If Bush lied...so did they!
 

They get the same intel as the President....




"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


"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 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 America�s 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



"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

"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

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s 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 Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s 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

This is the "Slick Willie Demorat" way to squirm out of it....





Indecision 2008--III




Blogger Nitin Julka points to another choice bit in the John Edwards "Meet the Press" interview we noted yesterday. This exchange begins with a clip of Tim Russert's Oct. 10, 2004, interview with Edwards:

Russert: If you knew today, and you do know, there is--there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

Edwards: I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.

I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.

Fast-forward to this past Sunday:

Russert: That's a year and a half into the war.

Edwards: Mm-hmm. Perfect--that's a very fair question. I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through--I was--at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her. And for the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this war.

Edwards publicly renounced his vote in a Nov. 13, 2005, op-ed piece in the Washington Post, in which he observed that "the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth." Well, that definitely means he's sincere, right? Anyway, here's the Edwards timeline:

* October 2002. Votes in favor of the war.

* October 2004. Defends his vote in favor of the war.

* November 2004. Loses election for vice president.

* Sometime between November 2004 and November 2005. "Really" thinks about his vote "for the first time."

* November 2005. Renounces his vote.

Wouldn't it have been better if he'd thought about his vote before he cast it? Granted, he was only a senator, and his vote was far from decisive. But can America afford to have a president who acts before he thinks?


http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

Yeah we know everyone got it all wrong, but Bush is holding the hot potato that is Iraq, to, what, warm his hands? Show what a tough guy he is with other people's sons and daughters before passing it on?

Wow Isn`t this odd..Tony Blair and the British MI6 also got it wrong...Karl Rove must have been pulling a lot of levers....Haaaaa...Haaaaa..






Here are some of the key statements made by the prime minister about Saddam Hussein's weapons -

10 April 2002, House of Commons

"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.

"He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also."



24 September 2002, House of Commons

"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."



25 February 2003, House of Commons

"The intelligence is clear: (Saddam) continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression.

"The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death."



11 March 2003, MTV debate

"If we don't act now, then we will go back to what has happened before and then of course the whole thing begins again and he carries on developing these weapons and these are dangerous weapons, particularly if they fall into the hands of terrorists who we know want to use these weapons if they can get them."



18 March 2003, House of Commons

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years-contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."



4 June 2003, House of Commons

"There are literally thousands of sites. As I was told in Iraq, information is coming in the entire time, but it is only now that the Iraq survey group has been put together that a dedicated team of people, which includes former UN inspectors, scientists and experts, will be able to go in and do the job properly.

"As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."

And where are they calling for "Pearl Harboring" of a sovereign nation. Only those who also love Tojo would advocate war without justification. None are calling for war without a smoking gun. They are all calling for containment - not pre-emption. Pre-emption is what 'big dics' do.

Funny how you posted so much but forgot fundamental facts such as what is required to justify war. That little fact is the difference between one who acts based upon a political extremist agenda, and one who is a centrist; who instead uses caution and learns the lessons of history.

Only fools would attack Iraq a second time ... and make the exact same mistake: no planning for the peace. But that too is what happens when a political agenda justifies actions.

There is one difference. Those other speakers are discussing possibilities and caution - and containment. Why does Cherrycoke forget to include; doing what a Rush Limbaugh liar would do? Why does Cherrycoke forget what all good American presidents advocated - containment? Why does Cherrycoke, instead, advocate what 'big dics' love - pre-emption? Well it would explain that love of a president who is massacring American soldiers only to protect his legacy.

Cherrycoke - why do you so hate the American soldier? Why do you cut and past quotes from an extremist source that hates American soldiers and that advocates 'big dic' agendas? I know you did not do your own research. Why then do you quote from one who hates the American soldier?

And where are they calling for "Pearl Harboring" of a sovereign nation. Only those who also love Tojo would advocate war without justification. None are calling for war without a smoking gun. They are all calling for containment - not pre-emption. Pre-emption is what 'big dics' do.

Huh?...looks like most if not all of them voted for a war not containment.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00237




Rush Limbaugh?....I`m not a fan of his.


Cherrycoke - why do you so hate the American soldier? Why do you cut and past quotes from an extremist source that hates American soldiers and that advocates 'big dic' agendas? I know you did not do your own research. Why then do you quote from one who hates the American soldier?


I don`t hate soldiers...I use to be one.

That 'liberals' and progressives' getting it wrong as well doesn't address the points that:
1. Al Qaeda and other two bit terror squads are using Iraq as a new training ground--with live targets as opposed to dummy ones.
2. $600 billion, billion, went down the drain with this operation, with so far little to show for it--oh, it did increase Haliburton's and ExxonMobil's bottom line.
3. US relations is frosty with the rest of the world.
4. Democracy was spread through certain regions--with the voters voting the terrorists into office.
5. US getting bogged down in Iraq made the coalition get bogged down in Afghanistan, threatening to undermine Bush's sole achievement.
6. US can't muster support to go to war with Iran--of which, ironically, the government may have a better basis to do so.

The war ain`t over until the fat lady sings!....you still didn`t answer why the Demorats agreed with the President and voted to go to war...perhaps it was a patriotic attempt to gain more votes in the next election cycle?....the same way they are now anti-Iraq war only because it`s lasted a bit longer than expected..to get elected again!!!...Don`t you feel you have been had by them.

And that is the damming part we should be taking up with our so called leaders - Democrat and Republican. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is calling on our Congressman to start acting like leaders. How many others are doing same?

Take the case of Hilary Clinton - a very competent Senator. But where were her leadership skills? A leader would have voted against the war rather than appease a population seething with veins in their teeth. She did not act like a leader. She acted like a philander panning for votes.

Well, we have many Senators that still don't have the balls to face facts - who instead kowtow to a lying president. Yes, many even on the Democratic side will never be in the next edition of "Profiles in Courage". What is interesting - Obama voted against the war.

Meanwhile, the president went many steps beyond lying. He associated Saddam with bin Laden. He made no effort to get bin Laden. He lied about WMDs even after (for example) a mobile biological weapons lab had been secretly captured and examined. He lied about the aluminum tubes even after Zippe demonstrated six times over why those aluminum tubes could not be for centrifuges. Whereas many in Congress were talking based only in what the White House was saying, the White House was also lying knowing full well that the White House was only lying.

Yes we have a large number of Senators who have much to answer for. And then we have a lesser but large numbers of Senators who fully know the president was lying and still support the scumbag. How many times will these fools work against the people of the United States? Yes, most of them still working against America are currently Republicans. They don't have the balls to even say what all retired presidents have said; what all retired Secretaries of State have said about Condi Rice; don't have the balls to stand up for the Iraq Study Group report; don't have the balls to demand a strategic objective and in exit strategy in Iraq; and appease Americans who hate America and the American soldier.

Sorry. Every sentence in this post is based in facts. If you have emotional problems with any of it, those emotions are yours. The facts are that blunt. We have a leadership problem. And some of our so called leaders are so contemptible as to still promote themselves at the expense of America.

Bottom line: this president was told we were losing "Mission Accomplished" even before Bremer arrive in Iraq in 2003. He was told by Bremer that we were losing. He was told by the military that they needed more troops. This president was such a liar that long after it was known Saddam had no WMDs that, well, in interview with Bob Woodward, it took George Jr 5 minutes and 18 seconds of repeated questions to finally admit this reality. For 5 minutes and 18 seconds, George Jr refused to admit what was a known fact - Saddam had no WMDs.

And so the title of Woodward's book - State of Denial. No way around that reality. This president is even lying to himself. Even his own father was worried about the mistakes he was making in Iraq. That's right. After Gerald Ford died, even Ford's statements were released. Ford was the last of every retired president on the record opposed in some manner to George Jr's "Mission Accomplished". No way around the fact that George Jr has been lying repeatedly. And no way around the fact that about one half of the current Congress remains just as contemptible as to still lie about Iraq.

Worse still – where is the parade of ‘leaders’ asking every week one question: when do we go after bin Laden? Yes we have a severe shortage of leaders in Washingtion. But none lie anywhere near as often and with contempt for the American soldier as George Jr. George Jr first and foremost is worried about his legacy. No person listed in this post lied more than the champion of lies – George Jr – who will not make any effort to go after bin Laden. That alone should be considered an impeachable crime. There is no way an honest man can have anything but contempt for the scumbag president. So contemptible because American troops are dying only for his legacy AND because George Jr all but protects bin Laden.

Take the case of Hilary Clinton - a very competent Senator. But where were her leadership skills? A leader would have voted against the war rather than appease a population seething with veins in their teeth. She did not act like a leader. She acted like a philander panning for votes.

Our population was seething with veins in their teeth against the war in 2002...news to me.

lying president.

Prove that he lied...


Obama voted against the war.


Big deal...so did a lot others.......




Meanwhile, the president went many steps beyond lying. He associated Saddam with bin Laden. He made no effort to get bin Laden. He lied about WMDs even after (for example) a mobile biological weapons lab had been secretly captured and examined. He lied about the aluminum tubes even after Zippe demonstrated six times over why those aluminum tubes could not be for centrifuges. Whereas many in Congress were talking based only in what the White House was saying, the White House was also lying knowing full well that the White House was only lying.

Not true...he got the same intel just like Tony Blair got it from MI6....



George Jr – who will not make any effort to go after bin Laden. That alone should be considered an impeachable crime.


Hell...we couldn`t even find the Uni-Bomber for decades...and he lived in the U.S.....Haaaaaa....Haaaaaa...

lying president. You seem to forget a real liar.

Haaaaaa....Haaaaaa...




* Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998
* Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998
* Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case
* Article IV: Abuse of high office

Article I was approved by a vote of 228-206. Article II was rejected by a vote of 205-229. Article III was approved by a vote of 221-212. Article IV was rejected by a vote of 148-285. On December 19, the House of Representatives forwarded articles I and III of impeachment (perjury and obstruction of justice) to the Senate. The two articles that were passed

You forget Bush/Cheney started the war, nobody else you quoted. even after the weapon inspectors did find nothing and asked for 6 months to be absolutely sure.

That would make Junior an unreal liar? Clinton lied, but nobody died...

As for Bliar, he's just Bush's poodle, obsessed with the same disastrous neocon ideas.

That is a lie.

Despite Ronald Cherrycoke's bleating, nobody voted to go to war. They, both sides of the aisle, voted to give the president the power to protect and defend the United States with military force if necessary.

You can't fault them for not knowing Bush was working to an agenda scripted before he took office. Or that he was cherry picking favorable intelligence and suppressing damning evidence, to carry out that agenda. Even Powell was taken in.

The thought of comparing Clinton's pussy chasing to Bush's Middle East holocaust is just so contemptible and disgusting, it makes me think Ronald Cherrycoke is a Urbane Guerrilla alias. :sick:

Some would call this Creative Destruction...

Meanwhile Ronald Cherrycoke responds to a post chock full of George Jr lie after George Jr lie. What does Ronald Cherrycoke post?
It's an old Rush Limbaugh trick. When confronted with lie and after lie, then Ronald Cherrycoke posts as if those lies were never posted and therefore do not exist.

Classic of extremists who advocate the massacre of American troops. Deny facts even when posted under your nose. Ronald Cherrycoke - you deny so much that you are probably lying about being a soldier. Oh. Was that a dishonorable discharge? Is denial of reality a habit? George Jr lied repeatedly. Only one who is so foolish as to even advocate pre-emption (or not understand what pre-emption is) would deny those lies.

Posted are lies after lies from the mental midget president and his administration. Posted was the only solution available for getting out of Iraq with minimal loses. Ronald Cherrycoke pretends the Iraq Study Group did not exist. How convenient. Just another way to protect extremist rhetoric and ignore more presidential lies.

Provided were example after example of a lying president. But Ronald Cherrycoke does as any brown shirt would do. He pretends no such examples were posted. Then he need not face reality - such as his contempt for the American soldier.

Amazing that Ronald Cherrycoke has so little respect for the victims of 11 September as to associate it with a silly unabomber. Amazing that Ronald Cherrycoke would associate lying about sex equivalent to massacre of hundred of thousands of Iraqis. But that is how Rush Limbaugh also promotes hate and destruction.

Ronald Cherrycoke has utter contempt for people killed on 11 September and for the millions that will suffer and die in Iraq because - in both cases - the same president lied and denied. But then Ronald Cherrycoke provides a perfect example of a brown shirt.

Ronald, this is when you start posting honestly. Provided were lists of George Jr lies. Rather than pretending the list does not exist, instead return to reality and defend those presidential lies. Let’s see if you can be honest. Those George Jr lies are listed. Rather than denying them, instead, try to explain them. This is the time that you post honestly and not as Rush would do.

You forget Bush/Cheney started the war, nobody else you quoted. even after the weapon inspectors did find nothing and asked for 6 months to be absolutely sure.

Say What!...Looks like they all voted for war......


Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.



That would make Junior an unreal liar? Clinton lied, but nobody died...

If he would lie about sex...what wouldn`t he lie about?



As for Bliar, he's just Bush's poodle, obsessed with the same disastrous neocon ideas

That`s a great excuse...I thought he was a English liberal? Which makes him a socialist. I suppose MI6 is also populated by Karl Rove robot neo-cons?...get a grip son!

Despite Ronald Cherrycoke's bleating, nobody voted to go to war. They, both sides of the aisle, voted to give the president the power to protect and defend the United States with military force if necessary.


Yep...because Iraq was about to invade America? Spin it anyway you want but it authorized Bush to invade Iraq.




Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


The thought of comparing Clinton's pussy chasing to Bush's Middle East holocaust is just so contemptible and disgusting, it makes me think Ronald Cherrycoke is a Urbane Guerrilla alias. :sick:

Holocaust ?...I thought that happened before when Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people?

No president will have a clean record in this age of partisan war. The key for me is Bush and crew put all that Iraq intel under the 9/11 umbrella and linked Iraq to it. Intentionally misleading at best and downright treasonous at worst.

Actually the Holocaust started after Israel got power in 1948...

Drafted in 1969...MOS 11B10 (light infantry) 187th infantry 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile)..I Corps RVN...Honorable Discharge after two years service.

Hey...didn`t all those demorats read the bill they voted for?



SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107Edn1tL::

The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It's always difficult to prove a negative, but that simply never happened.

Many people may believe this was the case because in "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore truncated a comment by Condi Rice in order to deliberately give viewers of his movie that false impression. Here's the quote as it appeared in the film:




"There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11"




Now here's the full quote:



"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It�s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."

Wow, that's some spin. a) Moore shouldn't have taken it out of context. For one thing, it's such a damningly stupid statement in it's entirety by in effect stating that we are safest by bombing and invading any country that hates us.

b) Condi's statement isn't the most important one on the issue. Bush was the one pushing the the Iraq - 9/11 connection and later Cheney, who beat the dead horse :dedhorse: long after such a link was discredited.

Of course Condi's 'first strike on hatred' theory would justify any number of actions, even those by our enemies who feel that we hate them. Was she Secretary of State when she said this? It's bad enough from a Natl Security Advisor. From a Secretary of State it's ludicrous.

The spin is so intense here I'm dizzy.

8 September, 2003, 02:03 GMT 03:03 UK

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link



Bush delivers his State of the Union address in January 2003
Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.





"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.


As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Jordanian link

On Wednesday, Mr Bush said Mr Cheney was right about suspicions of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda.

The US believes Mr Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad and helped to orchestrate the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan.

And Mr Bush denied there had been any attempt by his administration to try to confuse people about links between Saddam Hussein and 11 September.

"What the vice-president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaeda.

"And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

From another forum...



Lets see if I got this right. Al queda was in Iran, Afghanastan, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, India, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Sudan but they were not in Iraq. That Saddam was quite a swell guy being able to keep those bad guys out.


Haaaaaa...haaaaaa...

The Republican Chairman and Democratic Vice Chairman of the 9-11 Commission on Thursday rejected the media’s widespread reporting that the commission’s report issued the day before had directly contradicted Bush administration statements about connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.


http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20040618.asp#1




Lee Hamilton, “I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that.”

I can't name a single one of that alleged seventy percent of Americans who thought Iraq did it. I am not among that number.

I find it fascinating that so many of the leave-genocidal-dictators-alone-lest-someone-be-upset-about-disposing-of-them faction is willing to believe that some other Americans believe Iraq did it. How bovine, to be so led by a nose ring.

The people upset at the prospect of dictator removal are fascist-sympathizing rats and nothing better -- lacking utterly in any higher human feeling. Which is why I yell at the entire pack of stumblefucks, telling them how small their minds are, how minuscule their souls, how worthless their intellectual lives. Oh, and they're hung like mice.

Hail Stalin!

Nobody thinks Iraq did it. Osama and his cronies did it. We we made to believe Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda or gave some help to them and their kind. See here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html I will take time to point out that's no commie link either.

Ronald Cherrycoke promotes another George Jr lie. Obviously he has no idea about Muslim Brotherhood. If a president tells him Al Qaeda is in Iraq, then Ronald says, "Yes sir". Same president could not even name countries on Israel's border. But Ronald trusts this president.

If I want to sell more stones, I call them diamonds. It's called counterfeiting, Ronald. You are suppose to have enough grasp to understand the difference between a tiny Al Qaeda verses an Iraqi insurgency created (and maybe financed) by America. Oh. I forgot. Ronald only repeats what his idol tells him to. That Iraq insurgency has always been Al Qaeda out to kill us in our beds. Al Qaeda is all everywhere threatening to destroy the world. Maybe we should hire the Power Rangers to protect us? Ronald: Power Rangers ... fiction. Get it?

This Al Qaeda you promote only exists where fear promotes the glory and legacy of a mental midget. Those with basic knowledge knew this Al Qaeda you promote never existed except to promote more Orange Alerts. Ronald - you do remember all those terrorist attacks averted by Orange alerts? Oh. That's right. I forgot. This president does not lie.

You talking about this quote....how does it link Saddam with 9/11?

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.


Besides Lee Hamilton commision agreed that Saddam had some ties to terrorist Al-Qaeda included. Besides that everyone knows he sent money to dead suicide bombers families in the Middle East.

Read? I only know how to write


Your tag sums up your mental midgetness...you should do more reading...if you can!

Lacking in human feeling? How much human feeling is involved in bombing the capital city of a country? How many people died in a night of shock and awe?

Gee...I didn`t know that wars kill civilians.
...ever wonder how many civilians.
in occupied Europe died by our bombs liberating them from Hitler?

Wacko extremists will post Limbaugh lies with impunity. Ronald Cherrycoke has so little respect for everyone as to ... well those with too much bluster and to little grasp will even claim military service complete with medals. Ronald, your credibility is that diminished. Below is another example of your lying.

The "Lee Hamilton commission" did not agree "that Saddam had some ties to terrorist Al-Qaeda". Ronald glorifies extremism again by inventing reality. Ronald - a soundbyte so that you can understand: "Ronald is lying again".

Only reference to bin Laden by the Iraq Study Group is That is it. No other reference because bin Laden and Saddam had no such alliance - obviously. ISG makes no claim of a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Ronald invented it as only one from the dark side would do. Well Darth Cherrycoke, your claim is only found where anti-American extremist post hatred of both America and the American soldier. You are caught quoting an extremist lie. When will you first read from sources of reality? Why do you instead post wacko extremist propaganda? It is called lying. Others will tell you of my contempt for lies.

Ronald Cherrycoke would also have us believe that bin Laden's Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq and in a long list of other nations. That requires him to ignore (or confuse) what was known long before Iraq - the Muslim Brotherhood. That requires Ronald to believe what George Jr says. How active is bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Iraq? Again the Iraq Study Group: Yes I too can call myself Al Qaeda if to recruit wacko of extremists. Would that make me a member of bin Laden's Al Qaeda? If I call myself Wendy, then I must serve hamburgers? If I wear diapers, then I want Ann Coulter to do me?

Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught and exposed lying about the ISG report. Clearly he need not read before posting. He has Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to tell him. Or did Fox News have enough credibility to not report that lie?

Why has Ronald Cherrycoke not yet posted reasons to invade Iran? Ronald is waiting for his extremist newsletter to tell him what to say. Am I kidding? No. Not about extremists who have so much contempt for the American soldier. Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught lying even about the Iraq Study Group report. Worse? He probably believes his own lies because he could not bother to read. George Jr also believed god told him to invade Iraq. No wonder Ronald loves this president.

This post is not about Ronald Cherrycoke. This post is a warning to others about lies probably in the pipeline - that would explain the sudden deployment (surge) of aircraft carrier task forces to the Iranian coastline.

Wacko extremists will post Limbaugh lies with impunity. Ronald Cherrycoke has so little respect for everyone as to ... well those with too much bluster and to little grasp will even claim military service complete with medals. Ronald, your credibility is that diminished. Below is another example of your lying.



Told you I don`t listen to Limbaugh....the only Wacko extremists I see here is you . As far as military service..I don`t care if you believe me or not...if you got any questions on my service..fire away! But I do know that you as a coward have none.



The "Lee Hamilton commission" did not agree "that Saddam had some ties to terrorist Al-Qaeda". Ronald glorifies extremism again by inventing reality. Ronald - a soundbyte so that you can understand: "Ronald is lying again".

Read again his quote from a legitimate news source (Oh I forgot you don`t read just write)...and then bury your head in the sand again.



Only reference to bin Laden by the Iraq Study Group is That is it. No other reference because bin Laden and Saddam had no such alliance - obviously. ISG makes no claim of a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Ronald invented it as only one from the dark side would do. Well Darth Cherrycoke, your claim is only found where anti-American extremist post hatred of both America and the American soldier. You are caught quoting an extremist lie. When will you first read from sources of reality? Why do you instead post wacko extremist propaganda? It is called lying. Others will tell you of my contempt for lies.

That is it....yep they agreed there was a tie.



Well Darth Cherrycoke, your claim is only found where anti-American extremist post hatred of both America and the American soldier.

Strange stuff indeed...by the way you phrase and write I bet you are not even an American.


Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught and exposed lying about the ISG report. Clearly he need not read before posting. He has Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to tell him. Or did Fox News have enough credibility to not report that lie?

No but the MSM "Fake but Accurate" news might have.




Why has Ronald Cherrycoke not yet posted reasons to invade Iran? Ronald is waiting for his extremist newsletter to tell him what to say. Am I kidding? No. Not about extremists who have so much contempt for the American soldier. Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught lying even about the Iraq Study Group report. Worse? He probably believes his own lies because he could not bother to read. George Jr also believed god told him to invade Iraq. No wonder Ronald loves this president.







While you suck up to every slogan Al Franken spews....



This post is not about Ronald Cherrycoke.


Yeah it is...Duh!!!...you go on so long about me...you fear I might offer some truth in a debate and a lefty can`t stand that.

If I call myself Wendy, then I must serve hamburgers? If I wear diapers, then I want Ann Coulter to do me?


Strange stuff indeed!...But we live in an enlightened society...Go for it Dude!

"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

As you can see, Ronald, tw remains at all times pathetic. He hasn't the stuff to gainsay either of us, he does not think entirely rationally, and were he merely stupid, his errors anent American foreign policy would at least some of the time favor American interests -- but his errors never do. He's got an agenda, and that agenda is vehement antipatriotism. If you're a patriot, particularly if you're a Republican patriot, he'll try and shit on you. Unfortunately, starting as he does from the abyss, it generally only puts him into an absurd posture.

You said many things also parroted by Limbaugh. Why should I believe a person who even intentionally misquoted Tom Kean for a political agenda? Ronald Cherrycoke - you do exactly what a brown shirt must do; complete with Goebel's techniques to promote lies.

Tom Kean did not say what you have intentionally taken out of context. Saddam and bin Laden had no alliance no matter how often you lie. Hell, you even deny the reality about a "Mission Accomplished" banner - as Rush tells you to do. But then Goebel's purpose also was lies - to pervert and rewrite reality - so that brown shirts would 'feel' they are intelligent. Same type people listen to Limbaugh.

You don't listen to Limbaugh. Oh. Its just an accident that you parrot what Liimbaugh told you to say. But then why should I believe anything Ronald Cherrycoke says. He even intentionally misquotes Tom Kean to promote 'big dic' extremism.

Worse than Nixon
 

I think they've pulled this off by polarizing the country, this red/blue crap. It's still us against them, but now instead of us(people) vs them(politicians), it's the people vs the other people while the politicians escape clean. What they've done is divide and conquer.

People have gotten so vain, so self centered, they would let politicians destroy the country rather than admit voting for them was a mistake. So polarized, they feel if the guy they voted for is criticized, it reflects on them. NO IT DOESN'T.
I voted for both Nixon and Bush, the first time they ran. It's not my fault they turned around and fucked me....fucked US. You don't know what they will do... no matter what the Crystal ball says. You listen to the promises and make a choice but it's a crap shoot.

The best we can do is, if they fuck up, get on them about it, don't make excuses for them. Voting for them doesn't make it your fault, but defending and making excuses for bad behavior sure does.

The press is our watch dog, are they bias? They are people, they have opinions that creep into their writing but they are still competing to get the most facts. So if you read for comprehension, look for verifiable facts, be skeptical of speculation and for Gods sake don't wholesale dismiss them as being "the liberal press", you may not find the truth, but you're sure to discover some lies. Sure, it takes some effort on your part.... the truth isn't coming on a silver platter.

Left wing, right wing, conservative, liberal, democrat, republican... bullshit..... names that bring pigeon holes to mind. But everybody's parameters, for each pigeon hole are different, so if you and I talk about a liberal, we aren't talking about exactly the same thing. Wouldn't it be better to drop the labels and discuss the person or problem at hand, so we'd know where everyone stands?

People that say, my politician's end justifies the means, or the goal is worth the collateral damage, so don't question what they're doing, are at best stupid, if not unindicted co-conspirators.
And the defense, well the other guy would have been worse? Put down the tarot cards and step away. One - thats bullshit speculation. Two - that has nothing to do with the current problem, just a lame ass diversion.
No politician is going to please everybody, but don't make excuses for bad behavior. We should question everything the politicians do.... everything.

It's not about you, it always has been and always will be, about US. That's my :2cents: :2cents:

Too many. But here's the thing.....the Iraqis weren't being liberated from an occupying power....we are the occupying power.

Bruce, that was downright beautiful.

Just follow your common sense. I never believed this Iraq WMD story even before the war started. I just felt there was something wrong with the White House argumentation and started looking around on the internet. Plenty of info that supported my suspicion and the hurry to get the weapon inspectors out of the way was just confirming things.

If your gut says it ain't right, then it ain't right. Always suspect those who want war.
The way the press was embedded was unprecendent, look at what happen with Pulitzer Price Winner Judith Miller.

All goes back to the Climate of Fear Cheney and Bush created. In these times nobody wants to be pictured as non-patriotic.

When Bush was elected the first time though, there wasn't any real indication of this as his future path. For people who voted him in the first time, as I believe bruce is saying, there was no reason to assume that he would lead the country into this disastrous war. No amount of websearching could have told him that. Once Bush was elected and started down the path he is on, that's different....which again, I htink is part of Bruce's point. When the politician or leader that you have cast your vote for, starts to act in such a manner, the fact that you voted for them does not mean you should then defend everything they do, right or wrong, because all you did when you voted for them was cast your vote based on what they appeared to stand for. None of us have a crystal ball.

In 2000, posted was even how George Jr worked better with TX Democrats. However facts after he came to office were disturbing. George Jr was a changed man. His all but insults a first world leader to meet him in the White House - Helmut Schmidt of Germany. Accurate comments only three months after taking office from the Norwegian Foreign Minister declare that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. His snub of Mexico’s president after promising the warmest of relations. Anarchistic attempts to get into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. Destruction of the ABM treaty so as to build a 'not functional' missile defense system for threats that would not exist. Follow on discussions to terminate the nuclear test ban treaty.

Clinton's first two years also were not so good. Again, that would also be apparent in the tone of my posts back then. Especially in reference to congressional legislation and a Congresswoman more commonly known as MMM.

Colin Powell defined George Jr's presidency by citing Christie Whitman as the wind dummy. Do you remember these days? Use my posts as a benchmark as to when a mental midget presidency emerged. Also note when appropriate adjectives began to appear.

We had some indications in 2000 that George Jr was really not presidential material. But then neither was John Kennedy in 1959. A major difference exists - lessons to be learned for when this happens again after 2035. John Kennedy had learned extensively about the world. He consulted regularly from all parties with knowledge and experience (ie Cold War, man to the moon program, Cuba Missile, Vietnam, etc). George Jr only asked two people whether he should attack Iraq (not including his conversation with god). Condi Rice says she was one of the only two.

We knew from his first year and from a book by his own Sec of the Treasury Paul O'Neill that George Jr does not read his own memos. Again facts stated with supporting details define when we could / should see what George Jr was really made of. Paul O'Neill had to walk this president through every page of a four page memo because George Jr does not read; did not even read his own PDB warnings of 11 September.

These were damning facts: the devil is in those details. Details that we would not understand until after the 2000 election. Details - not a tarot card - are where facts are found. Few of these facts were evident in the 2000 election.

However by 2003, one had to be a fool to not see how incompetent George Jr was. To appreciate when we should have known, just follow the facts and temper of my posts from 2001. How could anyone with any intelligence vote for him in 2003 and call themselves patriotic? George Jr is one of if not the worst president in this past American century. That is also fact - assuming nothing drastic happens in the next two years.

One final lesson from history. The press was rarely Nixon's critic. That did not happen until first the people got angry. It took that long to see how evil Nixon was. The press (with a rare exception called Woodward and Bernstein) were very supportive of Nixon. Why do we have so much contempt for the troops as to again send them into defeat - without a strategic objective, smoking gun, or exit strategy? The people just are not openly condemning the mental midget. Don't fool yourself. Even our Senate does not have the balls to stand up and do the right thing. This current president has too few vocal critics - and that includes those Cellar dwellers not in America. Same was true of Nixon. More lessons from history.

Bush was not elected the first time.

I had doubts also and left a message, but Bush didn't call me back so I couldn't stop the war. :right:

My point was once I voted him in, there is nothing I can do to prevent him from doing evil..... nothing. I can piss and moan to him and my congressmen, I can bitch to the newspapers, or set myself on fire like a Buddhist Monk, but it wouldn't have one iota of effect on him. Only Cheney, Laura and God can do that.

Don't you think the nature of the press has changed since Nixon's time? :confused:

Every reporter wants to be Woodward and Bernstein, now. And although many of major players they work for, appear to be bias spinners, it's almost impossible to hide the real stories. If they try to ignore a source that wants to blow the whistle, he can go to any two-bit paper and the Bloggers will catch wind of it. He can even go straight to the internet.

It used to be that the newspapers, except for a few biggies, got everything from the wire services. Now there is more avenues to work with, a reporter in podunk can do a credible job just using the net. He won't break any major stories but he can keep Podunkians reasonably well informed.

Sorry, I forgot.

My point is, when all those who voted for Bush second time thought like you (and me, but that don't count) then he wouldn't be reelected.

The first time he was elected over Al Bore through that FLA fraud, I remember I wondered how someone with such a limited world view, intellect, broad knowledge, could run the Greatest Nation in the World succesfully. Guess my gut feeling was right, again?

S-ok, we accept "appointed" in a pinch, but are not happy about it.:cool:

My point is, when all those who voted for Bush second time thought like you (and me, but that don't count) then he wouldn't be reelected.

Well now wait a minute, I didn't vote for the man, but elections are funny things, and past elections doubly so. We really have no way of knowing whether the alternatives would truly be better or worse, except guesswork. In the case of 2004 you had Mr Kerry backing off his vote in favor of Iraq, so hard that he managed to contradict himself in one sentence, the infamous "I actually voted for it before I voted against it". As a result, to many voters, the 2004 choice was dumb-and-principled versus smart-and-political. The former was the devil we knew, and I don't blame them too hard.

We think of things as Bush versus not-Bush right now because that's how the Ds have strategically moved the discourse; that was the approach in 2006 and it worked. While the most political hay can be made by merely criticizing, all pols are doing it. Nobody seems to notice that this, too, is in lieu of actual leadership.

Maybe for dumb voters, but by the same logic of "I actually voted for it before I voted against it", Bush opposed it before he supported it. There were two versions of the bill. Kerry supported the first one, and Bush supported the second one.

Less than 1% of voters ever understood that the gaffe was over appropriations bills. A much larger percentage of both smart and dumb voters* noticed that Mr Kerry voted to authorize the use of force, and that by using statements like that one, he was dodging and weaving like a professional boxer.

*cursing the electorate is a loser's road, and I advise against it.

They could have if they wanted to. But it's so much more fun to wave around a giant flip-flop.

Mr Kerry was damned lucky that the flop in question was over appropriations and not over the larger question of the vote to authorize. He was actually misdirecting from the vote to authorize at the time...

He is prone to making such gaffes without the political instinct and communications touch to explain them simply and easily. So they resonate instead of dying down. Witness the "stuck in Iraq" mis-joke. Having been sound-bitten in a mistake, the next-day's correction had to be a stronger sound bite, and not a gasbag 60-second answer that had to be parsed.

Like I said. A quick sound bite is so much more fun than an explanation.