Murray Waas may well turn out to be this generation’s Bob Woodward. His scoops in the Plame case have on occasion driven the investigation itself in new directions.
In the National Journal, Waas reports that Bush neglected to share with congress the intel from a rather significant briefing:
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
…One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.
The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Why the early focus on Iraq? Bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia, hid in Sudan and ended up in Afghanistan. Discuss.
Congress had the same intelligence Bush had.
Bush did not mislead Congress or the American people.
The intelligence certainly was ‘fixed’ around the policy:
Cheney didn’t like what the CIA had to say, so he looked for someone who would say what he wanted to hear, which he conveniently found in then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and the unit he directed made up of former journalist Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, a veteran of neoconservative think tanks.
That will show those CIA bastards.
Because they wanted in invade Iraq, not for oil (just a bonus) but because they really thought this harebrained scheme would work. The more I look at it the more I think they’re hubristic idiots who thought you could get peace in the Middle East with an invasion.
If Iraq was a success than all the lies, twists and other intelligence shenanigans would have been ignored, the results would have been enough. I think they knew that going in and couldn’t imagine failing.
In short it looked good on paper.
Or maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with Richard Clarke’s earlier assessment under the Clinton administration that if we invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban that Bin Laden would “boogie to Baghdad“.
To the many bats that frequent the comments, I’m not blaming Clinton, I’m saying this perception of strong ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq had been around long enough in the intelligence community that it was important to rule out Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 while responses were being formulated.
Payback is a bitch, though. The worst of their malfeasances was that they forgot who really holds the power in this country, and who makes the ultimate judgment: The people. They put themselves above the people. The disrespected the people.
Now they suffer the death of a thousand cuts, with new revelations almost daily, new questions, new stories exposing their arrogance and their egos. The people know that they were had, and they are not pleased.
All the Bushmonkey rightwing apologist talking points and bullshit on earth cannot save them now. Now their groins shall be infested with the fleas of the dreaded Lame Duck Disease, and they shall walk the earth powerless and clutching their inflamed private parts with both hands, in a symbolic gesture befitting their many stupidities.
And guess what the September 21 PDB did to those perceptions:
So what ‘perception’ should this have given the administration? Or is the message not clear enough for you?
This was 10 days after 911. Sounds like people expect the President to have instantaneous information. Maybe he was investigating Iraq because of something that happened, oh I don’t know, 10 years before.
You mean, when his father let himself be talked into comparing Hussein to Hitler in order to gin up a war? You know, so as to “liberate” the oppressive Kuwaiti oligarchy … erm, I mean, liberate the people.
Apple, not far from tree …….
You are correct. Perhaps you can tell me why, then, Bush spent the next two years stating that Saddam had a hand in 9-11 and close, personal ties to Al-Qaeda.
He knew there was no connection, but decided to invade Iraq anyway.
Of course, though, he didn’t lie to the American people. Nope, not once.
They are still trying to pimp that “connection” today; see Cheney’s speech earlier this week.
Jody writes: “Or maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with Richard Clarke’s earlier assessment under the Clinton administration that if we invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban that Bin Laden would “boogie to Baghdad“.”
As if Clarke got any respect at all from the Bush administration.
New Harris/Wall Street Journal Poll (published this morning) shows that 64% of Americans believe the Bush administration “generally misleads.” Fewer than a third of Americans now believe that the information provided by Bush and his enablers is generally accurate.
Which is guess is the nicest way possible of saying that the American public thinks this administration is little more than a pack of lying bastards.
And with the topic of this thread serving as a fine example, can anyone really blame the American public for feeling that way?
This is a non-story for several reasons, the most important being that the CIA forfeited its right to be taken seriously after 9/11. Why should Bush and Cheney have believed this PDB, if it even exists?
Dexter: I find the “Bush went to war because he didn’t have the facts straight” defense kind of confusing. Is taking the country to war over a mistake really all that much better than taking the country to war on a lie?
One is an example of incredible stupidity and indifference to his responsibilities, the other is an example of incredible dishonesty coupled with a criminal contempt for the lives of our military people.
Either way, Bush made an atrocious error and deserves the condemnation he has been receiving these last few months.
And these idiots wonder why their polling numbers, and the esteem of the voters, is falling through the floor.
With idiotic comments like these, they convey clearly that they have no frigging idea what this is about. The terms “out of touch” and “tin ear” are given new meaning.
Your idea of an “even more” stable Middle East is interesting.
Leave Saddam Hussein in place with an even bigger country.
I hadn’t heard that. I mean about stating the link to 911. Do you have a link handy?
The CIA dropped the ball on 911. Democrats *and* Republicans agreed on that. In many ways, they dropped the ball on pre-war intelligence too. They may or may not have been right about the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection, but at a certain point, why would the White House listen to them anymore?
Snort. The “certain point” beyond which anyone is going to listen to the White House as long since passed.
Aside from people like you, knee-jerk cheerleaders, nobody believes them any more.
Give it up. Game over.
Bob In Pacifica
From London’s The Independent: “Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year.”
Which not only explain why Bush wanted Iraq, but also explains how come Cheney doesn’t want his secret energy meetings to be public.
Unfortunately for Exxon, I expect that this blatant takeover of Iraq’s oil will result in a lot of deaths of foreign oil workers and execs who try to function inside Iraq.
If he could bark out what they wanted to hear, Barney the dog could get input into the PDB. If Clarke had ever uttered anything that could be put on their checklist, they used it.
I don’t know. What would the world be like today if we hadn’t invaded Iraq? I can’t get a handle on this paradise that some people seem to be projecting. Can you guys help out? Let’s imagine Sadam is still in power ….
Dexter: I always like to point out at moments like this that Bush had racked up a 42% vacation rate prior to Labor Day going into Labor Day in 2001. And even if he did spend a couple hours every now and then during his extended leisure looking at summaries of reports, clearly this was a man not involved in the responsibilities of his work.
Did the CIA provide bad info? Maybe. Was Bush studying the issue, examining the evidence, giving it the truth test? Or was he merely just playing president …
As far as Iraq goes, Bush is the Commander In Chief, and he took us to war on either bad intelligence or an outright lie. Either way, he is a disgrace and will be treated as such by history.
But you know something? I like it when connies defend this president. The more the public is told that Bush is what constitutes a conservative, the sooner this odious philosophy based of selective entitlement and the gullibility of its servants will be flushed by the voters.
Well, Michael Moore certainly made Saddam-era Iraq seem like some kind of paradise.
Bob In Pacifica
Or would Osama cakewalk to Cairo? Charleston to Chechyna? Karaoke to Karachi?
More crowded by around 100k people. I suppose he did his part for population control.
We’d be around 250 billion dollars richer with far less long term financial obligations to tens of thousands of wounded veterants.
It’s a cost benefit thing. For instance, I have this gagdget you can hook up to your car’s fuel injectors that will increase your mileage by 1 mile per gallon. And it only costs $75,000.00.
Saddam in power would have left the Middle East in a stagnant state where the power plays were minor instead of being nuclear.
Good try Dexter, but you’re not proving anything, just trolling.
Lines, reasonable people can differ about what Iraq would be like with Saddam still in power. Michael Moore, however, is not a reasonable person. I think Saddam would have been a menace. I think he would still be torturing his own people. I think we’re better off with him out of power.
Which begs the question – how necessary can a war be when it can be based on faulty intelligence? Aside from nuclear weapons, war is the bluntest and most devastating option. It is also one of the hardest to control and manage.
I question the intelligence and capacity to lead of someone who could make a mistake like this. This wasn’t as if Bush lived everyday with a misconceived notion of Iraq. He took that misconceived notion and failed to do the intellectual legwork necessary to make a clear and informed decision about the war. Even if had still come to the conclusion to invade – at least we would know he was competent even if we disgreed with him vehemently.
The basic problem here is that Bush and Cheney were 100% completely convinced that Iraq had WMD’s and that Iraq needed to be attacked. And unfortunately for the country the POTUS and VPOTUS can not put ideology above facts. One of the most interesting things I’ve read about Yitzhak Ravin was that he was intensely focused on facts and real world scenarios. That even though he was very much tied to an ideology he always puts the facts of a situation first. This is what made him so much more capable of seeing patterns and negotiating than other world leaders. Because he always considered the facts first.
Bush has a complete disregard for facts. He actually seems to believe that you can change facts or will them away. I guess that’s the whole “reality based” community meme.
Ok. the wealthy in this country would likely have gotten another $200 billion in tax cuts instead of burning that money in Iraq, we’d have 20,000 more soldiers in the Army and it would pretty much be like it was in the 90s. In other words, cintained and not a threat.
The Bush Administration set its sights on Saddam at its first Cabinet meeting in early 2001 (per Paul O’Neill). On the very day that we were attacked that September, senior Administration officials were trying to connect Saddam to the attacks; the President himself pushed hard to find evidence of that (per Bob Woodward and Richard Clarke). New secret intelligence analysis entities were established, tasked only with providing evidence proving this pre-existing hypothesis. Contradictory evidence was suppressed (LA Times-Sunday Nov. 20). A public relations firm was tasked by the Department of Defense with providing misleading information (Rolling Stone-Dec 1, 2005). Murray Waas now confirms what Richard Clarke wrote in his book and provides new details. Every day, more new, credible information is published. Eventually most of the details will be known. There is no upside in this for the Bush Administation – it is all downhill.
Nothing Richard Clarke says is vaguely credible. He’s a clear cut example of a guy who got passed over for promotion (maybe because of his crazy fixation on internet threats) and went to the press to trash his bosses.
We? Like you and me? How? you might make a case that people are betteroff in Iraq, but I’m not sure that’s convincing anymore. But I really do not see how this has effected positive change here at all. And I’m not just being a smartass. You tell me how YOU are better off without Saddam in power. I really want to know.
You still havn’t proved anything worth going to war over, Dexter. “Better off” isn’t even a remotely good reason to go to war, kill thousands of civilians, start a civil war, spend/borrow hundreds of billions of dollars, kill thousands of American soldiers and create a whole new breed of terrorist.
And you think we’re better off? Are you missing the short school bus to blog?
That is a determination that has yet to be made. We have no idea what forces have or have not been set in motion yet. Can you tell me how and why the new democratic Iraq will be less likely to promote terrorism on US soil? And this isn’t just the leaders but the nature of the country, its borders, the new army and police force, the influx of foreign jihadist since 2003, population groups etc? C
Also, how does what we did in Iraq help to ease or strengthen anti-American sentiments among Islamists in the middle east and living in the west?
One last thing – how does Democracy stop wealthy, well educated arabs from turning into Islamists? That is a question I’ve never had anyone answer satisfactorily. Why do we believe that setting up democracies will end the ambitions of extremist intellectuals seeking to impose a Caliphate?
Maybe “we’re better off” sounds a little airy. But the people he was keeping in prison are certainly better off. Baghdad may still be a little dangerous (I’m not one of those nutters that says it is safer than most American cities), but it’s got to beat being locked up in a cell and tortured.
You were not paying attention. Dick Cheney pushed the Atta in Prague story long after he and everyone else know it didn’t happen.
Oh crap, I’ve been DougJ’d.
I don’t think it was ever exactly proved that it didn’t happen. It just wasn’t proven that it did happen.
That explains it. The problem with most commentors around here is that they can’t think outside the box. They have thier little preconceived notions, and they try to fit the facts around them.
But when the facts don’t fit, they sound like idiots. (Much like our President)
This is the final confirmation of the link in the puzzle, that explains Hussein. As I’ve noted before, Hussein’s primary motivation in all things was fear. Fear of losing his own power. This then makes sense.
Are you for real?
Yeah that doesn’t happen anymore…
Today’s intelligence report: Dexter = DougJ
I agree with this, but I don’t see what it has to do with this thread.
I’m imagining 2100 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis still alive, our federal deficit smaller by about a trillion dollars and our country still being respected in the world community.
Your turn: What have we gained by going to war? What have Iraqis gained in concrete terms? Women are less free in practice and perhaps on paper as well, basic standards of living (water, electricity, security) have gone down, and the Iraqi government still tortures its own citizens. The only thing that’s changed are the names on the federal hit list. If you believe everyone on the new list is a terrorist, then hoo-ray. I don’t.
One of the theories of “root causes” of terrorism is that corrupt government has a hand in it. Oppression, no opportunities, corruption. Look at the kind of state the “wealthy Arabs” come from? Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive countries around. Sure, a democratic Iraq could be more dangerous. But as far I know, two democracies have never waged war against each other. Setting up a democracy could show reformers in the other countries that it can be done. Does this help?
“Democracies trade, despots wage war.”
You missed where I said “the world”. You sound very isolationist. Is this true?
Really? I think Clarke was actually way ahead on that one. Do you have any inkling of how much commerce goes through the Internet and how disruptive a signficant cyber attack could be? Remember any of the statistics on how much CodeRed, Slammer, etc. cost in terms of lost productivity?
Clarke actually understood that the vast majority of our cyber-infrastructure stunk (to put it lightly) and knew that we had better get our act in gear. A plot to attack the US might cost huge amounts of time and effort through physical means but a cyberattack requires only a single person and Internet access. Yes, it might (emphasis on might) not result in a loss of lives but the economic damage could be quite significant.
Democracy doesn’t make it any less oppressive or free from corruption, where the hell did you get the idea that it does?
Scanlon? Plame? Delay?
Oh, wait, we’re no longer a real democracy either, so I guess those don’t count.
LOL. Some can’t see past their own backyards.
Yep. I’d bet on it. There are at least a couple of DougJ possibilities in this thread. Either DJ himself, or some of imitators.
Osama Bin Laden comes from a very wealthy family. And his goal is to make the arab world more, not less oppressive. Many of the other leaders of the Islamist movement come from wealthy families, were educated in the west and think the Arab world it too free and the west interferes too much in the Arab world. Al Qeada has its roots in the reaction of private Islamist to a foreign invasion of an arab country.
Islamist terrorism works with governments but it is not based or founded by governments. It is a movement headed and run by private individuals. Pakistan when it was a democracy and now that it is a dictatorship with democratic tendencies is a hot bed for terrorist activity even though the “President” is considered a key US ally.
Dexter and BlogReader:
1. That’s a big backyard if you’ve got tens of thousands of dead Iraqis in it. Smelly too, I would imagine.
2. Read my second paragraph. It’s right there, under the first one.
3. You’re really defining success down if it’s your argument that the war was worth fighting because it hasn’t had any discernable effect on the island nation of Tuvalu.
On the contrary. Tuvalu is better off without Saddam Hussein.
And without the Sultan of Oompapa Mau Mau.
I believe we have located a phenomenon, that we here at Balloon Juice have properly named after its Master, DougJ. The phenomenon will forever be known as DougJ’d, when someone seems very sincere and honest in a rightist approach to start, then the argument gets more and more sparse with less and less actual fact and more and more conjecture being used.
Because it’s commentary on what Tim F. wrote, note the quote from the Waas article about Hussein.
This is all about the justifications for war, and this appears to be evidence that Bush did in fact lie to us by claiming there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
And yes, I am fully aware that the Republican response will be: “Bush just said there were links. He didn’t say what those links were. Sure, maybe the links were actually Hussein trying to monitor Al Qaeda. That doesn’t make what Bush said a “lie”, because technically he was correct.”
But frankly I’m getting a little bit fucking tired of your political spin. We all know what Bush was trying to imply, and we know that was false.
I know. When I said, “had a hand in it” I meant the climate. I listed attributes to try to make it clear.
Tuvalu Thrives After Saddam Ouster
Freedom is on the march.
Just curious- other than the Atta/Prague link, which Cheney clearly believed for whatever reason, can you point to any other time when the administration directly linked 9/11 and Iraq.
And I don’t mean links to Iraq and terrorism in general, which no one but th real lunatics dispute. And I don’t mean links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
And I don;t mean your Kevin Drum BS ‘Look- he said Iraq and 9/11 in the same speech. He is trying to FOOL the American public!” I mean honest to goodness statements asserting a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
I’m afraid this is the kind of thinking that Democrats will have to get over before they can be let back in to the winner’s circle. Every politician has political spin. Imagine you are the President and you have to do something that will be extremely unpopular. You would spin it too. Yes, he knew that taking us to war in Iraq would be unpopular. I’m sorry, Saddam had to go.
Hey, I found the WMD! You know that mysterious X that appeared on Dick Cheney’s head? That X, my friends, marked the spot…
Didn’t someone already say thats a total bullshit argument, John? By playing to the fears of terrorism, by making bin Laden out to be the anti-Christ w/ a nuke, and then mentioning Iraq in the same mood and tenor, they did connect them. They did it masterfully, without ever actually saying it. The war on terror was originally the war on bin Laden. By moving the war on terror to Hussein’s doorstep, they linked them.
You’re playing with semantics, when poll after poll after poll shows people believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Thats not accidental, that was purposely done, with spectacular effect. My hat is off to the mastermind of that, as its incredibly difficult to pull off, and you always end up with apologists like yourself that defend the intent with heart while resigning your soul. You’re not a dumb man, John, why do you continue to play one on the internets?
BR: Why did he have to go? What was wrong with the stability and containment in the Middle East that diplomacy couldn’t continue to make inroads?
You have a simpleton argument, one that has no defense, has no accountability, has no reasoning. Good job.
Sorry for the delay. Had a meeting first thing this morning, but always happy to assist.
Come on, John, you know damn well what you’re skipping around with your challenge.
Any speech which rotates between Iraq, 9/11, al queda, Iraq, terrorists, 9/11, mushroom clouds, Iraq, rogue states, Iraq, al queda, 9/11, giving WMDs to terrorist, Iraq, etc… the implication is clear. They are smart enough not to actually lie in an area that can be proven, they just walked right along the line and threw out enough dots to let the audince (the public) connect them.
Stop being a jackass, you have enough people willing to play that role around here.
I am in London this week – this story is being covered on the TV news (even Sky I think which is a Murdoch station). So it is not just the left-leaning Independent that is talking about it.
That’s this crap argument the left keeps making — that Bush “misled” about the connection with Al Qaeda because he mentioned Iraq and Al Qaeda in the same speech. The truth is that the two are linked, not directly, but in terms of this being a larger war against Islamofascists.
Osama and Saddam are both Islamofascists. One is secular, the other a religious fanatic. But you can’t deny they are part of the same movement. And that is all Bush has ever said.
Sorry Anchient Purple, British papers don’t count with these clowns.
That’s our Cheney. Still beating a horse that’s been dead since 9/21.01.
John, can you explain why so many Americans thought that Iraq was involved in 911, around the time the war was begun?
Links between 911 and Iraq?
The blurb is almost 3 years old, yet the widespread impression was of a connection, and obviously the spuds were quite happy to wink their way around that impression, make full use of it, and then come back later and claim that they “never said it.” That’s the kind of people you are standing up for, John. People who pull that kind of shit, and then think it’s funny to joke about the missing WMDs after the war is underway and they turn out not to be there.
How do you think that misperception got out there? Who was looking into it, correcting it if necessary?
Why did Bush go from “Wanted Dead or Alive” to “I’m not really concerned about (OBL)” in a matter of weeks?
Are you going to stand there and argue that these guys were straight with the American people, John? Are you really going to just join the ranks of the Bushmonkeys? Cement the ranks of the Darrell-Stormy-Cole approach to this issue?
What do you think this is about? Blahsphere gotchas, or the breakdown of trust between Americans and their government? Do you even get this at all?
Never mind. I should know better than to try to argue with you but this point.
Hey, they’ve got their constitution online, how progressive is that? Too bad it’s not a wiki.
Gotta love their bill of rights:
That’s a fair question. *Would we*?
Let’s see. Over 2000 more U.S. service memebers would be alive. Over 15000 more U.S. service members would not be wounded. (In some cases they would not be crippled for life.) Over 100,000 more Iraqi civilians would not be dead.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in the federal budget would be available to spend on domestic needs or balancing the budget.
The U.S. might still enjoy the broad-based international support we had after 9/11, and we might have taken advantage of that support to actually catch Osama bin Laden. Since our military wouldn’t be overstretched and bogged down in Iraq, we would have it available for other pressing needs.
The prisoners being tortured in Iraqi prisons would be tortured by Saddam Hussein (known bad guy) rather than by U.S. forces. No comfort either way to the torture victims, but our moral stature would be a lot higher.
Iraqi society would still be under the thumb of a brutal dictator and the Iraqi economy would still be crippled by sanctions, but Iraqis wouldn’t face the dangers of an ongoing low-level civil war and the problems of a wrecked infrastructure. They wouldn’t have the hope (however faint) that they might have now of becoming a stable democracy. They also wouldn’t have had the imminent danger of descending into a full-fledged bloody civil war or becoming a repressive Iran-style theocracy.
Not quite a paradise (not that I’ve heard anyone suggest it might have been). Life seems to suck for most Iraqis under either scenario. Nevertheless, it seems like it might be quite a bit better than the current situation, especially for us.
Nothing like moving the goal posts, John.
What is the difference between this and saying, “Well, other than the knife sticking out of her back, do you have any other evidence that she was murdered?”
The blurb is Christian Science Monitor, March 2003.
You can bet your sweet ass that all the blahsphere right cares about now is whether they can score points against liberal bloggers in this contest. The war, the facts, the still-being-revealed depths of lying and omission from these assholes in the administration … all mean nothing. What matters is winning in the blogs and on cable tv.
Actually more like in the same sentence in the same speech repeatedly.
Donald Rumsfeld on the potential costs of a war with Iraq.
And of course, a more recent one that simply can’t be explained under any criteria.
It’s a pretty basic implied association.
This must be one of those “is is” arguments the right hates so much. A sociology 101 class will tell you how easy it is to make people see a non existant connection by using two words in a sentence over and over again.
You know whats really pathetic, when one has to troll one’s own blog to fire people up, then sit back and laugh while they pick apart your lame ass argument.
ppGaz and others have pointed that out in the past, and usually I just ignore the whole thing and move on.
Its easier than believing John is a total friggin tool.
J. Michael Neal
Linking Saddam to al Qaeda is linking Saddam to 9/11.
hmm.. Bush would still be popular… the midterm elections would be a republican sweep…
Hmmm … when I see Bush talking about the war in Iraq and start out with “On September 11, 2001 the war came to our shores …” (approximate quote from memory) and then go on to talk about operations in Iraq, I think that either he’s engaging in a blatant non sequitur, or he’s asserting a link. I suppose you could argue that he didn’t explicitly set forth the link. I wonder what the right-wing term for that sort of subtle parsing would be … “Clintonian”, perhaps?
BlogReader thinks the world is run according to the rules of Amateur Night at the Apollo and Dexter believes in a fairy called the “secular islamofascist”. I don’t even know where to start.
As close as I can figure out, BlogReader “might” be serious, but Dexter is just DougJ’ing the thread.
You can’t distinguish between a pathological liar and John Cole when you talk about disingenuous assholes.
Now John shouldn’t have any problem with me saying this, because I’m not directly linking him with lying assholes.
And if he does have a problem with me saying it, then he just overcame his own challenge, because:
Oh, I know that John put in the little caveat about not meaning links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but seeing as how in 2002 there was no distinction between 9/11 and Al Quaeda in the minds of the public, it’s an entirely bullshit caveat.
Thanks for the link Ancient Purple. The Guardian piece talks more about the link with Al Qaeda to me. It seems to be an opinion that Washington was looking for a link to 911 not an actual statement from Washington.
Excellent job making your point John S.
Then explain the Atta/Prague link?
Just the sort of example I wanted to look for but was too lazy…..
I think it’s incorrect to claim the administration explicitly linked Iraq/9-11/Al Qaeda, but it’s disingenuous to pretend they didn’t implicitly link Iraq/9-11/Al Qaeda.
That’s my take anyway..my mind could always be changed as I haven’t nearly read all there is out there regarding this whole debate.
Thanks, I think.
You’re right. I had glossed over that because of what John said. Sorry.
The real puzzler? How we can ferret out the real from the imaginary in here without ever meeting the subjects (DougJ, Dexter, Elenor ….) but the spuds, with their vast resources, couldn’t figure out truth from fiction when it came to intelligence about Iraq.
In the world of the SlamDunkers and the BringItOn’ers, details don’t matter.
Only later in the blogs will their cheermonkeys try to spin webs of conflicting details to hide the truth.
The point is, these assholes’ MAIN JOB is to be able to tell truth from fiction in these matters and take the time to get it right. Otherwise, why do we need them? We could hire twenty people from the homeowner’s association and they’d do a better job than these idiots.
ppGaz, I don’t know what you’re so upset about. You know what I think? We’ll never know the truth from reporters. Have you ever been personally involved with something that was later reported? Didn’t the reporter get several important facts wrong? Maybe put a spin on it?
Even making a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda is unjustified, as I understand it. (Great sourcing, I know, but still.) The one bit of clear-cut evidence that right-wingers use to show that Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism is his payment to the family of a Palestinian suicide bomber, right? A Palestinian suicide bomber who was not, as far as I know, a member of Al Qaeda. Everything we’ve heard about Saddam’s contact/link/connection/whatever to Al Qaeda is at best a dialogue relationship – they’ve considered working together, his people called their people, some Al Qaeda people live somewhere in Iraq – and it’s looking more and more like their relationship was adversarial.
So if you want to claim that Bush can honestly
sayimply that Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda even if not 9/11 itself, then you have to ignore stuff like, well, the article Tim cited that started this thread.
But when its something this major, taking up years of time and we have the chance to look back at the evidence that many believed at the time was ginned up, you can get a pretty good picture. Unfortunately, that picture paints a picture of an administration that lied to the American public at every turn and continues to do so with contempt.
Do you like being contemptually lied to?
One only needs to do some significant research on the terrorist group Ansar Al-Islam (AI) to find the ties to Saddam’s Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The questions that will come from the layman will be:
Q: Ansar Al-Islam is a Kurdish group. What do they have to do with Al-Qaeda? Why would Saddam deal with them if he wanted to maintain a secular dictatorship?
A: Even though Ansar Al-Islam was established by Kurdish Salafists who opposed the independent governments (KDP and PUK) in the Kurdish Autonomous region of Iraq, hundreds of Arabs and non-Arab muslims (Chechens, Afghanis, etc.) joined Ansar Al-Islam prior to 2003. Many of them trained in Al Qaeda camps and maintained Al Qaeda affiliations. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was also with Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq prior to 2003, and was subsequently named leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Is probably a duck.
Global Islamic terrorism is united by a common theme – Salafist/Wahabbi ideology, and/or hate for the West and the U.S. This cause draws Islamic terrorists together to fight jihad. Although many mujahedin who served together in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Bosnia went their separate ways after their jihad service was through, communication was maintained between them forming a kind of jihadist Good-ole-boy network. Some of those good-ole-boys found their way to Ansar Al-Islam. To say all of them were “Al Qaeda” would not be technically correct, but to say they weren’t absolutely influenced by Al-Qaeda would be naive. The collaboration between them can be as significant as joint planning and terrorist training; or as subtle as cooperating in the Hawala finance system used to clandestinely move money. Birds of a feather, flock together (what is it with these bird references?)
Al Qaeda’s presence was known to Saddam Hussein, and even though he wouldn’t tolerate them preaching their brand of fundamentalist Islam in Iraq proper, he did tolerate it in the Kurdish region. It is suspected that a reason for allowing Ansar Al-Islam (and by default Al-Qaeda) to operate was to destabilize the Kurdish governments in the North. Additionally, by funding and encouraging terrorist activities outside of Iraq by Ansar Al-Islam and Al-Qaeda, Saddam could attack his enemies through a surrogate while maintaining plausible deniability.
At a minimum, we have these reasons for ousting Saddam:
– Iraq was a safe haven for Islamic terrorists (including Al Qaeda members and affiliates); and Saddam’s people met with them on many occasions. If his people met with them, then we know Saddam was witting because Saddam was keenly in tune with threats to his power.
– Saddam openly supported Palestinian terrorism by funding the families of “martyrs” (suicide bombers) in Israel, so he certainly wasn’t “with us” in the war against terrorists.
– Saddam tried to kill President Bush’s father when he was in office.
– Iraq is a political center of gravity in the Middle East. If the U.S. wanted to seriously prosecute a war against Islamic terrorists, they would need to have a foothold there.
– Lastly, Saddam was a brutal tyrant and freeing the people of Iraq from his oppression would be the icing on the cake.
Sorry so lengthy. Saddam knew. The intelligence was good. Note to the left: Stop putting us through all this mindless silliness.
Early focus on Iraq?
Funny, I could’ve sworm we went to Afghanistan first—oh, you mean taking about contingencies, possible strategire…planning.
And there’s something wrong with this?
“We’ve just been attacked by Islamic extremists–quick, let’s deliberately ignore a dictator in the region who we’ve had previous trouble with until leftists tell us it’s okay to consider that particular stategy”
Just remember, George Bush is Evil. We must get him out of the White House. Campaign against Bush, campaign against Bush, campaign against….
I don’t need, or want, any advice from you about where we’ll “know the truth from.” You are close to the last “person” (or persona) on earth from whom I’d seek that kind of information.
As is George W Bush.
Lets see, jack’s argument is totally out there and useless with little to actually say.
TBone makes a much better argument, however starts mixing the timeline up so as to make it seem that Al-Queda had a significant presence in the Iraq area during Saddam’s rule, especially linking Zarqawi and Al-Islam to the pre-invasion timeframe. Unfortunately, he doesn’t back it up with data or links.
His assertion, however, that Saddam knew about Al-Islam is laughable, since it appears that these groups, pre-invasion, were supported by Iran and were situated in areas where Saddams rule was rarely felt.
I’d give links and everything, but that would be useful, and I don’t feel like it today.
Bush could clear a lot of this up by simply providing that breifing material to the Senate’s “Phase II” investigative committee.
But for some reason they refuse to.
And yet, none of these was offered as a reason to go to war in Iraq. Instead, the Bush administration used the spectre of a mushroom cloud and Saddam carousing with bin Laden.
I wonder why.
Good post TBone. I would only add that after 9/11 and Osama’s boasting of being the ‘strong horse’ vs. US being the weak one, that trash talking which emboldened his followers in the wake of 9/11 could not be allowed to stand. Like a newbie in prison who has to fight hard to avoid getting punk’d, we had to strike an Arab country (note Afghanistan is not arab) who had flaunted countless times, terms of surrender from the ’91 war. Had we allowed Saddam to continue to blatently violate his terms of surrender, and make no mistake, in any book, violation of terms of surrender = full justification to resume hostilities. Had we allowed Saddam to continue flaunting his surrender agreements poking his finger in our eye, it would have invited more attacks against us
Nice. How much control did he have over that region?
Bush most definitely mentioned Saddam’s ties to terrorism countless times, as well as his murderous oppression of the Iraqi people. I would dig up the speeches, but it would make you look like an even bigger dumbass than you already are
Here Ye, Here Ye! This thread has now been Darrell’d. Please vacate the area, as common sense and discussion will no longer be tolerated.
Since you obviously didn’t bother reading the article this thread is about, Durrell, the only one that looks like a dumbass is you (big surprise).
1. Bush linking Saddam to Al-Quaeda was a BOGUS claim.
2. The ‘murderous regime’ and ‘liberation of Iraqis’ were SECONDARY selling points (go ahead – dig up the speeches).
Keep on trucking, though, you kook.
Okay, now I am starting to believe that Darrell is DougJ or an imitator. “Secular” islamofacism. Good one!
On the other hand, he may be on to something. Perhaps we can generalize even furhter. Osama and Saddam are both Bad People. One is secular, the other a religious fanatic. But you can’t deny they are part of the same movement.
Yes! Bad People everywhere are part of the same movement! Whenever one Bad Person trespasses against you, it’s perfectly valid to carry out retribution against another Bad Person. It’s all the same movement after all. Think of how much easier this concept will make things for law enforcement!
Presumably you are too stupid know that you attributed a quote to me which I never wrote. Ever notice that the most stupid tend be leftists? Coincidence?
But of course! You need to have the “truth” spoon-fed to you by your own side before you’ll believe it. Then you can make up your own mind.
But *other than* Cheney’s claims about Atta/Prague, the speeches where Bush talked about Saddam and Al Qaeda in the same sentence, and the numerous other examples of the White House linking Al Qaeda and Saddam that have been cited in this thread, give me an example where the White House attempted to link Al Qaeda with 9/11.
That bolded bit was the biggest reason I never bought into the Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 chatter. I always thought that there was going to be no way in hell that Saddam was going to allow someone like bin Laden in his country or to have a large Al Qaeda presence in his country because he would recognize thit is was a direct and potent threat to his power/authority. If I was the Alpha dog in my country no way would I let another Alpha either in my terrority or have a foothold in my terrority.
While he may have sidled up to bin Laden some I figured he did it just test bin Laden’s strength and tweak the U.S.
I don’t knoe, there are a lot of dumb asses on your side and the New GOP sure has cornered the market on the biggest liars.
Not unreasonable, but you clarify better with this
“Tweak” though, would likely involve sharing chem and/or bio weapons, or intelligence used to attack us
Sharing any weapons would have been traceable. Saddam knew that he was on the chopping block, there would have been no reason to get caught, and that would have been the best way. That is, if he had bio or chem weapons, which we now know he didn’t.
But I’m curious, what kind of intelligence could Saddam have ever shared with terrorists on the USA? I think it would be the other way around, considering they have been living in the USA for years. Maybe he would have used his huge network of mini-Saddams? Or maybe his extensive satellite network capable of plucking voices out of thin air?
“Ever notice that the most stupid tend be leftists? Coincidence”
Which explains why the left predominates at Havard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia, and the right rules absolutely at Liberty and Bob Jones.
Tim F wrote:
Oh, wow, that’s a tough one Tim. Let’s see, history of developing and using WMDs, extensive ties and support of terrorists, and in particular, joint weapon development activities to Al queda
* scratching head * as to why in the world Bush would ever suspect Saddam of being involved in terrorism against the US.
It amazes me that everyone let John Cole set the terms for the debate about the Iraq-9/11 link.
He basically said, “Ok, other than Cheney saying that the operational leader of 9/11 met with Iraqi officials, when did the admininstration link Iraq and 9/11?” And he washed over Cheney’s statements by saying, “which Cheney obviously believed.”
Well, how about if we don’t buy into your terms for the debate? Because the prague lie is the big lie. And considering that the FBI investigated the claims and found that there was no proof the meeting happened but circumstancial evidence that it didn’t happen, then the burden of proof is on Cheney who kept on making the claims as if they undisputed facts.
I can go around repeating, “I know for a fact that US troops used White Phosphorus purposely against civilians” but if the official investigations and facts point otherwise then I’m a liar, aren’t I? I really think that it is only fair to hold the Vice President of the United States to the same standard that you would hold Armando and the Kossites.
Ironic use of a quote?
I’m afraid that this is the kind of thinking that is going to get Republicans ousted from power.
When you have a party who believes the American public is a bunch of ignorant maroons, you know… people don’t like that.
You should have told the truth. If you had, we probably would not have invaded Iraq.
But then the fact is, we didn’t need to.
Oh, maybe through Iraqi intelligence agents in europe and elsewhere. Given Saddam’s support of terrorists and the fact that he sheltered Abu Nidal and the 1993 WTC bomber, I’m sure he would never cooperate with terrorist to hurt us. Saddam was just a kindly old gentleman
Agreed. This is the only way for Republicans to win arguments.
The Prague/Atta thing was the Big Lie. It was spread all over the place by the wingnut media. Not just Cheney believed it… a whole lot of people believed it.
So we’re all just supposed to ignore that because it’s inconvenient to John Cole and his preconceived notions.
Keep digging, Darrell. Your argument just keeps getting more and more transparent each time you try to back it up
Tbone says, “Saddam openly supported Palestinian terrorism by funding the families of “martyrs” (suicide bombers) in Israel, so he certainly wasn’t “with us” in the war against terrorists.”
Why thank you Daniel Pipes! Who is “us” in this sentence?
But this certainly explains why Tbone went so light on UN resolutions in his list of rationales. For this creative evasion, Tbone wins a four-year scholarship to Jack Abramoff’s sniper school in the occupied territories.
you can say that again Steve
But Bush lied, right kooks?
Ooops, hit submit too quickly:
Your link, while credible in being a “document” is just a series of claims in an indictment with no evidence trail to support your view that Al-Queda and Iraq were working together on anything at all.
Keep believing useless information that seems to support your view of the situation and you’ll continue to be proven an idiot, Darrell.
Lies and/or incompentency, Darrell. Which one did you vote for?
Zarqawi was in the Kurdish-controlled north, in the no-fly zone. Saddam Hussien had no control over the region and wasn’t “allowing” him to stay there. The Bush administration passed on three chances to kill him before the invasion so they could continue making their bogus claim that Hussein was harboring terrorists.
But the people he was keeping in prison are certainly better off. Baghdad may still be a little dangerous (I’m not one of those nutters that says it is safer than most American cities), but it’s got to beat being locked up in a cell and tortured.
Sunnis demand Iraq torture probe, November 17, 2005:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Saddam’s people met with them on many occasions. If his people met with them, then we know Saddam was witting because Saddam was keenly in tune with threats to his power.
From the National Journal article:
I’m not sure if he is on the level of dishonesty that you are but I always love your little epithets. Lying and corruption are the new trade marks of the GOP and you have followed them down that path wit you Nikes on and a bag packed to catch the comet.
I sure as hell didn’t. I threw out his caveats on the grounds that they are bullshit – because they are.
You know, once you swallow the hook, its so dang hard to spit it out. With that first bite of the point, when you feel something “might” be wrong, you still believe you just ate a worm, you HAVE to believe it, because believing anything else would be giving up, and only cheese eatting surrender monkeys do that.
Even after the hook punctures multiple organs and the pain causes the brain to shut down, the belief that you were fooled into swallowing that worm shrouded hook is shoved deeper and deeper into the memory hole. You arn’t that dumb! You couldn’t have been sooooo stupid as to believe that was just a worm. It must be something else thats tearing you up, not that juicy delicious worm!
Let’s analyze your parade of quotes…
Quote #1: Wesley Clark commenting on the situation based on what the administration had released, unless you are contending that Clark posessing no official capacity in policy-making had access to the same intel as Bush.
Quote #2: Bill Clinton – four years before the invasion. Because I’m sure NOTHING changed over those four years (including Clinton bombing and crippling the remaining capability Saddam had left).
Quote #3: See Quote #2
Why, that’s a slam dunk case you have there, Darrell!
I still haven’t read anything here to convince me that Saddam didn’t have to go. (Oh no, I used a double negative, I wonder if ppGaz can ferret out the meaning?)
The way I see it, if we didn’t get rid of SH it would have been more useless resolutions from the UN. Fighting SH about letting in inspectors.
Wondering if he is dealing with OBL.
Wondering what he’s doing with the WMD. (Remember, no one said he didn’t have them until we went it)
I wonder if the left would have said Bush wasn’t doing enough to fight the war on Terror because SH is still in power?
Pretty much, yeah. Like others have said, it was very slick on the administration’s part. Nobody ever came out and bluntly said, “Saddam Hussein was at least partially responsible for 9/11,” but they endlessly made the assertion through conflation–conflating Saddam with al Qaida, conflating the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror, etc. Is it any wonder that Fox News viewers, being fed a steady diet of Bush speeches and cheerleading, believe in a Saddam-9/11 link at a higher rate than nonviewers of Fox News?
OK, BR, I’ll bite:
And what among those is a legal reason to go to war? What among those couldn’t have been worked out through active diplomacy? What amongst those wasn’t shot down before the actual invasion began?
Sorry, you’re trying to defend an unjust invasion that many knew was unjust and were told to shut up and sit down because they wern’t being “patriotic” enough.
Now that we’re finding out the administration peddled lies, you still won’t let go of that damn hook, will you? Even though its killing you, tearing you up from inside, its just a worm.
I wouldn’t even pretend to be able to catch those moving goalposts.
I don’t really think SH would have been honest. But “invasion” is a sort of active diplomacy.
I don’t remember anyone coming up with that except the anti-war group. But with their “die ins” and such, who could take them seriously?
This was written by Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector to Iraq during the Clinton years. I’m sure the wingnuts will be able to find all of the links that make the claim that Ritter is a treasonous bastich who worked for Saddam. I’ll say 3 things to that 1) Ritter has never been charged with a crime by the US much less treason 2) look at what has happened to every other critic of the administration and the WMD issue and 3) Scott Ritter has been proven to be right.
So, here in his own words, the 2002 editorial by former Chief Weapons inspector John Ritter which completely refutes any claims that “everyone who knew anything” believed that Saddam was armed. By the way – Ritter slams the Senate Kerry in specific by name in this article.
“Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Is Iraq a True Threat to the US?
by Scott Ritter
RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq.
Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so “… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.
I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.
While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq’s proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.
With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq’s VX nerve agent program – while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)
The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.
In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq’s continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness – or inability – to provide such evidence.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln.
War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation’s founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute.
Critical hearings should be convened by Congress that will ask the Bush administration tough questions about the true nature of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq. Congress should reject speculation and demand substantive answers. The logical forum for such a hearing would be the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
Unfortunately, the senators entrusted with such critical oversight responsibilities shy away from this task. This includes Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who should understand the realities and consequences of war and the absolute requirement for certainty before committing to a course of conflict.
The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible – the American people. “
Ahh, so you didn’t like the group. Of course the information was out there on the blogs if you had bothered to look. That’s where they found the stories burried on A33, right below the bakesale announcement, and put them out for people to see.
You seem easily swayed by spin. I helped protect the CNN Hollywodd building during the big protest and the “die in”s were a miniscule part of the whole thing. Even the Captain of the Hollywood division of the LAPD commented about how well the protest went off and about how the protest wasn’t nearly as bad as was expected and reported before hand.
You forgot about the Drudge “Ritter the child molester” bullshit story.
The New Republicans have no shame.
1) Your claims of a moving goal post are idiotic and are avoidance of the argument.
2) Invasion is not “active diplomacy”. Its anti-diplomacy.
3) Hans Blix and the IAEA proved all WMD claims by the US to be false in pre-invasion early reports. FBI/CIA and DIA investigations showed that relationships with Al-Queda and other fanatic groups was tenuous at best.
John Cole asks:
What’s the point of this? To prove that politicians can talk around a subject deftly and convince large numbers of people to support something while retaining “plausible deniability?” Or that many are great at being snake oil salesmen?
I mean really… What’s the point of this “technicality?”
Cheney clearly said on Meet the Press:
We don’t know? Followed by plethora of evidence intended to support the claim while attempting to state an ambiguous position?!? That’s bullshit and I think you know it Cole.
The correct answer is: We have not confirmed that connection without a doubt. Until we do, we have to assume there is none. Then leave out the rest of the “evidence” so as not to attempt to say “yes” while stating “we don’t know.”
An answer of “we don’t know” followed by a lot of hemming a hawing of “supporting evidence” is what a car salesman tells you when they are trying to sucker you into buying a lemon.
Plausible deniability. Bullshit to anyone who’s paying attention, and I’d hope your blog is intended for people who are attempting to pay attention.
Interesting piece Jorge. The only thing I would quibble with is Ritter’s assertion that Bush took to the war “lightly”. SH did want to destroy the US, you know. There was a want there.
I also wonder why Ritter didn’t say anything about the Oil for Food scandal? Since he knew so much about SH and all.
Scott Ritter is a liar and fraud. He’s had it in for Bush for years. It says a lot about the Dumbokrats that they keep company with vermin like him.
Coincidentally, that’s the verbatim assessment of what CIA head Tenet told Pres Bush regarding Saddam having WMD’s.
Bush Lied People Died!!!
Ok, I’m done with you. Thats just willfully stupid to assume you know what Saddam wanted.
Was it bullshit? I thought Ritter really did arrange to meet a teenage girl he had been chatting with over the internet at a fast food restaurant? Did that story turn out to be bogus?
What is a legal reason for war? I’m sure it’ll change constantly with this group. Bush’s reasons were laid out. But since no one believes/can stomach anything that Bush says, it would be pointless.
It’s a yawner. Later documents, seized after the fall of Baghdad, suggest while there was no “operational relationship (i.e. they didn’t blow things up together) there were some ties. For instance, Saddam fed, clothed, and housed one of the 1993 WTC attackers.
I keep hearing from Lefties how Saddam and bin Laden hated each other because one was “secular” (though Saddam began embracing Islamism later in his reign) and one was “religious” and thus could not possibly have worked together. Yet somehow Al Qaeda never attacked Iraq the way they did the Saudis, or Egyptians, or Indonesians, or countless others. Odd, that. It’s like they had a truce of convenience, or something… which is exactly what the later documents show.
Yes, it’s ridiculous to assume Saddam wanted to destroy the US just because he kept saying over and over how he wanted to destroy the US.
You mean that’s not even an assumption with you?? How could we even talk if we have to assume SH was a nice guy that just got a bad rap.
But fortunately now, thanks to Kos, we know Sadam did have massive stockpiles of white phosporus chemical weapons.
Glad we cleared that up.
Dumbest guy on the internet.
Duelfer Report Key findings
Arrghh … dammit. I meant to type “Dexter”, but I got confused scrolling up and down the thread. My apologies to Darrell.
I am fairly sure though, that my propensity for typos is not correlated with my political affiliation.
LOL! Good point, the kooks want to have it both ways. How honest of them
I was wondering when Darrell would trot that out again.
If you are “aspiring” to be as dumb as Davey you are doing a damn fine job of it.
Dumb and Dumber strike again. Check your E-mail guys, the administration is looking for morons who will swallow their shit hook line and sinker. You fit their needs like a glove.
Yes, what a coincidence that George “Pin a Freedom Medal on Me” Tenet told President Bush what he wanted to hear regarding Saddam having WMD after being sent the message that the intel the CIA had given stating there was no link between Saddam and Al-Quaeda was crap.
Now allow me to ask Dr. Stupid to decipher the rest of what you and TallDave are talking about.
Yes Mike, because the Duelfer reports assessment that, based on the networks of duel-use labs, testimony of scientists, and papers discovered.. and the fact that Saddam had a long history of manufacturing and using WMDs.
So in that context, it was the same as you ‘aspiring’ to be an astronaut.
You kooks have even a shred of evidence that Tenet, at the time, didn’t sincerely believe Saddam to have have WMDs? Anything at all? Because it makes so much sense that the head of the CIA would put his job and reputation in jeopardy by knowingly trumping up false or dubious allegations..
You’ve got a real bad infestation of moonbats here. You can’t open a post without them spilling all over the place spreading gods only know what diseases. I hear some of them STILL carry a virulent form of Marxism.
You could get hurt.
It might be a good idea to set up some traps over the holiday, bait ’em good–this ‘Bush Lied’ stuff works pretty good, but there’s gotta be some better bait out there. Get something real good.
Then, when the holiday’s over, just log into the blog real quiet, so you don’t startle them(they’ll be far too busy yelling anti-Bush slogans to really notice, but you cant be too careful). Then, grab a club and smash their heads in. Don’t worry, it won’t hurt them, they haven’t got any brains, after all. When you’re done, it’s possible you might have been able to get rid of most of them.
I actually feel sorry for you Darrell. It must be almost unbearable for you to see that the man you hold in such high esteem going down in flames. Not to mention watching your party fall apart at the seems with corruption charges.
I don’t blame you for grabbing onto anyhing that has a slim chance of vindicating you and your party. But it looks like it’s too late. The country is waking up and what they are finding is none to pleasant.
Wow. Things are crashing so hard around these people that now they want to resort to Fascism.
yeah, re-election prospects for Bush aren’t looking too good, are they?
Charges are one thing, actual guilt is another. A basic concept your side seems to struggle in comprehending. But let the chips fall where they may. If Repubs or Dems are guilty of corruption, kick their asses out of office and into jail
Speaking of Repubs ‘falling apart’ who does your side plan to run against Giuliana in ’08?
I’m sure Tenet didn’t think his job or reputation was on the line for trumping up intelligence because Bush had his back. But when the questions started coming down the pipe, magically, Tenet resigned and took himself out of the picture. Another coincidence? Perhaps.
Quite frankly, I don’t think anyone in Bush’s administration worries about their job or reputation for spouting bullshit as long as they know people like you are around to lap it up.
Keep hope alive baby. Scanlon has a list and the Justice Dept will be checking it more than twice.
That is my dream. The fundies will bolt en masse becasue they’re not fond of pro choice people who fuck their mistresses in one room while the wife is sleeping in another. We’ll be able to wrap Bernie Kerik around his neck. And his slimyness will be a boon for the party.
Those are all valid possibilities actually.. except that moderate swing-voters will swing hard toward Guiliana if they perceive the Dems are smearing him.. but in any event, Dems will nominate someone like Howard Dean and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Actually, it is my contention that many fundies will publicly decry fucking their mistresses in one room while the wife is sleeping in another while actually doing it in private.
I’m seeing someone more like Warner or Richardson as the nom. If Dean had run on his record as Governer of Vermont he would have been in far better shape. As much as the right wants to paint the dems as being owned by the far left it just aint so. Considering the fact that we have a pro life Minority leader in the Senate our party is somewhat more open than the GOP.
I don’t think it would be the dems who slime Rudy, more likely it will be the Dobson brigade. I think a Richardson/Rudy match-up would be a good race.
If we’re battling arcane hypothetical agaisnt arcane hypothetical, then I think you both make a mistake by discounting Barney the purple dinosaur. If Hillary gets caught in bed with Guiliani on election eve, and Alan Keyes sits out the race, and middle-schoolers nostalgic for simpler days with the glowing idiot box win the right to vote, then Barney will be unstoppable.
BTW, since when did the former NYC mayor’s name end in an ‘a’? Or is the GOP planning on running Giuliana Sgreda for president?
I don’t know about that. All those Dem congressmen and Senators, along with the head of the DNC going to special screening of Fahrenheit 911 with Michael Moore.. who was given Presidential box priveleges and special greetings from Jimmy Carter during the DNC.. Could have just been a tactical error, but it looks to me like the Dems are embracing the far left with open arms.
As for Reid being a moderate, he sure is pushing the far left meme alleging that the WH “manipulated” intelligence to “sell” us on the war in Iraq
That’s just sick. Get your mind out of the gutter.
Coming from a party who’s leader checked with Dobson and company before doing a “do over” on the SC nom, I’m not overly worried.
I guess between 52-58% of the country is now far left. In that case the election will be a cake walk.
Make that up to 64%.
Dobson has far less influence with the WH than you lefties allege. Any prominent speaker slot or special treatment at the RNC for Dobson or Pat Robertson?
Sorry for the typos
First – I love it. Ritter is accussed of being a liar with out dealing with the substance of his post. Which is the in 2002 the a former chief weapons inspector said Saddam had no WMD’s and that the intelligence being given by Bush had to be re-examined. 100% right.
Then there is the dulfer report which stated, “We couldn’t find anything but Saddam really wanted WMD’s.” We go to war based on guesses about what something we think someone might want?
As far as Darrel thinking Giulliani will get the nomination in 2008 – If the Republican party votes in an admitted adulterer that is pro choice, well, let’s just say that moral relativity will take on a new term. But it goes to show how out of touch Darrell is with the “reality based community.”
President Bush left exactly one vacation early. That was for the “emergency Schiavo” legislation signing. Saying that the Religious Right doesn’t have major influence is absurd on it’s face.
Talk about a tin ear.
That is not from the Onion.
First, I love it. You lefties are either too stupid or too ignorant to know that Scott Ritter directly contradicted his own claims back in 1998 before he went on Saddam’s payroll, telling us that Saddam likely retained everything from nerve gas to anthrax, and that Saddam “was not nearly disarmed”. Scott Ritter in 1998:
Ritter hasn’t provided any explanation for his change of mind and he damn sure hasn’t cited any new evidence. But none of these glaring inconsistencies raises red flags with you moonbats because you want so very badly for it to be true. ‘Reality-based community’ my ass
I know–and that is frightening.
This however is:
“Hope-based initiatives.” Hee!
How stupid are you? It’s obvious why you don’t trot out the rabid TheoFascists to speak at RNC the convention. That vote was in the bag already, the sheeple always vote as they’re told. Conventions are for gathering in swing votes. Besides, the WH wouldn’t dare risk giving Robertson the podium, who knows which assassinations he’d call for, and who knows if he’d blame the 9/11 attacks on the rainbow coalition again. Dobson and Robertson slither around behind the scenes. Their speeches are reserved for the fleecing the herd.
So here it is folks –
Scott Ritter shows the capacity of learning something between 1998 and 2002 and that somehow makes him a bad person to Bush supporters. I find it very telling that Bush supporters are stuck in 1998. Because that is when Bush and Company declared to the world that they were going to invade Iraq if they ever got in power. Unfortunately for them the world doesn’t stop revolving when they stop thinking.
So, never mind that Scott Ritter ws 100% correct in 2002. See, the facts don’t matter. What matters is how well you can slander Ritter. By the way Darrel, for a US citizen to go on Saddam’s payroll the way you describe is treason. Will you please show when and where Scott Ritter has ever been charged much less convicted of any such crimes? This is the place where you create a fairly loose series of ties between Ritter’s documentary on the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people, Ritter’s Iraqi partner and Hussein – none of which resulted in prosecution. All of which are designed to steer the conversation away from the substance of what Ritter was saying in 2002.
I challenge you to look at his 2002 statements and to deal with them according to how factually correct they are. Or do you really believe that people are dense enough to believe that every single critic of the Bush administrations policies on Iraq is somehow some immoral monster? From Ritter to Blix to Clark to O’Neil, they’ve all been slandered and accussed of horrible things. But what isn’t changing is that every day a new piece of information comes out showing that these men were right.
You might say the same thing about Plame’s group and what Card’s plane did…………..
Maybe they’re REAL ORGANZED!