4000 dead military later, dickhead admits HE LIED

[boutons_deux]

Never was any evidence of Saddam-WTC link.


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/02/cheney-no-evidence-iraq/

Waterboard this evil motherfucker for the rest of sorry life.

BoniVore, tell again how Saddam was tied to 9/11 and AQ? :lol

[johnsmith]

If the great and powerful influences here at spurstalk can make it so Cheney is waterboarded for the rest of his life, will you kill yourself?

Otherwise, no deal.

[clambake]

everybody knows he lied.

even yoni.

[Wild Cobra]

Everyone know who pays attention, that it was never said by Cheney to be a connection of the two events. Nobody in the upper administration ever said Iraq was linked to 9/11. Only that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda.

Big difference, and this has been pointed out in thread after thread of you ignorant fucks trying to say this.

Anyone know the theory of "Six Degrees of Separation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Separation)?"

I guess we all have connections to 9/11 if you believe Cheney said Saddam did...

[clambake]

you'd have to be an "ignorant fuck" to believe dick cheney.

[boutons_deux]

"Only that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda."

thanks for admitting that, since Al Qaeda did WTC, qualifying for dickhead's "1%" rule, and dubya's "fer us or agin us".

dickhead lied, and he ran the entire torture program trying to get info that Saddam was linked to WTC, so as to justify invading Iraq for oil.

Quite a week for dickhead, first "coming out" supporting gay marriage, and now admitting he lied about Saddam and WTC (and continued to lie well after dubay admitted publicly there was no link).

And of course, EVERY week is quite a week for Wild Cobra, shilling ridiculously for criminals.

[angrydude]

I thought we went into Iraq because of the supposed WMD's.

and the Al-Queda connection was just tacked on afterwards to justify staying there.

[Winehole23]

I thought we went into Iraq because of the supposed WMD's.

and the Al-Queda connection was just tacked on afterwards to justify staying there.What's the justification now?

[Wild Cobra]

I thought we went into Iraq because of the supposed WMD's.No. That was simply the most reported reason. There were several reasons. That was only one of them.


and the Al-Qaeda connection was just tacked on afterwards to justify staying there.

It was a reason like the others. One of several. There were Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq. I believe they were there with Saddam's blessings. He did at least have friendly ties with some higher ups in Al-Qaeda.

Believe as you wish. The facts have been out. If you want to continue to believe the propaganda, then who am I to say otherwise.

Even with the facts known now, I say it was a good thing to do what we did in Iraq. I only wish we did it while I was still in the Army, during Desert Storm.

[DarrinS]

This thread is so 2004.

[ChumpDumper]

No. That was simply the most reported reason. There were several reasons. That was only one of them.Were the other ones so compelling as to sell the invasion and occupation by themselves?


It was a reason like the others. One of several. There were Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq. I believe they were there with Saddam's blessings.They were in areas in which Saddam had virtually no control after the Gulf War.


He did at least have friendly ties with some higher ups in Al-Qaeda.Which ones? Please name them and the nature of their relationships.

[sabar]

Everyone knows that the primary reasons were WMDs and terrorism. It was reported a billion times over when the whole thing started.

The actual reasoning in the joint resolution on authorization of force.




Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687), including interference with weapons inspectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission).
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction), and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf) region."
Iraq's "brutal repression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq) of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War) and its own people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign)".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_assassination_a ttempts) of former President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush), and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones) following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi) of al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda), an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda).
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists), including the September 11th, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and the Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) for the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998), the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) regime and promote a democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) replacement.



In case you somehow forgot only a few years after the fact:

President's war rationale and resolution announcement
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-7.html


Justification of war
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.html

[ChumpDumper]

So since the WMD and Al Qaeda rationales turned out to be compete bullshit, were the other reasons enough of a justification to invade and occupy Iraq, killing 100,000 Iraqis and displacing 3 million of them inside and outside the country?

[Wild Cobra]

In case you somehow forgot only a few years after the fact:

President's war rationale and resolution announcement
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-7.html

I wonder if the libtards will notice that stockpiling WMD is the 5th item mentioned?

Would someone show me the mentioned 9/11 connection? Please?

[Winehole23]

I wonder if the libtards will notice that stockpiling WMD is the 5th item mentioned?Is this the graf you mean?


On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. We know the treacherous history of the regime. (1) It has waged a war against its neighbors; (2)it has sponsored and sheltered terrorists;(3) it has developed weapons of mass death;(4) it has used them against innocent men, women and children. We know the designs of the Iraqi regime. (5)In defiance of pledges to the U.N., it has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. (6) It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those weapons. #3 is the first mention of WMD, and #4, #5, and #6 are all WMD related.

What was your point again?


Would someone show me the mentioned 9/11 connection? Please?Insinuated repeatedly -- but not straightforwardly asserted -- by the VEEP and others after the war began. Lie is too strong a word for it IMO, but this vein of propaganda was misleading and deceptive. (Search "Cheney" "Atta" "Prague", e.g..)

And effective. So much so that a significant minority of Americans, years after the fact and after explicit denials by both Bush and Cheney of an Iraq/9-11 tie, still believe it.

[ChumpDumper]

Insinuated repeatedly -- but not straightforwardly asserted -- by the VEEP and others after the war began. Lie is too strong a word for it IMO, but this vein of propaganda was misleading and deceptive. (Search "Cheney" "Atta" "Prague", e.g..)

And effective. So much so that a significant minority of Americans, years after the fact and after explicit denials by both Bush and Cheney of an Iraq/9-11 tie, still believe it.They're still translating the documents!

[DarrinS]

If you read the article that was linked in the OP, you'll notice that Cheney is making a distinction between Iraq-911 ties and Iraq-Al Qaeda ties.

[Winehole23]

If you read the article that was linked in the OP, you'll notice that Cheney is making a distinction between Iraq-911 ties and Iraq-Al Qaeda ties.He was not so careful while he was in office.

[Wild Cobra]

Is this the graf you mean?

#3 is the first mention of WMD, and #4, #5, and #6 are all WMD related.

What was your point again?

#3 mentions them of the past. #5 and #6 is mentions intelligence, for the time.

[PEP]

Oy, you guys are still crying over this? Pobresitos.

I didnt see any of you over there, or am I mistaken? Did ya'll have to sacrifice anything during this war, did you leave your families for a year, did you get shot at, did you have nightmares or scared that you might get killed today? Keep typing all your silly comments about how it was a lie, its over and we went in and took out a fucking bastard who deserved to be tortured instead of getting the easy way out by being hanged.

Waah, Waah, Waah, silly cry babies. Innocent people were killed, innocent people are killed every fucking day, grow up peeps. life isnt fair. :downspin:

[ChumpDumper]

#3 mentions them of the past. #5 and #6 is mentions intelligence, for the time. you're saying they have nothing to do with WMD?

[Winehole23]

And what was the point the libtards are missing? You were elliptical.

[Wild Cobra]

If you read the article that was linked in the OP, you'll notice that Cheney is making a distinction between Iraq-911 ties and Iraq-Al Qaeda ties.
Why do we bother?

The libtards will believe as they want.

[PEP]

So you're saying they have nothing to do with WMD?
sniff sniff......what else chummy? Is that all you got?

[ChumpDumper]

Oy, you guys are still crying over this? Pobresitos.

I didnt see any of you over there, or am I mistaken? Did ya'll have to sacrifice anything during this war, did you leave your families for a year, did you get shot at, did you have nightmares or scared that you might get killed today? Keep typing all your silly comments about how it was a lie, its over and we went in and took out a fucking bastard who deserved to be tortured instead of getting the easy way out by being hanged.

Waah, Waah, Waah, silly cry babies. Innocent people were killed, innocent people are killed every fucking day, grow up peeps. life isnt fair. :downspin:Compassionate conservatism.

[ChumpDumper]

sniff sniff......what else chummy? Is that all you got?Your disdain for human life, especially Americans, is duly noted.

[Wild Cobra]

Insinuated repeatedly -- but not straightforwardly asserted -- by the VEEP and others after the war began. Lie is too strong a word for it IMO, but this vein of propaganda was misleading and deceptive. (Search "Cheney" "Atta" "Prague", e.g..)Not that I recall. I only remember libtards repeating that lie.


And effective. So much so that a significant minority of Americans, years after the fact and after explicit denials by both Bush and Cheney of an Iraq/9-11 tie, still believe it.
Example please.

[PixelPusher]

Insinuated repeatedly -- but not straightforwardly asserted -- by the VEEP and others after the war began. Lie is too strong a word for it IMO, but this vein of propaganda was misleading and deceptive. (Search "Cheney" "Atta" "Prague", e.g..)

And effective. So much so that a significant minority of Americans, years after the fact and after explicit denials by both Bush and Cheney of an Iraq/9-11 tie, still believe it.

RytxVNM0llQ

[ChumpDumper]

Not that I recall. I only remember libtards repeating that lie.

Example please."Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"


Yes No Unsure
% % %
3/15-18/08

28 58 14
9/4-8/07

33 58 9
9/15-19/06

31 57 12
8/17-21/06

31 60 9
4/2-3/03

53 34 13
3/7-9/03

45 40 15
2/10-12/03

42 42 16
9/02

51 33 16http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[Wild Cobra]

And what was the point the libtards are missing? You were elliptical.
Me?

That the WMD and ties to Al-Qaeda were only two of several reasons. Saber listed a nice summary link.

Remember Public Law 105-235 (http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/105/publ235.105.pdf)? There's that two. Regime Change was made law!


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government
of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with
its international obligations.
Approved August 14, 1998.

President Clinton was too much a pussy to take the actions that would have stopped 9/11.

Now I'm not saying Saddam had ties to 9/11, but had Al-Qaeda seen our resolve of such passed law, they probably would not have attacked us.

[Wild Cobra]

"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"


Yes No Unsure
% % %
3/15-18/08

28 58 14
9/4-8/07

33 58 9
9/15-19/06

31 57 12
8/17-21/06

31 60 9
4/2-3/03

53 34 13
3/7-9/03

45 40 15
2/10-12/03

42 42 16
9/02

51 33 16http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Since when does a public opinion poll represent what the VP said? The opinion is formed by the media they read, watch, or listen too.

What merit does it have on this discussion, besides prove my point?

[PixelPusher]

...but let's not all gang up on Cheney alone - politics is a team sport.

x7xyd_IRgGs

[ChumpDumper]

Me?

That the WMD and ties to Al-Qaeda were only two of several reasons. Saber listed a nice summary link.

Remember Public Law 105-235 (http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/105/publ235.105.pdf)? There's that two. Regime Change was made law!



President Clinton was too much a pussy to take the actions that would have stopped 9/11.

Now I'm not saying Saddam had ties to 9/11, but had Al-Qaeda seen our resolve of such passed law, they probably would not have attacked us.:lmao

Please. You no doubt accused him of wagging the dog when he attacked the camps in Afghanistan.

Why would Al-Qaeda have given a shit about what Iraq? Saddam was just the type of dictator they wanted to remove from power.

Now you are saying Clinton should have invaded and occupied Iraq to stop 9/11.
:rollin

[ChumpDumper]

Since when does a public opinion poll represent what the VP said? The opinion is formed by the media they read, watch, or listen too.:lmao


What merit does it have on this discussion, besides prove my point?Give me an example of Cheney explicitly saying there was no Saddam link to 9/11 to dispel the erroneous public opinion during the run up to the invasion.

[Winehole23]

I didnt see any of you over there, or am I mistaken? Did ya'll have to sacrifice anything during this war, did you leave your families for a year, did you get shot at, did you have nightmares or scared that you might get killed today? War is hell, crybaby. You signed up for it. Quit crying about the ingratitude, the lack of sacrifice and the comfort of civilians at home.


Keep typing all your silly comments about how it was a lie, its over and we went in and took out a fucking bastard who deserved to be tortured instead of getting the easy way out by being hanged.It's not over yet, and it wasn't in the country's best interest. The casus belli was a mirage. Taking out mean effing bastards may suit you well enough, but a lot of people take war and the national interest much more seriously.


Waah, Waah, Waah, silly cry babies. Innocent people were killed, innocent people are killed every fucking day, grow up peeps. life isnt fair. :downspin:We're civilians. We're entitled to cry about anything we want. As a soldier, you had to accept the bogus rationales for war; we don't have to.

[Wild Cobra]

...but let's not all gang up on Cheney alone - politics is a team sport.

x7xyd_IRgGs
Nothing wrong with those statements when you recall the context of them.

[Winehole23]

RytxVNM0llQThe Czech intelligence service reported...is not a straightforward assertion. Misleading? Without any doubt. A lie? Not really, IMO.

[Winehole23]

Me?

That the WMD and ties to Al-Qaeda were only two of several reasons. Saber listed a nice summary link.

Remember Public Law 105-235 (http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/105/publ235.105.pdf)? There's that two. Regime Change was made law!Out of respect for Clinton era foreign policy, GWB took care to see the law was fulfilled. Is that your argument now?

[ChumpDumper]

Out of respect for Clinton era foreign policy, GWB made sure to see the law was fulfilled. Is that your argument now?But not in time to stop 9/11!

Bush was a pussy!

[PixelPusher]

The Czech intelligence service reported...is not a straightforward assertion. Misleading? Without any doubt. A lie? Not really, IMO.

"It's pretty well confirmed"

[Winehole23]

"It's pretty well confirmed"Is not a clear assertion either IMO, and Cheney was careful to rebut it at the beginning of the clip you posted.

[Wild Cobra]

"It's pretty well confirmed"
Well, he obviously forgot his own exact words of the past, but he never did say it was confirmed. If he didn't forget his words of the past, he may bave mis-heard her repeat them.

Either way, "pretty well confirmed" IS NOT "confirmed!"

The closest lie you have is Cheney denying he said something that was pretty likely the truth!

[Winehole23]

Well, he obviously forgot his own exact words of the past, but he never did say it was confirmed. If he didn't forget his words of the past, he may bave mis-heard her repeat them!How generous. Are you always so generous to public officials who say misleading things?

[PixelPusher]

Is not a clear assertion either IMO, and Cheney was careful to rebut it at the beginning of the clip you posted.


Well, he obviously forgot his own exact words of the past, but he never did say it was confirmed. If he didn't forget his words of the past, he may bave mis-heard her repeat them.

Either way, "pretty well confirmed" IS NOT "confirmed!"

The closest lie you have is Cheney denying he said something that was pretty likely the truth!
Even granting your overgenerous lattitude to parse words, "unconfirmed" does not come after "pretty well confirmed".

[FaithInOne]

Lies or not it was all pointless.

[Winehole23]

Lies or not it was all pointless.The Iraq war isn't quite in the past tense, my man. 24 Americans died there last month.

[Yonivore]

Never was any evidence of Saddam-WTC link.


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/02/cheney-no-evidence-iraq/

Waterboard this evil motherfucker for the rest of sorry life.

BoniVore, tell again how Saddam was tied to 9/11 and AQ? :lol
A) Vice President Cheney has never claimed Iraq was directly involved with the September 11th attacks.

B) I suggested it was possible and still believe so, based on his support of terrorism and his known relationships with terrorists.

C) The closest the administration ever came to accusing Iraq of involvement in 9/11 was by saying they supported and had relationships with terrorist organizations "like" those that committed the attacks.

Damn, 2 pages on this tired old meme?

[FromWayDowntown]

How generous. Are you always so generous to public officials who say misleading things?

Politicians on the right are extremely nuanced and only those who aren't media lemmings are capable of understanding the nuance in their positions.

Politicians on the left deserve to be ridiculed when they even attempt to be nuanced.

Pretty simple, really.

[Winehole23]

Even granting your overgenerous lattitude to parse words, "unconfirmed" does not come after "pretty well confirmed".I make a distinction between bs and straightforward lies. The actual lie the bs served was inferential rather than stated. People took the bs about Atta in Prague and filled in the blanks themselves. This kind of misrepresentation is sly, manipulative and dishonorable IMO. But it is not lying. It is like the famous sixteen words in Bush's state of the union speech. To say that "Czech/British intelligence reports" something is not a deliberate falsehood, even if the report is bogus.

Cheney's tentative, deliberately hedged linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda is closer to bs than lying IMO, but some people are not as philosophical about it. C'est la guerre.

Lagniappe: http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/articleB5BD6D4417AF444DBD8F9770AA729B26.asp

[Wild Cobra]

How generous. Are you always so generous to public officials who say misleading things?
Depends on what they are saying, and if they really believe it or not. I think in this case, he wanted to believe the connection, but didn't have the proof. He wasn't foolish enough to say there was proof. Nor was it ant thing close to a lie. I never saw it as a misleading statement anyway. "pretty well confirmed" is understandable to me. Are you saying that's misleading?

[clambake]

powell admitted years ago that the evidence was deliberately misleading.

the key phrase (if people don't understand) is deliberately misleading.

[Winehole23]

Are you saying that's misleading?That's what I said.

[Wild Cobra]

That's what I said.
OK...

Here I thought my English comprehension was bad. Now I need to question yours.

He never said there was a certain connection. That's like betting against snake-eyes on a dice throw. 35/36 time, statistically, (pretty well certain) you will be right. It is not certain, and most people know that.

[Yonivore]

powell admitted years ago that the evidence was deliberately misleading.

the key phrase (if people don't understand) is deliberately misleading.
Let's have the quote, in context.

[Winehole23]

OK...

Here I thought my English comprehension was bad. Now I need to question yours.One needn't lie to mislead. When the President or VP refers to iffy intelligence as if it were something *like* certain, people are apt to take it for more than it is.

Repeating the claim, as Cheney did many times, only served to reinforce an inaccurate impression, and Mr. Cheney was smart enough to know it. Saddam had no operational tie to Al Qaeda or 9/11, and Cheney knew it.

So what purpose did repeating the report of Atta meeting Iraqi officials in Prague serve?

[Yonivore]

One needn't lie to mislead. When the President or VP refers to iffy intelligence as if it were something *like* certain, people are apt to take it for more than it is.

Repeating the claim, as Cheney did many times, only served to reinforce an inaccurate impression, and Mr. Cheney was smart enough to know it. Saddam had no operational tie to Al Qaeda or 9/11, and Cheney knew it.

So what purpose did repeating the report of Atta meeting Iraqi officials in Prague serve?
Funny thing about that intelligence is that the Democrats in Congress saw the same stuff and reached the same conclusions.

[Winehole23]

Funny thing about that intelligence is that the Democrats in Congress saw the same stuff and reached the same conclusions.The intel was massaged, cherry-picked and stovepiped, and caveats were not included in the executive summaries. Bush fudged his case for war.

To be sure, the Dems went along with it, and are collaterally responsible for a war that has been ruinous to the national interest, to the international prestige of the USA and destructive to the public purse. I blame them too.

What was your point, Yoni? That the GOP and the Dems both suck?

If so, i agree 100%.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Out of respect for Clinton era foreign policy, GWB took care to see the law was fulfilled. Is that your argument now?

Yoni is on record stating that misleadng someone is the same thing as lying...

[Yonivore]

The intel was massaged, cherry-picked and stovepiped, and caveats were not included in the executive summaries. Bush fudged his case for war.
Bush didn't present the intelligence to Congress.


To be sure, the Dems went along with it, and are collaterally responsible for a war has been ruinous to the national interest, to the international prestige of the USA and destructive to the public purse. I blame them too.

What was your point, Yoni? That the GOP and the Dems both suck?

If so, i agree 100%.
My point is Saddam Hussein, without the WMD's, had already run out the clock. Having WMD's and connections to terrorists -- some of whom had just destroyed the WTC, made it a more solid case.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's good to know we went to war on iffy intelligence..I seem to remember us being told with certainty about the evidence for war..

[Yonivore]

It's good to know we went to war on iffy intelligence..I seem to remember us being told with certainty about the evidence for war..
1) The AUMF listed a whole host of grievances against Saddam Hussein...many of which were justification enough for restarting hostilities, ceased in 1991, after Saddam Hussein agreed to stop all of those activities -- and did not.

2) Saddam Hussein had harbored terrorists Abu Nidal and others.

3) Saddam Hussein was paying terrorists in Palestine

4) Abu Musab al Zarqawi fled Afghanistan to Iraq after we invaded there.

5) Personally, and I don't speak for Bush, I think the weapons were there or, at the very least, Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his weapons making ability so that if he were able to get sanctions lifted, he would be ready to resume in days. If I"m not mistaken, that was a finding of the Duelfer Report.

6) There was a whole lot of pressure at the UN to lift sanctions and enable just that.

7) Germany and France were delivering war materials to Iraq (night vision goggles and gas masks)

8) Iraq was conspiring with many of our allies and the UN Secretary General's office in the biggest bribery scam in history, involving the Oil For Food Program.

9) Fuck Him. The world is better off now than it was in March of 2003.

[George Gervin's Afro]

1) The AUMF listed a whole host of grievances against Saddam Hussein...many of which were justification enough for restarting hostilities, ceased in 1991, after Saddam Hussein agreed to stop all of those activities -- and did not.

2) Saddam Hussein had harbored terrorists Abu Nidal and others.

3) Saddam Hussein was paying terrorists in Palestine

4) Abu Musab al Zarqawi fled Afghanistan to Iraq after we invaded there.

5) Personally, and I don't speak for Bush, I think the weapons were there or, at the very least, Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his weapons making ability so that if he were able to get sanctions lifted, he would be ready to resume in days. If I"m not mistaken, that was a finding of the Duelfer Report.

6) There was a whole lot of pressure at the UN to lift sanctions and enable just that.

7) Germany and France were delivering war materials to Iraq (night vision goggles and gas masks)

8) Iraq was conspiring with many of our allies and the UN Secretary General's office in the biggest bribery scam in history, involving the Oil For Food Program.

9) Fuck Him. The world is better off now than it was in March of 2003.


Ah fuck it we only lost 4,000 Gis...:rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Ah fuck it we only lost 4,000 Gis...:rolleyes
If the war is unjustified, 1 death is too many; if it is justified, each death -- while tragic -- is worth the cost.

Why don't you stick to arguing justification.

[Winehole23]

My point is Saddam Hussein, without the WMD's, had already run out the clock. You're making the case that there was a compelling national interest in enforcing UN resolutions and the credibility of international law? You?

[Winehole23]

1) The AUMF listed a whole host of grievances against Saddam Hussein...many of which were justification enough for restarting hostilities, ceased in 1991, after Saddam Hussein agreed to stop all of those activities -- and did not.

2) Saddam Hussein had harbored terrorists Abu Nidal and others.

3) Saddam Hussein was paying terrorists in Palestine

4) Abu Musab al Zarqawi fled Afghanistan to Iraq after we invaded there.

5) Personally, and I don't speak for Bush, I think the weapons were there or, at the very least, Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his weapons making ability so that if he were able to get sanctions lifted, he would be ready to resume in days. If I"m not mistaken, that was a finding of the Duelfer Report.

6) There was a whole lot of pressure at the UN to lift sanctions and enable just that.

7) Germany and France were delivering war materials to Iraq (night vision goggles and gas masks)

8) Iraq was conspiring with many of our allies and the UN Secretary General's office in the biggest bribery scam in history, involving the Oil For Food Program..Which one of these is a compelling cause for war in the US national interest? IMO none of them are. No national interest was at stake for us, none that I can tell were threatened by Saddam. It's just a laundry list of gripes.

[Wild Cobra]

One needn't lie to mislead. When the President or VP refers to iffy intelligence as if it were something *like* certain, people are apt to take it for more than it is.

Repeating the claim, as Cheney did many times, only served to reinforce an inaccurate impression, and Mr. Cheney was smart enough to know it. Saddam had no operational tie to Al Qaeda or 9/11, and Cheney knew it.

So what purpose did repeating the report of Atta meeting Iraqi officials in Prague serve?
How do you know he didn't know it?

If you have evidence none of us have yet heard, I suggest you present it to those investigating 9/11.

[Wild Cobra]

Out of respect for Clinton era foreign policy, GWB took care to see the law was fulfilled. Is that your argument now?
No, only that is is one of several reasons.

[Winehole23]

How do you know he didn't know it?Didn't know what, please?

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't know what, please?
OK, I worded that wrong.

How do you know that Cheney knew there was no ties?

Were you there?

What evidence do you have?

[Winehole23]

Were you there?

What evidence do you have?Circumstantial. His carefully hedged remark crediting a Czech report rather than verified intel is a strong clue.

If there was verified intel linking Saddam and Al Qaeda operationally you can be pretty sure it would have been disclosed in some fashion. It would have cemented domestic support for the war and silenced most of the critics for good.

[Wild Cobra]

Circumstantial. His carefully hedged remark crediting a Czech report rather than verified intel is a strong clue.

If there was verified intel linking Saddam and Al Qaeda you can be pretty sure it would have been disclosed in some fashion. It would have cemented domestic support for the war and silenced most of the critics for good.
Our intelligence has been lacking ever since liberals gutted the CIA. We often rely on other sources. His hedging may have been because he wasn't a certian as he wanted to be, but believed it. Even at that, is there better evidence to the contrary? I didn't follow that event.

[Winehole23]

Our intelligence has been lacking ever since liberals gutted the CIA.You're talking about the Church Committee, right? That was nearly thirty five years ago. Are you suggesting that three GOP presidents in five terms did nothing to rectify this situation?


We often rely on other sources. His hedging may have been because he wasn't a certian as he wanted to be, but believed it. Even at that, is there better evidence to the contrary? I didn't follow that event.No, you didn't.

This is weak even by your own abysmally low standards, WC. You're basically saying the CIA sucks so bad we have to rely on British and Czech intel for the middle east.

Why do you hate the CIA, WC?

IMO the shoddiness of the CIA's work product has been wildly overhyped by pols who based bad decisions on whatever they wanted to see in the offered intelligence. Instead of taking responsibility for failures of their own making, like men of integrity, they point at "faulty" intelligence and hope that will cover their asses.

You are living proof, WC, that this craven shifting of responsibility sometimes works.

[Wild Cobra]

You're talking about the Church Committee, right? That was nearly thirty five years ago. Are you suggesting that three GOP presidents in five terms did nothing to rectify this situation?
No I'm not.

Tenet in Slap at Clinton CIA Cutbacks

First three paragraphs:

CIA Director George Tenet delivered an unexpected slap to ex-president Clinton on Thursday, suggesting during a speech defending his agency that CIA cutbacks during Clinton's tenure were responsible for the agency's failures in the war on terror.

"When I came to the CIA in the mid-1990s, our graduating class of case officers was unbelievably low," Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University.

He said it had taken "years of rebuilding" for the agency to recover from the Clinton-era cutbacks, contending that the agency was now moving in the right direction.

No, you didn't.

This is weak even by your own abysmally low standards, WC. You're basically saying the CIA sucks so bad we have to rely on British and Czech intel for the middle east.

Why do you hate the CIA, WC?

IMO the shoddiness of the CIA's work product has been wildly overhyped by pols who based bad decisions on whatever they wanted to see in the offered intelligence. Instead of taking responsibility for failures of their own making, like men of integrity, they point at "faulty" intelligence and hope that will cover their asses.
If you say so. I'm only going by what I've known for years. President Clinton eliminated too many important overseas agent positions that the CIA relied on. You cannot simply place moles in foreign organizations overnight, like you can pull them out. It first takes years to prepare an agent for the field, and even more years to get them where you want them. That's why we have to trust other intelligence agencies, because we don't have much of our own anymore.
You are living proof, WC, that this craven shifting of responsibility sometimes works.
Your fly is open... I mean, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Winehole23]

Oh, it was all Clinton's fault. My bad.:rolleyes

[Winehole23]

I'll stick by my point. Our intel doesn't suck as bad as you say. The CIA was a convenient fall guy for Bush's epochal failure in Iraq, judged by his own benchmarks for success.

[Winehole23]

Aren't you one of the people exhorting board libs to get over Bush and move on to Obama? And you're still stuck on Clinton?

[Def Rowe]

Aren't you one of the people exhorting board libs to get over Bush and move on to Obama? And you're still stuck on Clinton?

and Jimmy Carter.

[Wild Cobra]

Aren't you one of the people exhorting board libs to get over Bush and move on to Obama? And you're still stuck on Clinton?
Yes, but because the attacks they bring upon President Bush, are unfounded. It wouldn't bother me if they attacked President Bush on his views on Amnesty, or spending more on social programs than necessary, but no. They attack him with little or no credible evidence, and topics I disagree with. I am very bitter for things implemented by both President Clinton, and President Carter. They have done a great disservice to this nation in my opinion. At least President Bush never got Amnesty passed for illegal aliens.

[Wild Cobra]

and Jimmy Carter.
LOL...

I was getting to that, but you beat me to it...