The Clare Luce Democrats
How they're lying about "he lied us into war."

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.

What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war" with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves.

We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:
• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007495

I read this earlier today - it's an excellent commentary.

I also saw an interesting news story last night on this topic. The reason that the Part II report has been delayed is that the GOP committee members wanted to include a bunch of quotes from members of both parties that showed the prevalence of the belief that Saddam did have WMDs. The Dems didn't want their quotes to be in the permanent record of the report.

I would just like to simply state that there's a big difference between Iraq and Nazi Germany... further, i dont think "claire booth loose" speaks for anyone...

ohh so she ****s a rich important man...

The Clare Luce Democrats
How they're lying about "he lied us into war."

Thursday, November 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.

What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war" with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many taking their paranoia to their graves.

We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War. The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction, notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:
• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007495


You're so right! There were waffles of mass deliciousness, and every Dem on the face of the planet is now asking for syrup.

You're so right! There were waffles of mass deliciousness, and every Dem on the face of the planet is now asking for syrup.

:nice:

You're so right! There were waffles of mass deliciousness, and every Dem on the face of the planet is now asking for syrup.


Damn now I am hungry. I wonder why people think Bush is such a saint, really do think such perfection should be manifested in something like doves descending on him or the ground under his feet turning to (black) gold or something of similar magnitude.
All governments lie, this one just lied about something really big, but that isn't to say they are very unusual. You don't like the word "lie"? How about massaged the facts? Exaggerated? Feel better now?

The WMD that Reid is concerned about is Whiny Moronic Democrats.

Silly liberals.

The BA is either the dumbest administration, for going to war over things that they knew to be blatently wrong, and there incompitence is stagering.

Or, they intentionally manipulated facts to suite there benefit. Neocon sympathizers really only have these two choices.

I mean, surely the fact that nearly all top officials are members of PNAC, an organization that has for years openly stated its main goal is to take control of Iraq as a foothold for American forward basing, is coincidental with horribly flawed information regarding why we invaded Iraq.

As a Democrat I agree that the party is barking up the wrong tree on this one. The intelligence isues of WMD were widely held by the West, and Israel - which has the best intelligence of the ME bar none. BA certainly looked only at evidence they wanted to look at. The bigger issue I have with the Dems is their failure to mount any sort of anti war position because they were afraid of going against popular opinion, which Bush had co-opted with his "The terrorists are coming" propaganda, and which frankly was in it's usual "sheep" mentality. Now the Dems are trying to show themselves as more anti war because public opinion has shifted ( the public is great at shifting when faced with real time facts not when faced with talking heads), and so far it's not working.

They said they knew FOR A FACT that the weapons were there, and even knew where they were. Either theyre liars, or theyre fools. Either way, theyre perfect for the Republicans.

They said they knew FOR A FACT that the weapons were there, and even knew where they were. Either theyre liars, or theyre fools. Either way, theyre perfect for the Republicans.


I'm going to vote for a little of both here. I think that the BA had what they believed to be a reasonable expectation of finding those waffles....er....weapons, and ignored every bit of reliable evidence to the contrary and focused only on the questionable evidence supporting their conclusions.

I'm going to vote for a little of both here. I think that the BA had what they believed to be a reasonable expectation of finding those waffles....er....weapons, and ignored every bit of reliable evidence to the contrary and focused only on the questionable evidence supporting their conclusions.

We cannot forget that those yapping at the president's heels have the luxury of hindsight. They refuse to acknowledge the imprecise nature of the intelligence everyone had to go by, instead cherrypicking the pieces that support their world view and insisting that there can be no other conclusion. It's called Monday morning quarterbacking. Everyone thinks they know better than the people who had to make the decisions at the time, because everything's obvious in their minds. Before 9/11, we knew Osama wanted to attack the US, but didn't know for sure when or how. Most of the world believed that Saddam had WMD's, or was very close to having them, and that he would be very willing to use them against the West if he could. When Osama attacked, it became obvious that our intel was not the best, and there were critical flaws in it. In making the decision to go to war, the BA, including Congress, had to make a decision based on sometimes conflicting evidence. You always have to, as it is very rare that you instantly know everything about an enemy. I believe they were afraid to NOT act, because they saw what ignoring Osama got us.

We cannot forget that those yapping at the president's heels have the luxury of hindsight. They refuse to acknowledge the imprecise nature of the intelligence everyone had to go by, instead cherrypicking the pieces that support their world view and insisting that there can be no other conclusion. It's called Monday morning quarterbacking. Everyone thinks they know better than the people who had to make the decisions at the time, because everything's obvious in their minds. Before 9/11, we knew Osama wanted to attack the US, but didn't know for sure when or how. Most of the world believed that Saddam had WMD's, or was very close to having them, and that he would be very willing to use them against the West if he could. When Osama attacked, it became obvious that our intel was not the best, and there were critical flaws in it. In making the decision to go to war, the BA, including Congress, had to make a decision based on sometimes conflicting evidence. You always have to, as it is very rare that you instantly know everything about an enemy. I believe they were afraid to NOT act, because they saw what ignoring Osama got us.


Oh my God! Osama equals waffles of mass deliciousness in Iraq? Again with that old chestnut?

Are you somehow implying that the evidence needed to go to war, to commit US troops to a possible death sentence, to invade a soverign nation, TO COMMIT US BLOOD AND US FUNDS, need not be any better than a "good guess"? What happens next time when the guess is wrong? Oh, wait, what happens this time when the guess is wrong?

Do we just get to shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well, better luck next time?"

Oh my God! Osama equals waffles of mass deliciousness in Iraq? Again with that old chestnut?

Are you somehow implying that the evidence needed to go to war, to commit US troops to a possible death sentence, to invade a soverign nation, TO COMMIT US BLOOD AND US FUNDS, need not be any better than a "good guess"? What happens next time when the guess is wrong? Oh, wait, what happens this time when the guess is wrong?

Do we just get to shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well, better luck next time?"

I would challenge anyone, when presented with the set of circumstances that Bush was faced with, not knowing everything we now know, to make the 100% correct choice with absolute confidence they were right. Of course there was no direct link between Osama and Saddam, but at the time, who had confidence there wasn't, and was willing to stake the nation's safety on it?

I would challenge anyone, when presented with the set of circumstances that Bush was faced with, not knowing everything we now know, to make the 100% correct choice with absolute confidence they were right. Of course there was no direct link between Osama and Saddam, but at the time, who had confidence there wasn't, and was willing to stake the nation's safety on it?

I think that you are giving too much credit where credit is not at all due. The BA stated, immediatly after inaguration, 7 months before 9/11, that an invasion of Iraq was priority number one.

I don't think it was a matter of hedging bets and crossing fingers. It was, in my opinion, a foregone conclusion that we would, somehow, for whatever reason, invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and hopefully, tra-la-la, it will be all flowers and people rejoicing in the streets.


Now, the flowers are over, and the only people in the streets at this point are the one who want to blow us up. Did the BA drop the ball? I think even hard-core neocons would have to say yes, (hell, maybe even Bo), but did they do it with the best of intentions? If it really helps you to believe, "yes", then you go right ahead.

Bush should have left the weapons inspectors to continue doing their job, that would have been the intelligent thing to do.

Most of the world believed that Saddam had WMD's, or was very close to having them, and that he would be very willing to use them against the West if he could. When Osama attacked, it became obvious that our intel was not the best, and there were critical flaws in it. In making the decision to go to war, the BA, including Congress, had to make a decision based on sometimes conflicting evidence. You always have to, as it is very rare that you instantly know everything about an enemy. I believe they were afraid to NOT act, because they saw what ignoring Osama got us.

that would be an interesting point if the premise was true

many many knowledgeable insiders, intel professionals and policy analysts were questioning the veracity of the BA's claims as well as the need to invade back in 2002 and 2003 during the big "mushroom cloud" buildup.

We ingored Hans Blix report and bulldozed the opposition in the UN

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/arcattackindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1216muzzle.htm

The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA
By Robert Dreyfuss
American Prospect
December 16, 2002

Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq, according to former CIA officials. Key officials of the Department of Defense are also producing their own unverified intelligence reports to justify war. Much of the questionable information comes from Iraqi exiles long regarded with suspicion by CIA professionals. A parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation, in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, collects the information from the exiles and scours other raw intelligence for useful tidbits to make the case for preemptive war. These morsels sometimes go directly to the president.

The war over intelligence is a critical part of a broader offensive by the party of war within the Bush administration against virtually the entire expert Middle East establishment in the United States -- including State Department, Pentagon and CIA area specialists and leading military officers. Inside the foreign-policy, defense and intelligence agencies, nearly the whole rank and file, along with many senior officials, are opposed to invading Iraq. But because the less than two dozen neoconservatives leading the war party have the support of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, they are able to marginalize that opposition.

I think that you are giving too much credit where credit is not at all due. The BA stated, immediatly after inaguration, 7 months before 9/11, that an invasion of Iraq was priority number one.


I would REALLY like to see that quote in context, and to know who said it.

Don't hold your breath.

Bush should have left the weapons inspectors to continue doing their job, that would have been the intelligent thing to do.

That might have worked, had the inspectors really had a chance. Dispatch 100 people into the state of California, tell them to find a few weapons labs (some that were small enough to be mobile), let the government of California dictate where and when they can inspect, and see how long it takes them to find ANYTHING of significance. Saddam had played games with the inspectors every time they were in the country.

that would be an interesting point if the premise was true

many many knowledgeable insiders, intel professionals and policy analysts were questioning the veracity of the BA's claims as well as the need to invade back in 2002 and 2003 during the big "mushroom cloud" buildup.

We ingored Hans Blix report and bulldozed the opposition in the UN

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/arcattackindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1216muzzle.htm

You're making my point. There was conflicting information available at the time. Someone had to decide, and we had just been attacked by an entity we refused to take seriously.

I would REALLY like to see that quote in context, and to know who said it.


Okay, I'll tell you what I did....start, (google, of course), with shock and awe, search within using 9/11, then Saddam, then Osama, 4th page, internal documents.

Try it! It's fun!

Okay, I'll tell you what I did....start, (google, of course), with shock and awe, search within using 9/11, then Saddam, then Osama, 4th page, internal documents.

Try it! It's fun!

Was that on the World Socialist Web Site, or the discussion of the fictional movie Fahrenheit 9/11?

Was that on the World Socialist Web Site, or the discussion of the fictional movie Fahrenheit 9/11?




F*ck off. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/)

edit to add: Y'know what, I shouldn't have said that. Sorry, man, we're trying to have a level of discourse here and I came off as a real bitch.

That might have worked, had the inspectors really had a chance. Dispatch 100 people into the state of California, tell them to find a few weapons labs (some that were small enough to be mobile), let the government of California dictate where and when they can inspect, and see how long it takes them to find ANYTHING of significance. Saddam had played games with the inspectors every time they were in the country.

The scenario is incomplete. It requires the following:

Stuff the law enforcement, district attorney offices, and judiciary with people who've been bribed by Saddam so that any evidence is ignored. Bribe legislators so that they revise the law to keep giving Saddam one more chance (ad infinitum).

F*ck off. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/)

edit to add: Y'know what, I shouldn't have said that. Sorry, man, we're trying to have a level of discourse here and I came off as a real bitch.

You surprised me, all right. However, I do take exception to the idea the O'Neil's book equates to what you claimed, namely that the BA announced immediately after the inauguration that invading Iraq was priority 1. We have nothing but his word that it ever happened.

You surprised me, all right. However, I do take exception to the idea the O'Neil's book equates to what you claimed, namely that the BA announced immediately after the inauguration that invading Iraq was priority 1. We have nothing but his word that it ever happened.


Keep googling, man, O'Neil is not the only one to claim this.

Hadit, there is a flaw in one aspect of your thinking: Why was the BA presenting evidence from 1991? Why were they ignoring scientific counter-evidence that said there were absolute impossibilities in there argument? Where did the BA get there hands on detailed drawings of mobile chemical lab, that it couldnt get the slightest real picture of it? Why did they ignore blatent truths of what the UN weapons inspectors told them about much of there information? Where did they get information that said the exact amounts and locations of Iraq's chemical weapons?

All questions that build a strong case against the ethics and reasons of the BA. You must keep in mind: Many in the world believed the case of the BA, because the BA built it. The BA was extremely conflicted---The two non-PNAC members of the BA (Powell and Rice) said in early 2001 that Iraq was not a threat, and was absolutly not capable of obtaining WMD due to its heavy restrictions and heavy observations of all things Saddam did. The notion that it suddenly came to light that Saddam somehow obtained these amazing amounts of chemicals that the BA say's it did, raised eyebrows from everyone because of the absolutly improvability (and impossibility in many cases as the scientific community argued).

Bush should have left the weapons inspectors to continue doing their job, that would have been the intelligent thing to do.
That was not allowed until 100000 US lives outside the Iraq coast.

The bigger issue I have with the Dems is their failure to mount any sort of anti war position because they were afraid of going against popular opinion, which Bush had co-opted with his "The terrorists are coming" propaganda,
They came to NY, Madird and London and also in Iraq.

You're making my point. There was conflicting information available at the time. Someone had to decide, and we had just been attacked by an entity we refused to take seriously.

They were taken seriously ... before Bush was elected ... but anti-terrorism was a Clinton priority so naturally it fell to about #56,934 on the BA list right after patching the potholes in Gettysburg national monument until 9-11

So instead of focusing on Bin Laden, we barely had boots on the ground in Afghanistan when they had the plans underway to take out Saddam.

Now given lots of choices for intel, they cherry picked the tidbits that fit the agenda. They bought lock-stock and barrel completely bogus intel from slimy treasonous Iraq presidential wannabe Ahmed Chalabi who not only was (is) in-bed with the Iranians, he was well known in the CIA as untrustworthy, but he was A-OK with the PNAC-WHIG crowd at the BA.

The French and the Italians knew the yellowcake story was a hoax, the french controlled the mining in Niger and would have known if the carefully controlled ore was going anywhere except to their refineries.

The UN was in Iraq for years doing weapons inspections and we rejected Hans Blix reports in favor of the worst case scenarios dreamt up by the WHIGs, then we turn around and shove that story down the UNs collective throat by Powell who looks back at that as the low point of his professional life.

Slowly but surely the dirty truths about the run-up and sales job for Iraq will be revealed

They were taken seriously ... before Bush was elected ... but anti-terrorism was a Clinton priority so naturally it fell to about #56,934 on the BA list right after patching the potholes in Gettysburg national monument until 9-11


You're can't seriously believe the Clinton regime made anti-terrorism a priority. It was party time in the White House, and that was Clinton's biggest failure. He was a small president for small times, and terrorism was something best ignored.

You're can't seriously believe the Clinton regime made anti-terrorism a priority. It was party time in the White House, and that was Clinton's biggest failure. He was a small president for small times, and terrorism was something best ignored.

You mean like when he personally told GWB that he should look out for Osama Bin laden? When the GWB's personal probe into clintons policys, came back regarding clintons terrorism policys as 'excellent, except he seems a bit obsessed with this bin laden charecter'. Or the part where Clinton created several new anti-terrorist organizations, while tripling the anti-terrorism budgets in the FBI? Which, BTW Bush cut the moment he stepped into office,disbanding Clintons organizations, and formulating one under Cheney that never met before september 11? How about Sandy Berger telling Rice that Osama Bin Laden should be her biggest concern?

Im curious. Which of these constitutes Clinton ignoring, and Bush taking the initiative?

You mean like when he personally told GWB that he should look out for Osama Bin laden? When the GWB's personal probe into clintons policys, came back regarding clintons terrorism policys as 'excellent, except he seems a bit obsessed with this bin laden charecter'. Or the part where Clinton created several new anti-terrorist organizations, while tripling the anti-terrorism budgets in the FBI? Which, BTW Bush cut the moment he stepped into office,disbanding Clintons organizations, and formulating one under Cheney that never met before september 11? How about Sandy Berger telling Rice that Osama Bin Laden should be her biggest concern?

Im curious. Which of these constitutes Clinton ignoring, and Bush taking the initiative?

The one where Clinton met with his CIA director, what, twice? And where the burgler stole and destroyed those top secret documents, after which Clinton, surprise, didn't get embarrassed by the 9/11 investigation. And the one where Jamie Gorelick strengthened the wall that prevented intelligence sharing that may have busted up the 9/11 plot, then got on the panel to cover herself and the CA. And the one where the WTC was bombed, we caught a few underlings and dropped the whole thing instead of working up the chain. The one where Clinton was offered Osama on a silver platter multiple times, yet refused to take him. Those things all tell me that Clinton didn't make anti-terrorism a top priority.

The one where Clinton met with his CIA director, what, twice? And where the burgler stole and destroyed those top secret documents, after which Clinton, surprise, didn't get embarrassed by the 9/11 investigation.

Clintons policy's were wide opend for investiation in the 9/11 comission. However, the BA closed its doors.... hmm... Wonder why hadit? Of course not.

And the one where Jamie Gorelick strengthened the wall that prevented intelligence sharing that may have busted up the 9/11 plot, then got on the panel to cover herself and the CA.

You know, I find that surprising. Considering members of the BA, Bush himself, were handed numerous memos, two of which were titled 'Bin Laden determined to strike the US' and one regarding the use of Planes in terrorist plots. The BA's answer? They get info like that all the time. Who cares.


And the one where the WTC was bombed, we caught a few underlings and dropped the whole thing instead of working up the chain.

Yea, we caught some underlings, and increased security and our anti-terrorism budget and network. As proven, war is not the answer as it has only vastly increased the global threat of major terrorist strikes.


The one where Clinton was offered Osama on a silver platter multiple times, yet refused to take him. Those things all tell me that Clinton didn't make anti-terrorism a top priority.

The information regarding Osama came from a source that the CIA unanimuosly dubbed extremely unreliable. The equivilient of me calling up the CIA today and telling them Osama's in England, declare war on them. That is perhaps the most absurd argument ever.


BTW, you completly disregarded

A.Clintons increase in anti-terrorist organizations as opposed to Bush's decrease

B. Clintons increase in anti-terrorist funding as opposed to Bush's slashing.

C. Clinton and Berger's warnings about Bin Laden, the memos that came about Bin Laden, and Bush, himself, saying he didnt remember reading the memos.

Yea. I wonder who's more concerned.

Clintons policy's were wide opend for investiation in the 9/11 comission. However, the BA closed its doors.... hmm... Wonder why hadit? Of course not.



You know, I find that surprising. Considering members of the BA, Bush himself, were handed numerous memos, two of which were titled 'Bin Laden determined to strike the US' and one regarding the use of Planes in terrorist plots. The BA's answer? They get info like that all the time. Who cares.



Yea, we caught some underlings, and increased security and our anti-terrorism budget and network. As proven, war is not the answer as it has only vastly increased the global threat of major terrorist strikes.



The information regarding Osama came from a source that the CIA unanimuosly dubbed extremely unreliable. The equivilient of me calling up the CIA today and telling them Osama's in England, declare war on them. That is perhaps the most absurd argument ever.


BTW, you completly disregarded

A.Clintons increase in anti-terrorist organizations as opposed to Bush's decrease

B. Clintons increase in anti-terrorist funding as opposed to Bush's slashing.

C. Clinton and Berger's warnings about Bin Laden, the memos that came about Bin Laden, and Bush, himself, saying he didnt remember reading the memos.

Yea. I wonder who's more concerned.

Comparing Clinton's response to Bush's only deflects from the central question. It is not who was more concerned. The question is why Bill Clinton didn't take terrorism seriously. He had 8 years, during which we were attacked multiple times, here and abroad. He did nothing to indicate to the American people that we were in fact facing a ruthless enemy, determined to destroy as many of us as possible. He did nothing to rouse the country and alert us to the danger we all faced. He partied his time away while in office, and will forever be known as the president who fooled around with the intern while danger gathered.

Comparing Clinton's response to Bush's only deflects from the central question. It is not who was more concerned. The question is why Bill Clinton didn't take terrorism seriously.

And again, as terrorism was a fairly fresh threat as the teachings of Reagan began to turn against the US, Clinton did take terrorism very seriously. As I said, he created numerous organizations, increased funding, and kept a strict eye on Osama in ways we may never know about. Bush on the otherhand doesnt recall briefs handed to him regarding Bin Laden, and terrorists attacking by plane barely months before 9/11. Either way, you certainly cant make a realistic judgment call saying 'Oh, Bush cared so much more then clinton'... No, Bush cared because it was his meal ticket to do anything he wanted in his administration. With it he pushed threw PNAC, and war with Iraq. War with Afghanastan was a given, but he managed to butcher that letting most of Al Qeada and Osama get away, now saying that he doesnt matter.

He had 8 years, during which we were attacked multiple times, here and abroad.

And what were the deathrates of Clintons 'multiple' mistakes of dealing with terrorism as it started, as opposed to Bushes 1? Be realistic.

He did nothing to indicate to the American people that we were in fact facing a ruthless enemy, determined to destroy as many of us as possible.

Because he was, unlike Bush, defending us. He wasnt lashing out at any potential enemy, which will only in the end lead to our own destruction.


He did nothing to rouse the country and alert us to the danger we all faced. He partied his time away while in office, and will forever be known as the president who fooled around with the intern while danger gathered.

OMG.... Its crap like this that makes republican 'Clintons suck!' lines unbelievable... Alls you can do is repeat lines despite the fact that im horribly slashing your argument to bits with the simple fact that

CLINTON DRASTICALY INCREASED FUNDING TO ANTI-TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN THE US. HE CREATED MULTIPLE NEW ANTI-TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE CIA, NSA, AND FBI. BUSH CUT DOZENS OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, THE US ANTI-TERRORIST BUDGET IN THE FBI, CIA AND NSA, DIDNT MENTION TERROR AT ALL IN PRE-911. THE ONLY REASON HE CARED AT ALL ABOUT TERRORISM, IS BECAUSE 9/11 HAPPEND. BEFORE THEN, HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION WERE OBLIVIOUS, NEVER MENTIONING BIN LADEN, NEVER MENTIONING AL QEADA, AND ONLY REFERRING TO IRAQ AS HARMLESS AND CRIPPLED BY TRADING LAWS...

k, hadit? Bush didnt give about terrorism then. Only after a carefree 3 months trotting the US promoting himself, when the US was attacked did Bush realize that terrorism was to be taken seriously. But instead of taking it seriously and going after Saudi Arabia, who housed 15 of the 19 hijackers and is notorious for funding and training such groups, he gets them all out of the country. He sent all of Bin Ladens relatives out of the country, instead of investigating them as to where Osama was (despite the fact that we knew it was him). Oh yes, Bush cared greatly about terrorism. He just wasnt terribly concerned about Bin Laden, ever, just like he isnt concerned about him now.

"Party years" indeed hadit...

How about some history

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996
Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or WAV sound)

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Whats more:

CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".

http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/sk1874c.cgi/1908/zgFFFFFFx000000l000000v000000k000000/RETURN-CODE

Whats more: Lies circulated about Clintons 'inabality to capture those responsible for terrorist attacks'

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

And again, as terrorism was a fairly fresh threat as the teachings of Reagan began to turn against the US, Clinton did take terrorism very seriously. As I said, he created numerous organizations, increased funding, and kept a strict eye on Osama in ways we may never know about. Bush on the otherhand doesnt recall briefs handed to him regarding Bin Laden, and terrorists attacking by plane barely months before 9/11. Either way, you certainly cant make a realistic judgment call saying 'Oh, Bush cared so much more then clinton'... No, Bush cared because it was his meal ticket to do anything he wanted in his administration. With it he pushed threw PNAC, and war with Iraq. War with Afghanastan was a given, but he managed to butcher that letting most of Al Qeada and Osama get away, now saying that he doesnt matter.


Again, more about Bush than Clinton.


And what were the deathrates of Clintons 'multiple' mistakes of dealing with terrorism as it started, as opposed to Bushes 1? Be realistic.


Clinton failed to deal firmly with terrorism. Osama cited several instances where Clinton's actions convinced him that the US would not fight when attacked.


Because he was, unlike Bush, defending us. He wasnt lashing out at any potential enemy, which will only in the end lead to our own destruction.


Again, bringing in Bush. Clinton didn't defend us very well, as the attacks increased, culminating in 9/11.


OMG.... Its crap like this that makes republican 'Clintons suck!' lines unbelievable... Alls you can do is repeat lines despite the fact that im horribly slashing your argument to bits with the simple fact that

CLINTON DRASTICALY INCREASED FUNDING TO ANTI-TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN THE US. HE CREATED MULTIPLE NEW ANTI-TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE CIA, NSA, AND FBI. BUSH CUT DOZENS OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, THE US ANTI-TERRORIST BUDGET IN THE FBI, CIA AND NSA, DIDNT MENTION TERROR AT ALL IN PRE-911. THE ONLY REASON HE CARED AT ALL ABOUT TERRORISM, IS BECAUSE 9/11 HAPPEND. BEFORE THEN, HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION WERE OBLIVIOUS, NEVER MENTIONING BIN LADEN, NEVER MENTIONING AL QEADA, AND ONLY REFERRING TO IRAQ AS HARMLESS AND CRIPPLED BY TRADING LAWS...

k, hadit? Bush didnt give about terrorism then. Only after a carefree 3 months trotting the US promoting himself, when the US was attacked did Bush realize that terrorism was to be taken seriously. But instead of taking it seriously and going after Saudi Arabia, who housed 15 of the 19 hijackers and is notorious for funding and training such groups, he gets them all out of the country. He sent all of Bin Ladens relatives out of the country, instead of investigating them as to where Osama was (despite the fact that we knew it was him). Oh yes, Bush cared greatly about terrorism. He just wasnt terribly concerned about Bin Laden, ever, just like he isnt concerned about him now.

Again, the obsession with Bush. He had nothing to do with Clinton's partying in the white house.

"Party years" indeed hadit...

How about some history



http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Whats more:

CLINTON developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.


Actually, he didn't. A lucky customs officer stopped that one.


Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.


What is this guy, Batman? Sources on those.


Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).


Completely ineffective strikes that did nothing to disrupt Al Qaeda and only made the Arabs mad at us.


Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.


Again, only the ones that actually pulled it off. The organization remained intact.


Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.


You really don't claim that he was completely successful, do you? I mean, there's only so much attention you can pay to military engagements when the pizza delivery girl is at the door.


Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.


And prevented intelligence sharing between the FBI and CIA.


Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.


Sources.


Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
Of Clinton's efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".
Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden.
Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort".

http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/sk1874c.cgi/1908/zgFFFFFFx000000l000000v000000k000000/RETURN-CODE

Whats more: Lies circulated about Clintons 'inabality to capture those responsible for terrorist attacks'

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Did Bill Clinton even ONCE go to the American people and make his case that we faced an enemy that was determined to kill as many of us as they could, and try to put pressure on Congress to move faster? No. Did he ever treat terrorism as a war for survival instead of a law enforcement issue? No. He was wrong about that. I am glad Clinton did what he did, but he was more concerned with what the interns had on than where we would get hit next. He cut and run in Somalia, emboldening Osama. He just didn't have the fortitude to deal with the threat head on and stamp it out.

Again, bringing in Bush. Clinton didn't defend us very well, as the attacks increased, culminating in 9/11.

Wow. You have absolutly, 0 clue what your talking about. You just have no idea. Arguments mean nothing to you. You have Clinton pre-judged to a tee--Reagans own security advisors praise means nothing to you. Hell, Even the BA's own praise of his policys (and then 'well, whatever, start slashing there budgets) isnt good enough for you to admit that Clinton did a great job with anti-terrorism, and only when the BA stepped in and disregarded 3 different blatent memos, talking about Osama, Al Qaeda, and Planes did anything happen.

Did Bill Clinton even ONCE go to the American people and make his case that we faced an enemy that was determined to kill as many of us as they could, and try to put pressure on Congress to move faster? No.

Wow... This is just sad.... *sigh* Fine, Ill repost this.

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.


http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” - George W. Bush




Guess the British intelligence couldn't narrow it down to specific countries in Africa huh. I wonder why. :hmms:

One would think that an average journalist (preferably American or British) considering that we were on the verge of war, should've been able to easily dissect that statement made by Bush in the SOTU.

People, people who are knowledged about this are stunned at how much was dissected, and how little of it the media covered. The most stunningly little-acknowledged fact is the mass criticsm from the scientific community, regarding Bush's fairytale of Saddam's creation of chemical weapons out of such virtually impossible items.

People, people who are knowledged about this are stunned at how much was dissected, and how little of it the media covered. The most stunningly little-acknowledged fact is the mass criticsm from the scientific community, regarding Bush's fairytale of Saddam's creation of chemical weapons out of such virtually impossible items.

So true.

Wow... This is just sad.... *sigh* Fine, Ill repost this.



http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Oh, my, I stand corrected. He made one announcement. He will not be remembered as a strong advocate of anti-terrorism. He will be remembered for partying the time away.

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” - George W. Bush




Guess the British intelligence couldn't narrow it down to specific countries in Africa huh. I wonder why. :hmms:

One would think that an average journalist (preferably American or British) considering that we were on the verge of war, should've been able to easily dissect that statement made by Bush in the SOTU.

That statement was true, and the source stands by it.

Sodamn Insane wanted Iran (he doesn't like them, ya see) to believe he had WMDs and he wanted the West to believe he didn't have them. President Clinton and all of these democrats during the Clinton admin. said he had them. The UN sanctions against Iraq said he had them (if he didn't have them, no sanctions - therefore pesky logic says the UN thought he had them).

That statement was true, and the source stands by it.

You missed my point though.

You missed my point though.

Noted.

Noted.


Would you like for me to go over it with you?

So true.
And all those Kurds, they died from sniffing Cool Whip cans.

The BA is either the dumbest administration, for going to war over things that they knew to be blatently wrong, and there incompitence is stagering.

Or, they intentionally manipulated facts to suite there benefit. Neocon sympathizers really only have these two choices.

I mean, surely the fact that nearly all top officials are members of PNAC, an organization that has for years openly stated its main goal is to take control of Iraq as a foothold for American forward basing, is coincidental with horribly flawed information regarding why we invaded Iraq.
Well said, Swiftsloth! :nice:
Of course there was no direct link between Osama and Saddam, but at the time, who had confidence there wasn't, and was willing to stake the nation's safety on it?
There was plenty of evidence that there was no link between OBL and SH., but it was ignored by the BA.
Bush should have left the weapons inspectors to continue doing their job, that would have been the intelligent thing to do.
True! But Bush has never done the intelligent thing.

That statement was true, and the source stands by it.

Sorry, can you expound on this? As I understand it, it goes something like this:

"In February 1999, Wissam Al Zahawie, the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See in Rome, set off on a series of diplomatic visits to several African countries, including Niger. This trip triggered the allegations that Iraq was trying to buy tons of uranium from Niger -- a claim which could yet prove the most damning evidence that the British government exaggerated intelligence to bolster its case for war on Iraq .

Some time after the Iraqi ambassador's trip to Niger, the Italian intelligence service came into possession of forged documents claiming Saddam was after Niger uranium. We now know these documents were passed to MI6 and then handed by the British to the office of US Vice-President Dick Cheney. The forgeries were then used by Bush and Blair to scare the British and Americans and to box both Congress and Parliament into supporting war. There are an increasing number of claims suggesting Bush and Blair knew these documents were forged when they used them as evidence that Saddam Hussein was putting together a nuclear arsenal.

The truth behind claims that Blair's government 'sexed up' intelligence reports that Saddam could mobilise weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes may never be known, but the Niger forgeries lie like a smoking gun covered in Britain's fingerprints. At some point Tony Blair is going to have to answer questions about what the British government and MI6 were up to.

The fact that the documents were forged matters less than the purpose to which they were put. On September 24, 2002, Blair's dossier Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government said: 'There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme of nuclear power plants and, therefore, has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.'

On January 28, 2003, Bush, in his State of the Union address, said: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' Bush didn't stop there -- later, there was talk of 'mushroom clouds' unless Saddam was taken out.

It was the International Atomic Energy Agency which rumbled the documents as forgeries -- a task that their experts were able to complete in just a matter of hours. Here are just four examples of how easy it was to work out the documents were, as one intelligence source said, 'total bull****':


* In a letter from the President of Niger a reference is made to the constitution of May 12, 1965 -- but the constitution is dated August 9, 1999;

* Another letter purports to be signed by Niger's foreign minister, but bears the signature of Allele Elhadj Habibou, the minister between 1988-89;

* An obsolete letterhead is used, including the wrong symbol for the presidency, and references to state bodies such as the Supreme Military Council and the Council for National Reconciliation are incompatible with the letter's date;

It wasn't until just before the war began that Mohamed El Baradei, IAEA director-general, told the UN Security Council on March 7 that his team and 'outside experts', had worked out that ' these documents ... are in fact not authentic'.

Exactly who was behind the forgeries is unclear but the finger of suspicion points towards some disaffected or bribed official in Niger . What looks more certain is that Bush and Blair were warned the documents were rubbish before El Baradei told the UN. The IAEA says it sought evidence about the Niger connection from Britain and America immediately after the US issued a state department factsheet on December 19, 2002, headed 'Illustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council'. In it, under the heading 'Nuclear Weapons', it reads: 'The declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?' But the IAEA, despite repeatedly begging the UK and US for access to papers, wasn't given any documents until February 2003 -- six weeks later.

Well before the IAEA rained on the pro-war parade, the CIA was telling its masters in the Bush administration that the British intelligence on the Niger connection was nonsense. Vice-President Dick Cheney's office received the forged evidence in 2002 -- before Bush's State of the Union address on January 28 this year -- and passed it to the CIA. The CIA then dispatched former US ambassador Joseph C Wilson to Africa to check out the claim. Wilson came back saying the intelligence was unreliable and the CIA passed Cheney the assessment. Nevertheless, Bush kept the claim in his speech, and Cheney said, just days before the war began in March, that: 'We know (Saddam's) been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' He also poured scorn on the IAEA for saying the documents were forged. 'I think Mr El Baradei frankly is wrong ... (The IAEA) has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past.'"

http://www.sundayherald.com/print35264

What "source" is still standing by this nonsense? Do you have specifics? Is it this?

"A political scandal in Italy, involving allegations that Italian secret agents followed a shady intelligence operator around London as he headed for a meeting with MI6, has called into question one of Britain's last justifications for the invasion of Iraq.

Silvio Berlusconi's government has admitted that agents of Sismi, the Italian military intelligence service, tracked the movements in London of Rocco Martino, an ex-informer, in the autumn of 2001. It did not say whether the British authorities were informed, but admitted that Mr Martino was also followed by Sismi in the US, without the knowledge of the FBI.

According to Italian press reports, however, Mr Martino had a meeting with the Secret Intelligence Service in London. A year later, the 66-year-old, who made a living peddling information to intelligence services and journalists, was the source of forged documents purporting to show that Saddam Hussein was buying uranium for nuclear weapons from the west African state of Niger.

The documents were used by the US to make its case for war. President George Bush cited the uranium claim in his State of the Union address in January 2003. But as soon as the US passed the documents to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, it denounced them as obvious fakes. The ensuing controversy in America has now resulted in charges against a top former White House official, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and a continuing investigation into Karl Rove, Mr Bush's closest aide.

But while the US has admitted the uranium claim should never have been made, Tony Blair's government, which first made the allegation public in its September 2002 dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, still insists it was supported by "separate intelligence".

Britain has always refused to disclose the nature of this information, even to the IAEA, because it was provided by a "foreign service".

In October 2001, Sismi sent its British and American counterparts a dossier on alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Whether Rocco Martino delivered it to MI6 headquarters in Vauxhall Cross, as some Italian reports claim, is not clear.

But Vincent Cannistraro, a senior former official with the CIA, told The Independent on Sunday that "some of the text of the 2001 report showed up in the later [forged] documents.

"There seems to be a common source ... it seems that the [separate] British intelligence came from the same false and discredited source.""

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article325155.ece

It's clear what's going on here; despite its lies and duplicity being exposed, despite the IAEA being able to discern the documents as fakes within an hour, you still side with the claim?

Geez...Rather's cooked up ANG documents were spotted by the Bushistas in nanoseconds...one would think the same sleuthing prowess would knock off these hopelessly bad Niger forgeries in femtoseconds.

But you don't. So what else is there? What do you know that no one else does?

Look at what Bush said carefully, then try again. Bush made the ultimate covering statement. It was Clintonian in its ingeniousness. He said "the British government" had discovered. That statement IS true, whether the Brits were right or not is immaterial. It shifts the responsibility to the British, leaving Bush unscathed if Saddam had NOT bought uranium. Now, as to the source standing by their statement, where in your liberal web-site diatribe does it say the British government (Bush's source for the statement) retracts their position? It doesn't. In fact, you even highlighted in red the part that says they still maintain it's true. Your own source contradicts you.

Look at what Bush said carefully, then try again.

Let me remind you of what you said:

"That statement was true, and the source stands by it."

You assert unequivocably that it's true because "the source" stands behind it. My post showed "the source" to be full of ****. I highlighted what I did to see if that is what you meant by the source standing behind it... If you continued to read, you'd find that it was debunked.

Do you still believe what Curveball said? What Chalabi said? Even if they say "No no, it's true...I promise!"?

Bush made the ultimate covering statement. It was Clintonian in its ingeniousness. He said "the British government" had discovered. That statement IS true, whether the Brits were right or not is immaterial. It shifts the responsibility to the British, leaving Bush unscathed if Saddam had NOT bought uranium.

A cop-out in other words. Besides, the CIA told Bush it was bunk as did Wilson. Bush decided to use it anyway. Why is Bush cherry-picking favorable-appearing intel from other countries, even clear forgeries, when his own intelligence is telling him it's untrue?

Now, as to the source standing by their statement, where in your liberal web-site diatribe does it say the British government (Bush's source for the statement) retracts their position? It doesn't. In fact, you even highlighted in red the part that says they still maintain it's true. Your own source contradicts you.

As I noted, the red-highlight was debunked. That they are trying to save face by not accepting reality doesn't make it true, no matter how hard you wish it to be. Then again, I guess what Curveball said to everyone was gospel too, right, since it backs up the case for war. :rolleyes:

The CIA and Wilson informed the administration there was no substance to this "British" claim yet Bush charged ahead and used it anyway. Even the IAEA assessed the documents and within an hour knew they were grade-school forgeries. It wasn't true, Bush was told as much and yet he used it anyway. He lied by knowingly using "intel" that was assessed as being bad to try to further his case for war, plain and simple.

And all those Kurds, they died from sniffing Cool Whip cans.


No, they died from sniffing the goo that rained down on them from the helicopters Ronald Reagan gave them..

Let me remind you of what you said:

"That statement was true, and the source stands by it."

You assert unequivocably that it's true because "the source" stands behind it. My post showed "the source" to be full of ****. I highlighted what I did to see if that is what you meant by the source standing behind it... If you continued to read, you'd find that it was debunked.

Do you still believe what Curveball said? What Chalabi said? Even if they say "No no, it's true...I promise!"?



A cop-out in other words. Besides, the CIA told Bush it was bunk as did Wilson. Bush decided to use it anyway. Why is Bush cherry-picking favorable-appearing intel from other countries, even clear forgeries, when his own intelligence is telling him it's untrue?



As I noted, the red-highlight was debunked. That they are trying to save face by not accepting reality doesn't make it true, no matter how hard you wish it to be. Then again, I guess what Curveball said to everyone was gospel too, right, since it backs up the case for war. :rolleyes:

The CIA and Wilson informed the administration there was no substance to this "British" claim yet Bush charged ahead and used it anyway. Even the IAEA assessed the documents and within an hour knew they were grade-school forgeries. It wasn't true, Bush was told as much and yet he used it anyway. He lied by knowingly using "intel" that was assessed as being bad to try to further his case for war, plain and simple.


Is Hadit actually trying to say that what Bush said was true even though Bush and the entire administration knew at the time they were using forged Bull**** to justify their cause???????????? Even though the source of the forgery most likey originated here in the US? Or that Iraq didn't need any Uranium from Niger since they had their own huge supply which the UN had under lock and and key before we invaded??

Is Hadit actually trying to say that what Bush said was true even though Bush and the entire administration knew at the time they were using forged Bull**** to justify their cause???????????? Even though the source of the forgery most likey originated here in the US? Or that Iraq didn't need any Uranium from Niger since they had their own huge supply which the UN had under lock and and key before we invaded??

If you would pay attention and read what I actually wrote instead of what your bias insists I had to have said, it would be clear what I am saying. I am saying that what Bush said at that time was true. The British DID claim that they had knowledge Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, and they still claim it to this day. Whether it was there or not is immaterial as to the truth of the statement.

Look at what Bush said carefully, then try again. Bush made the ultimate covering statement. It was Clintonian in its ingeniousness. He said "the British government" had discovered. That statement IS true, whether the Brits were right or not is immaterial. It shifts the responsibility to the British, leaving Bush unscathed if Saddam had NOT bought uranium. Now, as to the source standing by their statement, where in your liberal web-site diatribe does it say the British government (Bush's source for the statement) retracts their position? It doesn't. In fact, you even highlighted in red the part that says they still maintain it's true. Your own source contradicts you.

The CIA told him not to use it. He did. They told him not to use it again. He did it again. He wasnt covering himself, he was using information that he knew was fake. Ultimate proof that the information meant nothing regarding the war.

The CIA told him not to use it. He did. They told him not to use it again. He did it again. He wasnt covering himself, he was using information that he knew was fake. Ultimate proof that the information meant nothing regarding the war.

The British still maintain that they have other evidence confirming their stance. While the CIA may have had reservations about SOME of the evidence, that doesn't add up to your knee-jerk condemnation of a statement the President made that is factual and correct.

The British still maintain that they have other evidence confirming their stance.

Wait... Are you talking about the forged document that Bush used as his evidence?

While the CIA may have had reservations about SOME of the evidence, that doesn't add up to your knee-jerk condemnation of a statement the President made that is factual and correct.

No. The CIA had reservations about the entire incident. The CIA's official stance, the entire time leading up to the war, was that they didnt have the evidence to build a case for war with Iraq. Hence the creation of Rummy's OSP.

Wait... Are you talking about the forged document that Bush used as his evidence?


No, the stuff they refuse to release.


No. The CIA had reservations about the entire incident. The CIA's official stance, the entire time leading up to the war, was that they didnt have the evidence to build a case for war with Iraq. Hence the creation of Rummy's OSP.

The CIA wasn't the sole source nor the sole authority for making the decision to eliminate Saddam as a likely threat. The CIA was also under the control of that Clinton hang-over, Tenet. Their "official stance" was to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact remains that hindsight is 20/20, and to cherry-pick evidence now and insist it was absolutely undeniable then is to ignore reality.

No, the stuff they refuse to release.

Well, see, Bush's statements seemed to be based on forged documents. Not on the appearent unreleased British intel.



The CIA wasn't the sole source nor the sole authority for making the decision to eliminate Saddam as a likely threat. The CIA was also under the control of that Clinton hang-over, Tenet. Their "official stance" was to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact remains that hindsight is 20/20, and to cherry-pick evidence now and insist it was absolutely undeniable then is to ignore reality.

No. No Hindsight is not 20/20 in this case. If I chop of your head: You will die. I cant even count the number of times weve blown this idea out of the water. The case against the war was far greater then the case for it. I am absolutly flabergasted that now 25,000+ Iraqi Citizens are dead, 2,000 + US Soldiers, and alls you can say is 'hindsight is 20/20' in a case where the UN was opposed the war based on there evidence, and the BA officially cherry picked evidence to amazing degrees.

Hey hadit, where did the file footage for that plane come from? Oh, that was footage from 1991? The BA admits this? Oh, and the UN has documented footage of the plane being dismanteled and destroyed? Oh, Weird.

Hey hadit, that glass jar that Powell held up, what exactly was in it? Oh wait, why is it that they never claimed, nor has anyone ever claimed, nor has Iraq ever had a powder for a chemical weapon?

Hey hadit, why is it that based on the evidence that even the BA was presenting and arguing with, the chemicals would have long since been dated and useless, not safe to drink large quantities of but not nearly enough to hurt anyone?

Hey hadit, why did the BA keep slipping in information that the CIA told it not to use, as the CIA had evidence that proved it was incorrect?

These are but a small sample of questions I have for anyone who believes that the BA believed there WMD in Iraq.

No, the stuff they refuse to release.

So far they're batting 0.000. What leads you to believe that what they're keeping so close to the vest has any value?

The CIA wasn't the sole source nor the sole authority for making the decision to eliminate Saddam as a likely threat. The CIA was also under the control of that Clinton hang-over, Tenet.

You mean George "Slam Dunk" Tenet? If anything, this guy was helping with the conspiracy. But with respect to yellowcake, even this suck-up dissented.

From Wiki:

"The actual words President Bush spoke: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" suggests that his source was British intelligence and not the forged documents.[1] The Butler Report issued after a review by the British government concluded that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa was credible.[2] Nevertheless, no other prove of the existence of this alleged uranium is advanced, and today most do not view the uranium claim to be credible."

and

"In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush repeated the allegation, citing British intelligence. The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included" in Bush's address to the nation, attributing the error to the CIA.[4]

Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country's president. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department. At roughly the same time, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself. Wilson had been posted to Niger 14 years earlier, and throughout a diplomatic career in Africa he had built up a large network of contacts in Niger. Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales.[5] Ultimately, Wilson concluded that there was no way that production at the uranium mines could be ramped up or that the excess uranium could have been exported without it being immediately obvious to many people both in the private sector and in the government of Niger. He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong". The CIA passed this conclusion on to the White House, the FBI, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asking Hadley to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Further in March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerian officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

Multiple US representatives, not just Wilson, reported the same thing about Niger uranium. So dicey was a reliability of this "intel" that Tenet had references to it scrubbed from other speeches. Everyone knew, such was the wide high-level distribution of reports.

Yet somehow Bush left it in his speech. You're running out of people to divert and shift blame to. The record shows that from every angle, this was known to be false way ahead of Bush's SOTU address and still he spoke of it as if it were fact. Who are you going to blame now?

This is totally unbelievable. The two of you literally cannot take what Bush actually said and judge its truth. He said the BRITISH had discovered that Saddam was trying to buy uranium. At that time, the BRITISH believed that to be true, therefore Bush's statement was true. Whether the Brits were wrong or not is irrelevant. Where the bloody plane footage came from is irrelevent. All your deflections are irrelevent when it comes to the veracity of the SOTU address. I can't keep you guys on topic to save your lives.

This is totally unbelievable. The two of you literally cannot take what Bush actually said and judge its truth. He said the BRITISH had discovered that Saddam was trying to buy uranium. At that time, the BRITISH believed that to be true, therefore Bush's statement was true. Whether the Brits were wrong or not is irrelevant.

This is perhaps the weakest argument I've ever seen on DA. The fact remains that no matter what the BAs British corgies "claimed", there were multiple intelligence streams Stateside that blew the claims out of the water. It doesn't matter what the Brits say if your own intelligence agencies are saying "It ain't true."

Using your logic the BA could get away with anything just as long as they could find some foreign stooge to assert some way-out "belief" and then run with it. :rolleyes:

As a Democrat I agree that the party is barking up the wrong tree on this one. The intelligence isues of WMD were widely held by the West, and Israel - which has the best intelligence of the ME bar none. BA certainly looked only at evidence they wanted to look at. The bigger issue I have with the Dems is their failure to mount any sort of anti war position because they were afraid of going against popular opinion, which Bush had co-opted with his "The terrorists are coming" propaganda, and which frankly was in it's usual "sheep" mentality. Now the Dems are trying to show themselves as more anti war because public opinion has shifted ( the public is great at shifting when faced with real time facts not when faced with talking heads), and so far it's not working.

Funny how the majority of our allies didnt believe the BS enough to follow us into the debacle Iraq has become. They believed the UN inspectors and the the IAEA reports that said there were no evidence that they had found.

To put it simply Bush and his cronies cherry picked the mass quantities of intel that come in every day for any tidbit that would support their desire to attack Iraq. It wasnt about oil it was about us showing the world that we were the biggest toughest kid on the block. Wooops big mistake cause what we did was show the world that a very few insurgents could ruin our plans. We wound up showing how vulnerable we really are.

Look at it simply as all of the reasons we went there have since proved to be dead wrong. No WMDs, no terrorist connections, no immediate threat and simply put no reason to invade. We are still there beccause it would be a huge embarrassment to tuck our tails between our legs and go home.

We abandon 200 years of principles and freedoms for this? Stupid just plain stupid.

This is totally unbelievable. The two of you literally cannot take what Bush actually said and judge its truth. He said the BRITISH had discovered that Saddam was trying to buy uranium. At that time, the BRITISH believed that to be true, therefore Bush's statement was true. Whether the Brits were wrong or not is irrelevant. Where the bloody plane footage came from is irrelevent. All your deflections are irrelevent when it comes to the veracity of the SOTU address. I can't keep you guys on topic to save your lives.


Still in all, where does that intelligence lead us? Africa is a big ass continent, comprised of many countries. In hindsight, it's hilarious( IMO )to even mention intelligence that damn broad.

That's the equivalent of that saying someone in the Western Hemisphere is selling brand new paisley BMW's.

no terrorist connections,.
Give 25K to family of suicide bomber, sounds like a terrorist connection.

no immediate threat and simply put no reason to invade.
There are many reasons other than WMD. Bring democracy to mid-east is a great stratege to fight the war on terror.


We are still there beccause it would be a huge embarrassment to tuck our tails between our legs and go home. We abandon 200 years of principles and freedoms for this?
WWI, WWII, stoped Nazis. Korean/vietnam wars tried to stop the comminunists. Now we try to stop terrorists. We are not abandon anything.

Give 25K to family of suicide bomber, sounds like a terrorist connection.

Thats nothing compared to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and various other terrorist sponsoring states.


There are many reasons other than WMD. Bring democracy to mid-east is a great stratege to fight the war on terror.

perhaps. But this in no way justifys the president's lieing to congress, offering tons of false information. Even if you want to argue that the caseu was 'spreading democracy' (something that anyone who was watching the news at all in 2002 will tell you is bull) then he should have presented his case as such. However, he presented it as a need to avoid a the smoking gun of a 'mushroom cloud'.


WWI, WWII, stoped Nazis. Korean/vietnam wars tried to stop the comminunists. Now we try to stop terrorists. We are not abandon anything.

In all of those cases, the US and her allies were at least being invaded. Now, the US is invading. What can you say about the bad guys in all the prior cases? They were the invaders. What does that say about us? Have we become delusional with our power as the invaders in your examples were?

Thats nothing compared to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and various other terrorist sponsoring states.
Their goverment claims support to war on terror.


perhaps. But this in no way justifys the president's lieing to congress, offering tons of false information..
Proof that and I will not vote for him again. I will even support those congress man/woman who impeach him if there is proof to it.

was 'spreading democracy' (something that anyone who was watching the news at all in 2002 will tell you is bull) then he should have presented his case as such. However, he presented it as a need to avoid a the smoking gun of a 'mushroom cloud'.
Yes, that is what we heard from news. But the reasons presented to congress is the more complete version.

!n all of those cases, the US and her allies were at least being invaded. Now, the US is invading. What can you say about the bad guys in all the prior cases? They were the invaders.
Saddam invaded Kuwait and violates the cease fire agreement for 12 years.

Still in all, where does that intelligence lead us? Africa is a big ass continent, comprised of many countries. In hindsight, it's hilarious( IMO )to even mention intelligence that damn broad.

That's the equivalent of that saying someone in the Western Hemisphere is selling brand new paisley BMW's.

As you say, in hindsight it seems. Whether he should have said it or not is debatable, but to maintain he lied when he said it is a whole other ball game, since he was clearly laying responsibility for the claim on the British.

Their goverment claims support to war on terror.

And they still harbor and support terrorists. They both, in various ways recieve lots of money from the US everyway though.


Proof that and I will not vote for him again. I will even support those congress man/woman who impeach him if there is proof to it.

Proof what? That he used false information? Look at the 9/11 commission. even as tainted as that is it still calls the information use a total failure. Just take a look at the scientific organizations who dozens of times gave the BA there oficial opinon that he was absolutly wrong about Iraq based on information he was presenting to them. Theres really little to know question taht the BA knew its information was terrible. Hence why they still havent allowed investigations into there affairs during the pre-war information processing, especially the tactics of Rummys OSP.


Saddam invaded Kuwait and violates the cease fire agreement for 12 years.

And Britian invaded us 180 years ago. Japan bombed us 60 years ago.

My statement was direct in the sense that it was immidetly initated as a result of foriegn invasion--as was true in the gulf war incident.

As you say, in hindsight it seems. Whether he should have said it or not is debatable, but to maintain he lied when he said it is a whole other ball game, since he was clearly laying responsibility for the claim on the British.

And its the perfect example of cherry picking. The CIA, top to bottom said the information was bad, and told him not to use it. He used it anyway. The CIA blew a gasket and told him not to use it again, and he used it again.

The ultimate proof that the PNAC obsession for war was not interested in the facts of the situation at all, but doing everythign it could to promote its case.

Give 25K to family of suicide bomber, sounds like a terrorist connection.

This is weak at best. How is the mother, father or sister, of a person that has already blow'd themselves up real good, a terrorist?

There are many reasons other than WMD. Bring democracy to mid-east is a great stratege to fight the war on terror.

Ah but WMD was touted as the major reason, lest the smoking gun take the form of a mushroom cloud if you'll recall. The BA, neocons and apologists tried their best after the embarrassing collapse of their house of cards when no WMD actually turned up to shift away from WMD and to myriad other reasons hoping folks would forget all that bluster and bloviating they all did before the war about drones of death and 45-minute deployments and mushroom clouds and yellowcake and aluminum tubes and radio-silent mystery ships and all that.

WWI, WWII, stoped Nazis. Korean/vietnam wars tried to stop the comminunists. Now we try to stop terrorists. We are not abandon anything.

Iraq was largely free of terrorists before Bush's Folly. Look at the place now... You think the terrorists had it so good, confined as they were to Afghanistan's wimpy little training camps? The world has yet to fully reap what the Bush administration has sown in Iraq.

And its the perfect example of cherry picking. The CIA, top to bottom said the information was bad, and told him not to use it. He used it anyway. The CIA blew a gasket and told him not to use it again, and he used it again.

The ultimate proof that the PNAC obsession for war was not interested in the facts of the situation at all, but doing everythign it could to promote its case.

It is no secret that some in the CIA didn't fully support the president going into the war. They're not the only authority in town. Talk about cherry picking. There was intel supporting both sides, and we had already been hit once. I believe they couldn't afford to take the chance.

Proof what? That he used false information.
He know information is false and still use it.

Look at the 9/11 commission. even as tainted as that is it still calls the information use a total failure. Just take a look at the scientific organizations who dozens of times gave the BA there oficial opinon that he was absolutly wrong about Iraq based on information he was presenting to them.
They cannot proof the information is false.

Theres really little to know question taht the BA knew its information was terrible. Hence why they still havent allowed investigations into there affairs during the pre-war information processing, especially the tactics of Rummys OSP..
I saw some investigation result concludes BA is not at fault. I guess that is not enough, but fine, I will give them the time to do more investigation.


And Britian invaded us 180 years ago..
?


Japan bombed us 60 years ago...
They surrendered and signed and followed the cease fire agreement. So is Germany, North Korea.

This is weak at best. How is the mother, father or sister, of a person that has already blow'd themselves up real good, a terrorist? .
Incentive for terrorists?


Ah but WMD was touted as the major reason, lest the smoking gun take the form of a mushroom cloud if you'll recall. The BA, neocons and apologists tried their best after the embarrassing collapse of their house of cards when no WMD actually turned up to shift away from WMD and to myriad other reasons hoping folks would forget all that bluster and bloviating they all did before the war about drones of death and 45-minute deployments and mushroom clouds and yellowcake and aluminum tubes and radio-silent mystery ships and all that..
Read the reasons BA provided to Congress.


Iraq was largely free of terrorists before Bush's Folly. Look at the place now.
Who are those terrorists? Apparently they hate US and democracy. Will they leave us alone if we are not in Iraq?

It is no secret that some in the CIA didn't fully support the president going into the war. They're not the only authority in town. Talk about cherry picking. There was intel supporting both sides, and we had already been hit once. I believe they couldn't afford to take the chance.

You are the definition for what the BA aims to entertain

1--Most of the BA's information came from pre/circa gulf war era, when Saddam was still armed.

2--The CIA gave an official position, meaning it was agreed, that the intel presented by Bush was bad. The CIA's open

3--Much of the information presented was told by the BA to be impossible by various scientific think tanks and groups, who know a hell of a lot more about how chemicals work then the BA itself. perhaps one of the most under-reported aspects of the entire incident is this.

4--The file footage of spray planes was actually from 1991. There is also footage of the same plane being destroyed less then a year later.

5--One of the key informants, the one who said that Saddam had re-initiated Iraqs weapons programs, also said immidetly after that he as chief of the department had personally oversaw the then destruction of said program. However, the BA complete left this out of there argument.

6--The other key informant as reported by the CIA, has given the US information on many occasions, and has never been correct.

Your argument of 'there was information for' is more of a 'there was false information for and lots of very good hard evidence against it.

Iraq had never attacked the US. It had never expressed interests in attacking the US. Saddam had no interests in losing power in Iraq by being involved in an attack on the US. A vile, basterd Saddam may have been, but he was not stupid.

It is no secret that some in the CIA didn't fully support the president going into the war. They're not the only authority in town.

Well yeah, I guess there was always Feith & Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans taking "intel" the CIA already debunked and magically spinning it into usable propaganda. :shrug:

Read the reasons BA provided to Congress.

Read these:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003[/QUOTE]

But a sample. Pretty strong accusations. Oh, and Im pretty sure Congress might'v been listening to the situation enough to note a few of these statements. Just maybe, they played a role on deciding to go to war. I mean, the entire 'leaves no doubt that the iraq regime continues to posess the most lethal weapons ever devised' leaves a strong taste in your mouth, no?

2--The CIA gave an official position, meaning it was agreed, that the intel presented by Bush was bad. The CIA's open .
CIA has no better information at that time.

3--Much of the information presented was told by the BA to be impossible by various scientific think tanks and groups, who know a hell of a lot more about how chemicals work then the BA itself. perhaps one of the most under-reported aspects of the entire incident is this..
No one in the world provide evidence which says there is no WMD.


5--One of the key informants, the one who said that Saddam had re-initiated Iraqs weapons programs, also said immidetly after that he as chief of the department had personally oversaw the then destruction of said program. However, the BA complete left this out of there argument..
He destruct the program. Saddam had re-initiated. Which one occured first according to the informant?

Iraq had never attacked the US. It had never expressed interests in attacking the US. Saddam had no interests in losing power in Iraq by being involved in an attack on the US. A vile, basterd Saddam may have been, but he was not stupid.
Is Iraq without Saddam a better Iraq? Is democratic Iraq a better Iraq than that of Saddam? Torrorists do not want that to happen, and they wage war on the majority of Iraq people, US soldiers and the democracy. Isn't that a war on terror?

CIA has no better information at that time.

I really doubt the CIA could conclusivly prove that Iraq doesnt have a lair at the center of the earth where all these weapons that Bush said he had were hidden, but i think its a safe conclusion when they say its unlikely, that its unlikely.


No one in the world provide evidence which says there is no WMD.

Except scientists, which say that based on information given to them, the BA was incorrect.


He destruct the program. Saddam had re-initiated. Which one occured first according to the informant?

Saddam re-initated. Then ordered its destruction to comply with the UN and US threats of invasion. He did this. Then, when it became appearant that the US had intentions of overthrowing him, he, as any vile person of his nature in his position would do, acted as though he was still a force to be reckoned with, so as to avoid full on invasion and overthrow of his power.


Is Iraq without Saddam a better Iraq?

As of right now? No. In time? Most likely, and hopefully.

Is democratic Iraq a better Iraq than that of Saddam?

Assuming by democracy you dont mean theocracy, which has the potential to be as bad as Saddams rule, except at the expense of near 3,000 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi Civilians.


Torrorists do not want that to happen, and they wage war on the majority of Iraq people, US soldiers and the democracy. Isn't that a war on terror?

Thats terrors war on US globalization. That has always been the point of Terrorism regarding the US. As bush said 'They dont like being occupied. Hell, I wouldnt like it if I was occupied either'. As long as the US continues to occupy territory that is not its, and seems to make an impression that it rules the world, there will of course be those who dissent and in rage do radical, violent evil things against the US in what is to them a fight against a new global tyrant, full of religious infidels. Imagine if the US was occupied by Muslims, who took much of our resources. These Muslims also occupied various other countries that are similar to ours. Would we act out against opression and explotation of what is ours, or sit back and assume that the Muslims are the good guys?

I really doubt the CIA could conclusivly prove that Iraq doesnt have a lair at the center of the earth where all these weapons that Bush said he had were hidden, but i think its a safe conclusion when they say its unlikely, that its unlikely.?
Unlikely as 911 could happen?


Except scientists, which say that based on information given to them, the BA was incorrect.
They said impossible. That is not proof.

Saddam re-initated. Then ordered its destruction to comply with the UN and US threats of invasion. He did this. Then, when it became appearant that the US had intentions of overthrowing him, he, as any vile person of his nature in his position would do, acted as though he was still a force to be reckoned with, so as to avoid full on invasion and overthrow of his power.
Saddam should not do that, because he agreed to conform to the cease fire agreement in 1991.


Thats terrors war on US globalization. That has always been the point of Terrorism regarding the US. As bush said 'They dont like being occupied. Hell, I wouldnt like it if I was occupied either'. As long as the US continues to occupy territory that is not its, and seems to make an impression that it rules the world, there will of course be those who dissent and in rage do radical, violent evil things against the US in what is to them a fight against a new global tyrant, full of religious infidels. Imagine if the US was occupied by Muslims, who took much of our resources. These Muslims also occupied various other countries that are similar to ours. Would we act out against opression and explotation of what is ours, or sit back and assume that the Muslims are the good guys?
US oppression in Iraq? Do you believe most US army will keep occupy Iraq when the place is safe and democratic? Do you believe US will invade Iraq when the ydo not sell us oil? Do you remember Saddam got 99.9% of the presidential election in Iraq? Did you see any demostration against Saddam under his rule?

When US goverment turn into tyranny and Muslim overturn tyranny and let US to vote for new goverment, I will co-oprate with Muslim (or any other such force), like most Iraqis do today in Iraq.

As you say, in hindsight it seems. Whether he should have said it or not is debatable, but to maintain he lied when he said it is a whole other ball game, since he was clearly laying responsibility for the claim on the British.

I'm not stating he lied. As a matter of fact, he didn't lie, he repeated the intel that the Brits had (which to this day has a "mysterious" quality about it)

What I'm saying is that to allege that Saddam was attempting to procure uranimum from Africa, a continent of many many countries, is a very broad accusation to make.

No one in the world provide evidence which says there is no WMD.

Leaving aside that it is impossible to prove a negative, the Weapons Inspectors came as close as possible to proving Iraq had no WMD.

Do you believe most US army will keep occupy Iraq when the place is safe and democratic?

When US goverment turn into tyranny .
Yes, they will occupy Iraq, for as long as they can to make sure the oil goes to the USA.
The USA is closer to becoming a tyranny than y'all might believe. Patriot Act anyone?

Leaving aside that it is impossible to prove a negative, the Weapons Inspectors came as close as possible to proving Iraq had no WMD.?
Saddam kicked them out, before 100K US soldiers wait outside of Iraq boarder.


Yes, they will occupy Iraq, for as long as they can to make sure the oil goes to the USA.
When Iraq is democratic, but refuse to sell oil to US. US will not invade Iraq because of that. I cannot convince you if you believe otherwise for some reason.

The USA is closer to becoming a tyranny than y'all might believe.
Compare how many people vote for Bush and how many vote for Saddam, You know your statement is wrong.

Saddam kicked them out, before 100K US soldiers wait outside of Iraq boarder.

No. Saddam invited them back in 2002, after the US told them to leave in 1998.

Compare how many people vote for Bush and how many vote for Saddam, You know your statement is wrong.
USA Patriot Act, my friend. Don't you know what its provisions are.

Leaving aside that it is impossible to prove a negative, the Weapons Inspectors came as close as possible to proving Iraq had no WMD.


Now that is one hell of a lie.


Yes, they will occupy Iraq, for as long as they can to make sure the oil goes to the USA.
The USA is closer to becoming a tyranny than y'all might believe. Patriot Act anyone?

The only policies close to turning the US into a tyranny are those being dreamed up on the left. Just look at our universities.

And why shouldn't the US occupy Iraq for as long as it wants? The US liberated that country, it spent its money, it should have a big role in the future of that nation.

Now that is one hell of a lie.

In your head, it's a lie. In the real world, it's the truth.

And why shouldn't the US occupy Iraq for as long as it wants? The US liberated that country, it spent its money, it should have a big role in the future of that nation.
As my son said when I read him waht you'd said "I don't believe it!" What he meant it, that he can't get past the bare-faced arrogant evil of your statement. You ******* didn't liberate Iraq, you invaded it and destroyed it.

I don't think the BA is capable of shame, but that's what pro-invasion Americans should feel.

Unlikely as 911 could happen?

No. Terrorist action was was pretty likely, as we were training terrorists, and then occupying the nations that they considered there own. They had for nearly a decade, when 9/11 happend, been making a miniscule attack on us every some odd years. Depending on whether or not you count McVeigh, which is technically by far the second worst terrorist act on the US, they have been every few years.

Now, man has never been ot the center of the earth. Hence, its very unlikely. Unlike a nation being attacked, which has been happening for... about 3,000 years?


On the otherhand, nobody has managed to ever get to the center of the earth.


They said impossible. That is not proof.

There analysis were far more detailed then my simple --its impossible. Want me to put it in a more complex way?

To get A, you need a chemical that features B+C+D. The BA was claiming that Saddam was making A, with B+D. The scientific community said 'No. You cant do that.' And the BA and media completly ignored them.


Saddam should not do that, because he agreed to conform to the cease fire agreement in 1991.

Do what? Say your the leader of a country. Say the greatest millitary power, with millitary power that makes it seem like there holding 5 flame throwers at your head and your holding a pocket knife, openly says they'r going to take you at the first chance they get. Do you make yourself seem dangerous to attack despite your absence of weapons, or openly confess that they are all gone?



US oppression in Iraq? Do you believe most US army will keep occupy Iraq when the place is safe and democratic? Do you believe US will invade Iraq when the ydo not sell us oil?

We will have permanent bases in Iraq now, of course. Why do you think the procedure is known as forward basi