 136
So Chuckie, are you a big fan of Bush’s fucked up mess in Iraq? You’d have a better chance of talking me into going along with it if Bush, Rumsfeld & Co. knew what they were doing, but these guys have proved they can’t even run a Boy Scout camp let alone a big war.
We need to get these Neo-Cons out of power and get back to protecting America.
Hear Hear. The sooner we kick these Neo-Cons out of power and get back to selling nuclear secrets to China the better.
RR @ 143 and 144 I agree with all your conclusions including that Saddam’s gameplay re. WMD was his undoing. But the whole Smoking gun as a Mushroom cloud, and Powell describing moveable labs, and Rumsfield and Cheney stating that they KNEW where the chemical weapons were… this was all a fiction. A fiction they themselves KNEW to be a lie.
So yes, one could reasonably question whether Saddam had a miniscule stockpile of WMD, or had plans working toward obtaining them… well you know the rest. We had him in a Box, he was going to do nothing that could threaten us.
Good points RR!
RUFUS McGoofus @ 146
Or selling IBM’s Computer division and Unocal to the Chinese. Hey It is all a part of Neo-Con Globalism.
Just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
And don’t forget to kiss your children goodnight, because the Neo-Cons are selling them to the Chinese as indentured servants.
147
I agree the Bushies had their own agenda and lied to the U.S. public to carry out a scheme to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with WMDs and everything to do with expanding U.S. power in the Middle East and particularly over the world’s oil supplies.
You lefties are getting more dense as time goes by. I realize that my thought are above your thoughts so I will break it down just for you IT and RR. BTW how is your convalescence coming along?
Our use of Clinton seems to be the only discussion tool you lefties understand. – Translation: Clinton is your hero. We use him to make our points, since his unadulterated words are used.
Since he said it it has to be true. – Translation: You all believe everything he says. He said he never had an offer to get Saddam. In 2002 “President Clinton, in a February 2002 speech to the Long Island Association, said that the United States did not accept a Sudanese offer and take Bin Laden because there was no indictment. President Clinton speech to the Long Island Association, Feb. 15, 2002 (videotape of speech). Another Clinton truth?
Since he knew the multiple definitions of “is” – Translation only use the correct “is” translation.
and his was the best economy ever – Translation: per DJ and RR Clinton had the best economy. But you all forget the economy only improved when the right took over Congress and forced Clinton to scale back on his spending.
I suppose his definition of WMDs and who thought they were still in Iraq is correct too? – Translation: Didn’t Clinton say other countries intell said Saddam had WMDs? Do you accept Clinton’s word or not? If IT & RR continue to dispute Clintons’ word on WMDs, then Clinton’s economy wasn’t the best economy ever, right?
I hope that help your densenesses?
Now for the War for Oil. I remember all those stoopid demonstrations, especially the ones where people stripped nude. If only they were model quality bodies!!! Another of your 2004 John Kerry / Michael Moore / MoveOn playbook entries.
And don’t forget to kiss your children goodnight, because the Neo-Cons are selling them to the Chinese as indentured servants.
What about the tax cuts to the rich. I thought our children were going to be enslaved by the tax cuts. Come on donks get your story straight. Which is it… tax cuts to the rich or China? Children are depending on you.
Where did Secretary Powell later say he knew the mobile weapons labs were bunkem when he went to the UN in February 2003? He said he studied four separate lines of evidence before he spoke at the UN. He said he later found out that it was questionable when shown the evidence way later. Why do you lefties try and twist well known information to try and confuse us? Don’t you realize I can search the Internet? Powell stated it in April 2004. What’s is that RR & IT? 14 Months later!
http://www.commondreams.org/he.....403-02.htm – A Lefty Web Site quoting the NY Slimes.
To quote from Alice In Wonderland:
“The Queen (ie MSM and liberal bloggers) turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her (Rove) for a moment like a wild beast, screamed `Off with her head! Off–‘
`Nonsense!’ said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent.”
Hey there “Queens”, what “head” will you be calling to lop off next??? You better get crackin. You don’t want to ruin your quota of 1 per week do you?
HA people are donks Rufus!!! There is another term: Moby Trolls.
Goodnight Donks or Moby Trolls or Lefties or Progressives or Hilary Clinton lovers or Howard Deaniacs or Michael Mooreans or is that Michael Moorons?
Damn PBj, don’t cha have anything better to do on a sunny Sunday than play “i’m right and your wrong” all friggen afternoon?
Get a life and quit wasting your summer days waving your “W” flag.It’ll all be over in a few years anyways.
So, RR: How do you extirpate the Taliban remnants in the Hindu Kush mountain range without some type of penetrating explosions?
RR: Known fact. Zarqawi went to Baghdad in 2002. Look up the information posted by the link I supplied to IT: “We have been told by Jordan’s King Abdullah that his Government knew Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him.” It’s from an Australian newspaper.
Doh – Another truth rejected by the HA Liberal We Don’t Need the Stinking Truth Roger Rabbit!
We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden’s longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam welcomed young al-Qa’ida members “with open arms” before the war, that they “entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organisation to confront the occupation”, and that the regime “strictly and directly” controlled their activities.
Doh – Another truth rejected by the HA Liberal We Don’t Need the Stinking Truth Roger Rabbit!
Actually puddy this is like a donky tonk. We can put the donk lie of the week to some hillbilly music… you know something like this:
Spin spin stop your travelin
got old Delay in a frying pin
stoke the fire, stoke the stove
If we cant get him we r going after Rove.
We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi’s group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. Did I read Time Magazine, Matt Cooper’s organization of record?
Doh – Another truth rejected by the HA Liberal We Don’t Need the Stinking Truth Roger Rabbit!
RUFUS: Great start to a catchy tune. You need a few more verses.
Start with Reagan –
You all know what the Demos say
He didn’t bring down the Commies that day
I Talked to Gorby He didn’t lie to me
The Iron Curtain It’s down we see
Ronnie didn’t give us deficits
All he wanted was spending and tax cuts
Congress was controlled by Democrats
Ronnie saw a stinking house full of Rats!
Then GHWBush, then GWB.
Comment on 151
I can always count on Puttybutt to be a patronizing ass.
158
Gee I don’t know — an adequate troop level?
159
I think it’s probable that no one knows what Zarqawi’s movements were, except Zarqawi himself and a few close associates. There’s an awful lot of legend and disinformation surrounding this guy, so don’t believe everything you read in the Aussie press. Aussie beer sucks, too.
I would think that if you throw a troop cordon around those hills, the guys in the caves won’t go anywhere. All you have to do is wait until they run out of food or the smell of their shit drives them out. Then hit ’em with B-52 cluster bombs when they poke their noses into the fresh air.
Nice Valerie PLame photo in Vanity Fair (this mo edition; one w/ Nicole Kidman on the cover).
I must say she’s a babe.
RR@166: Your answer is just like Charmin’s. Since you provide no accurate refutation to Zarqawi, you just make then up (bad Aussie Press) or imagine things (Aussie Beer sucks) or call our arguments “completely irrelevant”. This allows your argumentative mind to continually frogmarch in place to democratspeak.
When the NY Slimes won’t publish the Iraqi Information Ministry archives, captured enemy combatant statements, or statements from terrorists captured in other countries, is the information untrue because it’s from another country’s news service? That’s ITs’ argument. Yes, you lefties will never accept the truth because it destroys your small left-wing intellectual cage. Next, the name calling appears on the HA site
Puddy, you’re blowing hot air as usual. I’ll have you know I personally conducted field tests on Aussie beer, and the result of my empirical research is that Aussie beer sucks.
BUSH REVISES STATEMENT ON LEAKER
June 2004: Bush says he’ll fire whoever leaked Plame’s identity.
July 2005: Bush says he’ll fire anyone who “committed a crime.”
Bush lied. Gee whiz, this is news? I’ll bet the pardon is already signed.
Okay, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have friends that love Aussie beer.
The name-calling appears on the HA site because there is free speech on this site, but not on uSP.
Loocy: That’s all you can say to my commentary of MSM selective news reporting. Lame Loocy Lame.
That’s it! Lame Loocy.
marks @2
It’s time to clear up your misinformation campaign regarding Valerie Plame. She was in fact a covert operative when Novak’s article was published. You are not alone in spreading this of course. The right is spreading it as fast as they can spin it. You’re just taking the same shameless ride.
Joseph Wilson was misquoted and his comments were taken out of context. AP printed a retraction of their initial news report.
“But the context of the interview on the July 14 edition of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports demonstrates that the AP misconstrued and falsely reported Wilson’s remarks. In stating that “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” Wilson was simply noting that Plame’s identity was no longer secret after Novak publicly revealed it. ”
Read the rest and weep because the
truth says Rove exposed a covert operative even though it may never be possible to prove he knew he was divulging a covert operative. It is certainly the most plausible scenario. Afterall, he could have corrected Cooper’s supposed misunderstanding without ever mentioned Plame.
MSC- http://www.nationalreview.com/.....181123.asp – says it all about the MSM.
Hey, folks, you can’t blame Puddy, PBJ et al for leaving post after post here. In fact, you have to admire their taste in blogs. The reason they post here while uSP languishes is pretty clear. HA is interesting. uSP is, well, not.
You’re not a ratoinal contributer here pb. Please don’t waste my time with responses.
Lets all go to the national review for the truth!
Uh. No Sorry. I got tired of being lied to a long time ago.