blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are we still talking about al-Qaeda and Iraq pre-war?
No. Were talking about me and my mother.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are we still talking about al-Qaeda and Iraq pre-war?
Ya know -- That would explain a lot of your posts. I'm sure your mom didn't send those 3,300 American troops to die for lies.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are we still talking about al-Qaeda and Iraq pre-war?
No. Were talking about me and my mother.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Weapon of Mindless Destruction?Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Gaard
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
George W Bush, 5/24/05
Think how many people were killed by Dub's propaganda catapults. They are the real WMDs.
Hey PJ, I was reminded of this while watching Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS tonight. It was an excellent review of how the Bush administration misrepresented their intel, and about how a compliant media largely abdicated their responsibility to expose BushCo decpetion. I'm sure you didn't watch it, but it pretty effectively deconstructs the talking points about "bad intel" or "everybody knew ...".Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFL. That's a lovely diversion, but it evades the points I raised. You presented those quotes dishonestly -- again -- without critical context. You are trying to cover BushCo deception by insinuating things that were once true must be true forever, and by reversing cause and effect, misrepresenting Democrats duped by BushCo's fairy tale intel as evidence the intel was accurate.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is the factual basis of that statement?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is exactly the sort of dishonesty that made you the target of such disdain. As has been pointed out dozens of times, those quotes generally fall into one of two categories: (1) spoken before Clinton's highly effective bombing campaign in 1998, or (2) spoken after being deceived by BushCo's cooked intel. (No, Congress did NOT see the exact same intel as Bush/Cheney/et al. Period.) That you continue to spout these quotes out of context only confirms your agenda is pointless partisan misdirection.
That Iraq had WMDs in 1998 is not in dispute, but it is completely irrelevant to BushCo's claims five years later. You're trying to rationalize Bush invading Germany to stop the Holocaust, citing quotes from Democrats from the early 1940's. Guess what? Things change. Insinuating otherwise is dishonest. The intel supporting anti-Iraq claims in 1998 is not the same as the intel of 2003. The Bush administration made dozens of claims that were not supported by the intel available in 2003. That is a fact. They misrepresented both the certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities -- "There is no doubt." -- and the extent of those capabilities. THEY LIED.
Finally, to preemptively squash the standard follow-up claiming bad intel, it's yet another empty diversion. Not only did BushCo claims not match the intel available, but the intel was incomplete precisely because Bush was in such a rush to invade. We finally had U.N. inspectors back in Iraq, gathering current information. Bush effectively sent them packing before they could finish the job. Why? My belief is he did it precisely because the longer they were there, the more intel they got that contradicted his lies about Iraq's WMDs. The last thing in the world BushCo wanted was better intel. They wanted a full-scale shootin' war, and they were going to have it, truth be damned.
How do we know that Clinton?s 1998 bombing campaign did anything at all?
There were no weapons inspectors in the country for four years after the campaign stopped. How can you be so sure that his campaign did anything at all, besides distract attention from impeachment.
I do appreciate you corroborating two of my points, however. By your own admission, there was uncertainty about exactly how effective Clinton's bombing campaign was. This suggests that if one could get you to remove your partisan blinders momentarily, you would agree BushCo was lying when claiming certain knowledge about Iraq's current WMD capabilities. Statements like "There is no doubt." and "These are facts, not assertions." were lies.
You've also confirmed why forcing the Blix inspection team out of Iraq was irresponsible. We did not have current information about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilites. Blix & co. were getting this information. They should have been allowed to finish the job, though that would have denied the neo-cons the big war they craved. Bummer. Sucks to be a war-monger once your boogeyman is exposed.
Finally, I love the blatant hypocrisy of your last sentence. You blame Clinton for not taking care of Iraq, yet you simultaneously blame him for doing so. That's pretty much the definition of partisan shilling. It must just kill you Clinton-haters to know he handled Iraq infinitely better than Bush 43, without squandering hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars. One of the reasons Clinton looks so good today is because GWB is such a global failure.
I'll simply note that you again evaded the issue posed -- the Bush administration lying -- by moving the goal posts to whether Bush personally lied. By your own admission, the Bush administration lied. "There is no doubt," "These are facts, not assertions," "We know where they are," etc.? All lies.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did not watch it, was not home.
And sorry but I am not ready to admit that he ?lied?
I would have to see proof that Bush KNEW what he was saying was false.
I believe most of the so called lies come down to POV and opinion.
The British still claim that Saddam did in fact try to buy yellow cake from Niger.
They even go so far as to say that Joe Wilson actually helped their story by bringing to light trade relations between Iraq and certain people (or something like that.)
You're in luck. It airs again this Friday at 9:00 p.m. EDT. Be sure to set your TiVo.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did not watch it, was not home. ...
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
I already did that in my reply to the same lies you posted in the tenth post in this same thread. What makes you think that proof has changed since then? :shocked:Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
If you're going to insist on lying, you might at least try to make up some new ones. Reposting the same ones in the same thread don't give you much cover. :laugh:You should shudder to enter this thread if the best you can do is to post yet more of your LIES OF OMMISSION. This time, there's the small matter of the context of, and sources for, the statements you quote in the Congressional Authorization, all of which parrot the disinformation and stovepiped, selected "intelligence" spewed to Congress by the Bushwhackos, as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004:Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
I shudder to enter this thread knowing that Harvey will respond to any post that does not agree with him with another of his cut and paste automated responses, but?
Go read the joint resolution that congress approved. Call this the ?official? reasons that we entered Iraq.
There is no mention of any Iraq al Qaida connection as a reason to going to war. In fact al Qaida is only mentioned ONCE in the whole thing.
Here are the only parts dealing with terrorists and Iraq.
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Both of these were 100% true.Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
The Bushwhackos have conflated Saddam and Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9-11 since the day they started beating the war drums about Iraq, and they haven't stopped.Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.[/b]
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."
As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.
Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."
A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.
Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.
Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."
Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." But Bush added: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was "very confident there was an established relationship there."
The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."
As for the Atta meeting in Prague mentioned by Cheney, the commission staff concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred." It cited FBI photographic and telephone evidence, along with Czech and U.S. investigations, as well as reports from detainees, including the Iraqi official with whom Atta was alleged to have met. On the 1993 trade center bombing, the staff found "substantial uncertainty" about whether bin Laden and al Qaeda were involved.
At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.
The staff report on Iraq was brief. Though not confirming any Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda, it did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: Zarqawi's Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group.
In October 2002, Bush described Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, as "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."
Zarqawi wrote a January 2003 letter to bin Laden's lieutenants, intercepted at the Iraqi border, saying that if al Qaeda adopted his approach in Iraq, he would swear "fealty to you [bin Laden] publicly and in the news media."
In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks."
Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives.
The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links.
Hillary Clinton and every other member of Congress were fed the same LIES your still trying to shove at us years after they've been discredited. STOP THE RERUNS, STOP THE RERUNS and GET OVER IT!Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Finally... in your list of people that began the thread why didn't you leave out any Democrats who were saying the same thing?
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
- The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
- Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
- There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
- There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
- There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
- There were no long range rockets.
- There were no WMD's.
Cheney hasn't lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda since... umm.. day before yesterday.
- They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
- They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
- Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
If you can get beyond regurgitating the Bushwhackos' last six years of criminal lies and pathetic excuses, maybe you'd like to explain what justifies over 3,200 dead American troops in their WAR OF DECEIT AND DECEPTION. :thumbsdown:Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link as latest Pentagon report
Last Update: Apr 6, 2007 1:36 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon are offering conflicting views about whether al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Cheney continues to insist there is a connection but a declassified Defense Department report cites more evidence that Saddam's regime did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
Speaking to radio host Rush Limbaugh, Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces. He says terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned Nine-Eleven.
But the Pentagon report released Thursday says seized documents, along with interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides, confirm that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.
The 9/11 Commission report also found no evidence of a connection.:thumbsdown:
If you want people to stop calling you on your lies, you could always STOP LYING... for a change.![]()
Yeah. I know. You never let little things like facts and documented history get in the way of your repeated LIES.Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Harvey, you're wasting your time.
I don't even read you mile long cut and paste posts.
Nah! They wouldn't bother with Mexico when Halliburton is already paving the way for them in Dubai. :disgust:Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My guess is Bush & Cheney will flee to Mexico.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, you're wasting your time.
I don't even read you mile long cut and paste posts.
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
When it comes to murder paranoia is no excuse.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The great news is Congress is going after Cheney first, then Bush.
We may have a woman President very soon.
My guess is Bush & Cheney will flee to Mexico.
BUHAHAHAHA! Don't you just love an intellectually well reasoned response? :laugh:Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The great news is Congress is going after Cheney first, then Bush.
We may have a woman President very soon.
My guess is Bush & Cheney will flee to Mexico.
Too bad Pelosi wont let it pass.
Unless, of course, her campaign promises are full of sh1t. But we know that cant be, coz she's a democrat.
What don?t you get?Originally posted by: manowar821
ProfJohn, I don't get you sometimes... Actually, most of the time.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, you're wasting your time.
I don't even read you mile long cut and paste posts.
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
And the fact that there are dozens of very well known scientists saying the same thing has no sway on our views right? :roll:Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
The majority (if not the vast majority) of todays "new" GOPer's do not believe in climate change for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And the fact that there are dozens of very well known scientists saying the same thing has no sway on our views right? :roll:Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
The majority (if not the vast majority) of todays "new" GOPer's do not believe in climate change for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.
What don?t you get? I've posted the same string of documented Bushwhacko lies twice in this thread, alone, and your only reply was that you didn't read them. :roll:Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
What don?t you get?
The left has been trying to say that Bush/Cheney LIED in the run up to the war, but can never post a real actual lie.
Dozens out of tens of thousands who say the opposite.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And the fact that there are dozens of very well known scientists saying the same thing has no sway on our views right? :roll:Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
The majority (if not the vast majority) of todays "new" GOPer's do not believe in climate change for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.
