He says that even though George said he would go to war if elected president when he was still governor of Texas. Who's kidding who here???
Rove says.....who on Earth would believe anything this liar and all around criminal says????

Rove: Good WMD Intel Would've Prevented War

uhmm.... bullshit?

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Did Cheney, 8/26/02

"We do know that (Saddam) is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." - National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, 9/10/02

"We know where (the weapons) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat." - Rumsfled, 3/30/03

Just waiting for the ball to drop, they are not reversing course for posterity.

We all know the truth as well as this administration, the question now is why is this administration and the republican party changing their belief.

We know these political goons are lying hacks, but everything they do has some sort of plan. Be afraid, very afraid.

More bullshit from the keeper of Bush's compost pile.

Even Bush won't say he wouldn't have started a war with Iraq if he'd known there were no WMDs.

What a miserable POS.

We all know the truth as well as this administration, the question now is why is this administration and the republican party changing their belief.

We know these political goons are lying hacks, but everything they do has some sort of plan. Be afraid, very afraid.
#5 | Posted by moneywar

They're planting the seed of revisionist history. Give it four years and half of all Americans will be talking about how Iraq was the fault of the bad intel, not the fault of the Bush Admin. He was just the poor victim of circumstance.

More bullshit from the keeper of Bush's compost pile.
#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

You don't get the name turd blossom for nothing... unless your middle name is psilocybin.

This new PR coming from Bush is beginning to sound desperate. They waited too long to start.

They seem to have thought the end would never get here.

LIAR!

Karl Rove is BIG LIAR!!

Fat lotta good it does now, Mr. Rove.

The Bush administration was determined to find an excuse to go to war against Saddam Hussein, and the WMD intel fit its agenda perfectly. Classic case of the tail wagging the dog. They didn't want to probe too deeply, they just sorta went with their gut. They figured, who would object? Saddam's a tyrant, his military is weak, Americans aren't exactly fond of Middle Eastern countries anyway, and Iraq has a buttload of oil. Let's see what happens if we do a little war.

And now that the charade has been thoroughly exposed, the dogs are making a feeble attempt to cover their mess. But as with other dogs, kicking up a little turf and walking away will do nothing to hide the smell.

"They're planting the seed of revisionist history."

That is their modus operandi and they get lots of cooperation in that regard from the Rush Limbaughs and his fans.

Let's see if I've got this right.

The original Bush line was that the intel they used to justify attacking Iraq was rock-solid, iron-clad, 21-karat, up-to-snuff, pass-the-smell-test, beyond any question, absolutely, positively on target.

Then, whoops, no WMD.

So now it's the fault of the intel, not the people---like Bush (if he ever actually paid any attention and wasn't wrestling with a pretzel during an Oval Office briefing) and Cheney (who was pushing his neocon agenda)---who interpreted it and whose critical faculties clearly are not rock-solid, iron-clad, 21-karat, up-to-snuff, pass-the-smell-test, beyond any question, absolutely, positively on target?

Wanna buy a bridge?

That is their modus operandi and they get lots of cooperation in that regard from the Rush Limbaughs and his fans.

#12 | Posted by danni

If it aint broke....

Let's see if I've got this right.

The original Bush line was that the intel they used to justify attacking Iraq was ...

Then, whoops, no WMD.

So now it's the fault of the intel....
#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

That's exactly right, Doc. You shouldn't be too surprised.

Mr. Rove is right.

Good intelligence would have prevented the US from going to war with Iraq.

NOTE: that's intelligence with a lower case "i".

How can these people stand up in front of your nation and proclaim such bullshit? They fabricated flimsy evidence and shoved it down everyone's throat until the majority of americans were convinced that iraq had wmds, was responsible for 911 and had solid ties with AQ. The lies were obvious then, as they are now, yet people are still willing to listen and consider what these criminals have to say. The planet witnessed a crime and knows full well that the perpetrators will not only escape unscathed from their exploit, they will profit from it, and remain heroes in certain circles.

Welcome to the United Monarchy of America, were kings and queens live with total impunity while the average fool finances their extravagance while seeing their country implode.

How can these people stand up in front of your nation and proclaim such bullshit? -Panchovilla

They, including Karl Rove as much as anybody, have been doing it for years and years even before they were in office.

They learned at the feet of the Nixon administration, plus those like Cheney and Rumsfeld who were part of it.

Good WMD Intel Would've Prevented War

How about: good WMD intel analysis would've prevented war? Anyone remember Curveball?

How can these people stand up in front of your nation and proclaim such bullshit?
#17 | Posted by panchovilla

Because our representatives lack the intestinal fortitude to call bullshit when they hear it.

And we follow the lead of our "leaders".

Baaa....

Former CIA senior official Tyler Drumheller was an insider and watched Curve Ball emerge from nowhere.

Asked how important Curve Ball was in taking us to war in Iraq, Drumheller tells Simon, "If they had not had Curve Ball they would have probably found something else. 'Cause there was a great determination to do it. But going to war in Iraq, under the circumstances we did, Curve Ball was the absolutely essential case."

Good WMD Intel Would've Prevented War

LOL!

You mean outing the agent because her husband was giving BAD INTEL?

You can't spell Bullshit without Bush.

How about: good WMD intel analysis would've prevented war? Anyone remember Curveball?

The Iranian spy agencies certainly do. Cheney and PNAC certainly do.

As ayatollah kockamani use to say, "I love it when a plan comes together. Allah be praised for giving us a fool like Dubya."

I can't believe that at this point this arrogant cabal would care about what has been perfectly obvious since the beginning.

They made there bed and their place in history. A shame they can't be men and own up to their mistakes and the repercussions.

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. "

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice 07/27/01

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Secretary of State Colin Powell 02/24/01

well, Brett, you should have thrown left...

what a crock.

I guess if you don't like the history you make the first time, you can always re-write it, eh?

Nice shot at a cover story, but it's against all the evidence that the Admin wanted a war so bad it could taste it and concocted a pack of lies, half-truths and evasions to make it happen.

Anyone who didn't buy into the war was smeared as a fool or a traitor or ignored, and all contrary evidence was ignored.

We were repeatedly told Iraq had WMDs and the Admin had "evidence."

Rove, this pathetic excuse is a day late and a dollar short. Your place in history is next to Benedict Arnold.

Wanna buy a bridge?

#13 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-12-03 09:08 AM | Reply |

We already did in alaska...

Rove says.....who on Earth would believe anything this liar and all around criminal says????

www.drudge.com

#31 | Posted by Axiom

It wasn't a landslide.

Decisive? Yes.

Not close enough to steal? Yes.

This war was a foregone conclusion the minute President DumbAss was sworn in. The PNAC had their stooge in place and Cheney, who has been the real president for the last seven and a half years, executed the PNAC game plan to perfection.

Thanks Karl. Now lets see you do that famous dance of yours.

Blame it on I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.

We already did in alaska...
#30 | Posted by Valisk

Yup, you betcha.

from corky's dickipedia link at #34:

Rove was created in Denver, CO by a gift shop manager mother and a geologist father, the last person in the Rove family to demonstrate the possession of any stones. He was born on Christmas day, making him the most well-known piece of coal in the history of America's stocking. In high school, Rove excelled in debate and often carried a briefcase, placing him below even the yearbook editor and the treasurer of the model UN team in the high school hierarchy.

Though Rove undoubtedly spent many hours arguing with his European history teacher instead of learning how to talk to women, he found time for student government, the perfect outlet for people who want to feel very important without actually doing anything of value.

Other highlights of his youth included working for Senator/Mormon Wallace Bennett and the time his adopted father divorced his mother to pursue a life as a not-closeted homosexual. That may pretty much explain everything else you are about to read."

well if the prediction is that these people will revise history, then I guess we should all listen to the left since they are the experts at THAT Endeavor.

Now you tell us, Fat Boy...

well if the prediction is that these people will revise history, then I guess we should all listen to the left since they are the experts at THAT Endeavor.

#39 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-12-03 11:36 AM | Reply |

Fucking weak. Try again if you must.

The balls on Karl Rove are - well - simply astounding. Oliver Stone's "W" movie asserts that its protagonist was "blind-sided" by the WMD hoax. For one of Bush's cretinous IQ, that may serve an excuse. But no one ever excused Rove of sub-average intelligence; it is safe to assume that HE helped morph the tragic protest gesture of 9/11/01 into a "war" that gave us four additional years of Bush. herm

A relative of a dead soldier will get him sooner or later.

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

Fucking weak. Try again if you must.

#41 | Posted by panchovilla at

I must
I must

and ah yes here it comes

wishing for the president of the united states to be killed by someone

and if I were to even joke about our president elect wanting a good piece of fried chicken, I would be called all sorts of names

Okay pancho

a little better perhaps, but IM not warmed up yet

I believe anything you say, Karl.

had Bush known Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, the United States would not have gone to war.

Bush did know.

And so did Blair.

a little better perhaps, but IM not warmed up yet

#45 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-12-03 12:06 PM |

The fried chicken thing would be more than a little cheap but most of all un-original. How about you share your opinion on the actual subject at hand? That would be a good start.

They will repeat this lie until future generations believe it.

Look how well the lie about there being no holocaust is doing. Reality means nothing if people hear the same lie again and again, even when the lie goes against all reason.

GWB had to go to war with Saddam. Saddam was holding gold bullion in Iraq's national bank, Rafidian Bank that GWB thought was his to take.

From Iraq Study Group Final Report:
"Iraqi had two state-owned commercial banks: the Rafidian and the Rasheed. Both the Rafidian Bank and the Rasheed Bank accounted for about $1.8 billion in assets, or about 86 percent of the total assets in Iraq's banking system.

So, what happened to this money (gold)?

The war in Iraq is the worlds biggest bank robbery.

Now, Pancho...everyone knows wishing for a little karmic comeuppance on Karl is the same as wishing the same fate befall his Frankenstein creation.

Blame it on I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.

#36 | Posted by Apocalypto

I'd have to agree with that-with the exception of two little words.....

Lack of.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Did Cheney, 8/26/02

"We do know that (Saddam) is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon." - National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, 9/10/02

"We know where (the weapons) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat." - Rumsfled, 3/30/03

#3 | Posted by Silence

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Rove obviously doesn't watch FOX News. They knew exactly where the WMD was found. Them and that Republican idiot Weldon....

Don't seem to remember Sen. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Bob Graham, Madeline Albright, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Sandy Berger or President Bill Clinton ordering an invasion of Iraq.

When was that?

Hans

#53 | Posted by everlong

And yet only ONE person was responsible for making sure that intelligence was sound before sending young Americans to die or be wounded and maimed.

Epic Fail.

Bush knew damn well Hussein had no such weapons. Its a matter of record revealed in his conversations with British Authorities. Perfectly square Intelligence was pounded into a round hole by BushCo, as conceived by Cheney and his gang of thugs at the PNAC.

Invading Iraq was and is a War Crime by the definitions developed by this nation for prosecuting Nazis.

Well, one thing Obama probably learned over the last 8 years is that POTUS is operating almost blind when it comes to intel. The rate of failure vs. the rate of success of the CIA is astounding. Bush got burned by bad intel. Clinton got burned by bad intel - particularly in regards to the supposed 'weapons factory' that turned out to be an aspirin factory. The CIA failed to spot the USSR's impending invasion of Afghanistan. The CIA grossly failed in its inability to see that the USSR was a first-world military but a 3rd world economy. Do any of you know how the CIA estimated USSR's economy? They took the numbers that Moscow advertised and subtracted 1%. That's it.

The problem here being BHO's long-established history of avoiding controversy - his votes of "present" weren't so garish in number as they were blatant in an attempt to avoid taking a position on a controversial issue. So, he likely sees his best course-of-action in regards to national security as one of inaction.

After watching what Bush endured I really expect him to do very little regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations.

So, he likely sees his best course-of-action in regards to national security as one of inaction.

Posted by JeffJ

Yes. That is certainly reflected in his selection of Bob Gates and General Jones to head up that effort.

Bush knew damn well Hussein had no such weapons.

Bone up on the history of the CIA and then come back and make that remark again.

The Bush administration received daily briefings from the CIA that were more assertive regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities and less nuanced than what the administration put forth to the public.

It is also a matter of record the Tenet flat-out told Bush WMD's were a slam-dunk.

It was widely believed, globally, with minimal dissention, that Saddam in fact possessed WMD's. The UN passed 16 seperate resolutions against Iraq that attest to this.

The prior administration (Clinton) believed exactly as Bush did, based upon the best information available to both of them.

There's plenty to criticize regarding Bush's decision to invade Iraq coupled with his handling of the war itself.

Having said that, the whole "Bush lied - people died" mantra is absurd.

The Bush administration received daily briefings from the CIA that were more assertive regarding Saddam's WMD capabilities and less nuanced than what the administration put forth to the public.

Dude, "up is down" is sooooo not the new black.

Yes. That is certainly reflected in his selection of Bob Gates and General Jones to head up that effort.

We'll see how it all plays out.

I actually feel bad for Obama given what he's walking into. He has the exact same handicap that countless prior administrations have had - his primary source of intelligence is mostly incapable of providing reliable intel. After all the shit conservatives listened to regarding the Bush administration, you can bet your ass that Obama will be lambasted if he takes ANY action based upon intel that was later proved to be false.

It's unfortunate for Obama because he is little to blame for the fallout that will ensue. It's the fault of the left and the Democratic party that they decided that blaming Bush for collossal CIA fuck-ups was politically adventageous. Contrast that with the oiverwhelming and vocal support Clinton got from Republican leadership, most notably Gingrich, when he launced Operation Desert Fox. The right-leaning pundits claims of "wag the dog" were admonished by Republican leadership. This is one of those rare occasions where one political party can realistically claim the moral high-ground over the other.

JeffJ still spewing the same fucked up bullshit that You continually do ain'tcha?? Dubya did Lie and continued to lie but people like You who couldn't and wouldn't face the fucking facts Willfully ignores them. He was told Numerous times that Saddam Hussein had NO WMD NUMERIOUS times. He willfully ignored them because He wanted the intelligence to fit around His policy not the other way around. He wanted His illegal and yes it still is illegal no matter how many of You swinging dicks want to deny that fact. He wanted the war he got the war and now revisionistic people like YOU JeffJ are trying their level best to wash themselves of the blood that has been shed in this illegal immoral unjust endeavour. It has got to suck mightily for You and Your ilk. LIVE WITH IT.

Larry

Dude, "up is down" is sooooo not the new black.

It's a matter of record, Betelg.

The information comes from primary sources.

Larry,

Read a little history of the CIA and then get back with us.

Thank you.

"Bone up on the history of the CIA and then come back and make that remark again."

Larry-
Don't you understand? Bush played down the threat from Iraq in his attempt to sell the war!

(LOL, Jeff)

Hey JeffJ many of them in the CIA were telling Dubya Saddam Had no WMD Your education upon the subject matter is willfully ignorant at best LYING at worst. Please do get more educaqted Intellectually Honest about the subject matter next time before You spew so much more of Your revisionist BULLSHBIT JeffJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry

Read a little history of the CIA and then get back with us.

Thank you.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-12-03 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why don't You quit willfully being a liar JeffJ. Thank You

larry

BetelG it's the same fucking thing with these Republican Bushite weasels. They are doing their level best to revisionist history to quell their fucking guts from churning mightily because the truth is hurtting them greatly and they can not stomach it. Same shit BetelG just different day.

Larry

(Just as a clue, Jeff: We were here, and saw it. We heard the talk of "mushroom clouds" from Bush and Rice and how "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ." - Bush)

We were here, dude.

Rogue,

If you think intelligence is EVER 100% certain, than I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course some contradicting information was out there. It's ALWAYS out there. However, when weighing ALL of the information available, the info pointing toward WMD's VASTLY outweighed the info suggesting a lack of WMD's.

BetelG,

Don't you understand? Bush played down the threat from Iraq in his attempt to sell the war!

That's not at all what I was saying. If you actually read what I typed you'll clearly see that the reports that Bush received from the CIA were even more sensationalistic than what he provided to the public in order to justify invading Iraq.

Again, it's a matter of record, if you could be bothered to look.

Regardless, I have no problem with criticizing the wisdom, or more accurately - the lack of wisdom regarding the invasion of Iraq. However, to say that Bush knew, unequivicably, that Saddam didn't possess WMD's is a combination of blind partisanship, sheer ignorance and a complete inability to contextualize anything even remotely abstract.

When Jimmy Carter stated during his presidency that Communism is unfortunately not going anywhere, do you know what the basis for his comment was? Yep, the so-called strength of the Soviet economy based upon CIA estimates? Was he a liar for making that remark? Or was he merely relying upon bad information?

God Damn it must royally suck being a Bushite. Gotta be quite shitty really. Knowing You supportyed such evil such immoral Illegal Unjustifiable waste of Human Life. THAT has got to be sucking for those Bushites. They are doing their level best to try and wash their minds of the knowledge of it all. May God have mercy upon their tortured minds and souls.

Larry Mohr

SEE JeffJ is doing it again. He is trying to wash His mi8nd of the truth. God it must suck in His psyche

Larry

Hey JeffJ many of them in the CIA were telling Dubya Saddam Had no WMD

Tell that to George Tenet.

They are doing their level best to revisionist history to quell their fucking guts from churning mightily because the truth is hurtting them greatly and they can not stomach it.

How many times do you have to be provided with quotes from prominent Democrats AND a prior Democratic administration before you realize that, in total, the available evidence overwhelmingly pointed toward Saddam maining a WMD program?

We were here, dude.

Yes, you heard what the Bush administration provided to the public, which happend to be less alarming that what "Bushco" was getting from the CIA.

We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Even Bush won't say he wouldn't have started a war with Iraq if he'd known there were no WMDs.

DOC SARVIS

Full Transcript:

12/14/05:

BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision.

HUME: So, if you had had this if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?

BUSH: Absolutely.

BWWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

They wouldn't have invaded?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

hey must really think we're stupid or extremely forgetful. From this thread some are very stupid or choose to be forgetful. Sorry. Won't work.

If you actually read what I typed you'll clearly see that the reports that Bush received from the CIA were even more sensationalistic than what he provided to the public in order to justify invading Iraq.

LOL. It'd be funnier if you didn't actually believe that.

Larry,

Being a Bushite may very well suck. However, I wouldn't know because I am not a Bushite.

For the most part, this presidency has been an unmitigated disaster.

Having said that, facts are facts. The TOTAL sum of intel available to Bush pointed toward Saddam possessing WMD's. As Mr. Dean would say, "FACT!"

If you think intelligence is EVER 100% certain, than I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course some contradicting information was out there. It's ALWAYS out there. However, when weighing ALL of the information available, the info pointing toward WMD's VASTLY outweighed the info suggesting a lack of WMD's.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ

Of course it is seldom, if ever, 100% certain. But there is considerable evidence that there were far more dissenting voices in the intelligence community than we were previously told. And considerable evidence both from US and Brit sources that intelligence that didn't fit the agenda was dismissed out of hand.

Jeff-
Try this one, stated with certitude and without caveat on multiple occasions:

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ."
- Bush

(Just for starters)

If you actually read what I typed you'll clearly see that the reports that Bush received from the CIA were even more sensationalistic than what he provided to the public in order to justify invading Iraq.

-Jeff J

Like I said before, anybody who "signs" the end of their posts with their handle is psychologically mis/mal/un/whatever balanced.

FACT!!!

Hey JeffJ You are in fact a Bushite Because You not only voted for Him in 2000 You voted for Him in 2004 that cements You as a Bushite no matter how frucking hard You try and deny that fact. Oh and Condi Rice Coilin Powell even Dick Cheney said He was no threat. Now what do You have to say for Yourself JeffJ?????????

You stated

Having said that, facts are facts. The TOTAL sum of intel available to Bush pointed toward Saddam possessing WMD's. As Mr. Dean would say, "FACT!"

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-12-03 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

More Revisionist History on Your part.

Larry

AU,

Bush was in a no-win situation with that question.

Politically, he couldn't admit that going into Iraq was a mistake.

Regardless, he made the call and has to bear the consequences of his decision. It comes with the job.

Pointing back to that fateful interview is totally OK IMO. He gave his typical 'black and white' answer when in this situation a more detailed and nuanced answer was needed. Bush's inability to effectively communicate is but one of many of his failings as president.

Jimmy D-
You really should get on to Jeff about that, LOL!

Regardless, he made the call and has to bear the consequences of his decision. It comes with the job.

I'm sure the SOB sleeps quite well.

And considerable evidence both from US and Brit sources that intelligence that didn't fit the agenda was dismissed out of hand.

I don't deny this. It validates the criticism that Bush is a reckless cowboy.

More Revisionist History on Your part.

No - a demonstrable degree of ignorance on your part.

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ."
- Bush

What was the basis for that comment? Where did Bush get the information to be able to make such a comment?

BetelG it's the same song and dance. Deflecty Deny Revisionists. They don't want to face the truth because it hurts their psyches.

Larry

You not only voted for Him in 2000 You voted for Him in 2004 that cements You as a Bushite no matter how frucking hard You try and deny that fact.

Not really.

I am a pragmatic voter. Given my viable alternatives I felt that Bush was the lesser of 2 evils. However, given how fucked-up he has been fiscally AND in terms of reigning in government excesses; I can not honestly say he is better on this front than Kerry would have been. Domestically, one of Bush's only real accomplishments is in regards to the judiciary, and he nearly pissed that away with his Harriett Meyers nomination.

Deflecty Deny Revisionists. They don't want to face the truth because it hurts their psyches.

If the facts pointed toward the intel being overwhelming toward a lack of WMD's regarding Saddam, I'd freely admit so. However, that simply isn't the case.

Sorry.

What was the basis for that comment? Where did Bush get the information to be able to make such a comment?

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-12-03 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

How about made up to scare the populace into being afraid. More stupidity upon Your part JeffJ. Especially when He was toild not 10 Days after September the 11th that Saddam Hussein was NOT I repeat was NOT in cahoots with AL Qaeda.

Larry

What was the basis for that comment? Where did Bush get the information to be able to make such a comment?

It was six years ago, so why don't you tell me?

Ya'll give Dubya a break. He looked everywhere for that WMD.

Beneath his desk, behind the door, under the carpet....

Not really.

I am a pragmatic voter. Given my viable alternatives I felt that Bush was the lesser of 2 evils. However, given how fucked-up he has been fiscally AND in terms of reigning in government excesses; I can not honestly say he is better on this front than Kerry would have been. Domestically, one of Bush's only real accomplishments is in regards to the judiciary, and he nearly pissed that away with his Harriett Meyers nomination.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-12-03 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

More denial upon Your part. You are most assuredly a Bushite no maqtter how many times You want to wash Your hands of thaty fact. It's just like Me I am an Obamaite. I voted for Him in 2008. If I vote for Him in 2012 I am an Obamaite no matter how good or bad He turns out. I hired Him I am on My small part Responsible for that Hire. Just like You are with Dubya.

Larry

Jeff-
re: "...the reports that Bush received from the CIA were even more sensationalistic than what he provided to the public in order to justify invading Iraq."

I gave you an example, so can you back it up?

Larry,

If you think I am defending Bush's 'selling' of this war 100%, then I apologize for not adequately communicating my thoughts on this.

ANY attempt to link Saddam with Al Queada is bullshit as even the most damning evidence of any kind of relationship between the 2 entities suggests almost no relationship to speak of.

In the sense that "Bushco" painted a relationship directly, or via Clintonian language is bullshit IMO, and is very worthy of the scorn that you are levying - which I agree with.

It was six years ago, so why don't you tell me?

I asked you the question, perhaps for once you can actually answer a question instead of trying to always control the conversation.

re: "...the reports that Bush received from the CIA were even more sensationalistic than what he provided to the public in order to justify invading Iraq."

Read this:

Jeff-
I'm having trouble collating this juxtaposition of text. Can you help me out?

JeffJ: "ANY attempt to link Saddam with Al Queada is bullshit as even the most damning evidence of any kind of relationship between the 2 entities suggests almost no relationship to speak of."

JeffJ: "...the reports that Bush received from the CIA were even more sensationalistic than what he provided to the public in order to justify invading Iraq."

GW Bush: ""We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ."

"The rate of failure vs. the rate of success of the CIA is astounding."

Yep, this is true. A fact re "intelligence" is that if an intelligence agency states something is unequivocally true, be very suspicious. However, in the case of WMD's in Iraq, the CIA was very ambivalent. Because they had few, if any, "assets" in Iraq and had to rely on second hand sources, obviously unreliable sources, and heresay. Each of their reports laid out the pros and cons. Always lots of caviats. The problem was that the Bush administration chose to ignore the caviats. In doing so, it has no one to blame but itself.

"the info pointing toward WMD's VASTLY outweighed the info suggesting a lack of WMD's."

Unequivocally true in 1998, unequivocally false in 2002. The French had the best connections in Iraq, the best sources, and they deferred to the findings of the UN weapons inspectors.

BetelG,

You raise a very good question and expose a seeming contradiction....

The reports that I refer to are limited to Saddam's, and Saddam's ONLY, WMD capabilities. The sum of the reports that Bush received from the CIA in this vein were more alarmist and less nuanced than what Bush provided to the public.

In my readings, I haven't found any kind of intel suggesting a relationship between Saddam and Al Queada beyond a slightly friendly 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' kinda way. Now, the Bush administration has ALSO said that Saddam was in no way responsible for 9-11. Having said that, team-Bush went to unacceptable lengths to directly, or in a Clintonian-linguistical sense - indirectly, try and foster an image of a relationship between the 2. On this, I share yours and Larry's consternation.

I hope this clarification makes sense.

Jeff J-
re: "Now, the Bush administration has ALSO said that Saddam was in no way responsible for 9-11."

When was that first officially stated?

Unequivocally true in 1998, unequivocally false in 2002. The French had the best connections in Iraq, the best sources, and they deferred to the findings of the UN weapons inspectors.

The problem being that the UN inspectors were largely absent from '98 - '02. They were pulled out when Operation Desert Fox was initiated. From '98 - '02 the intel regarding Iraq became increasingly unreliable as fewer boots were on the ground.

Jeff-
re: From '98 - '02 the intel regarding Iraq became increasingly unreliable as fewer boots were on the ground.

....until 2002, but they were withdrawn because we couldn't wait for the "mushroom cloud" from a country that "has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ."

When was that first officially stated?

It was stated by Bush himself during an interview.

Of course, Cheney muddied the comment with a somewhat Clintonian contradictory comment of his own.

PS - Believe it or not, I am not trying to sully Clinton when I say "Clintonian". It's simply a reference to his evasive use of language - "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

It's a more modern reference to lawyerly double-speak, not unlike how the term "Rovian" has supplanted "Machiavellian".

PPS - You are asking some very good questions on this thread. I appreciate the honest discourse.

Jeff J-
re: It was stated by Bush himself during an interview.

When did he state this?

(I'll drop the question for a moment: He said it long after we were already in Iraq)

How many in Congress, both sides of the aisle, declared WMD's existed? You can find quotes for everyone on this.

How could the war have been prevented? How many read the NIE?

"The problem being that the UN inspectors were largely absent from '98 - '02."

Yeah, but they _were_ there in 2002 (second half). And we didn't invade until 2003.

(I'll drop the question for a moment: He said it long after we were already in Iraq)

Thank you for saving me the google effort, and thank you for just stating what you were trying to lead me toward in your 'Socratic-way' :-).

The fact that a considerable portion of our population believed that Saddam was at least partially responsible for 9-11 (according to various polling) clearly points toward innuendo and even almost blatant lying to create such an impression.

To make a plain statement to the contrary, WELL after the fact in no way exonerates poor communication (being generous) or willful misrepresentation (being critical). The damage was already done, if you will.

There is as much proof that Saddam was responsible for 911 as there is proof that Osama Bin Laden planned 911

Hey, come on.

PNAC had the plan to invade Iraq drawn up long before the invasion.

Cheney stated unequivocally after 9/11 that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, that he posed no threat, that we 'have him boxed in'.

9/11 merely provided a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. This against Cheney's own reasons for not invading in 1991 with 650,000 troops in region.

Here's the video of Cheney answering why we didn't invade at the end of the Gulf War:

All this talk by Rove, et al doesn't change the facts as we know them to have been in 2002.

Had Congress been privy to the same doubts that were scrubbed from their briefing papers we might have averted this disaster.

Revisionist history only works if there are fools who will believe it.

Yeah, but they _were_ there in 2002 (second half). And we didn't invade until 2003.

Understood - however Saddam was given almost 4-years of almost unfettered ability to take measures to obscure any non-compliant measures he might have been taking.

Given Saddam's history and given the monster (Yes, he was a truely evil sociopath) that he was, convential wisdom would hold that when the spy-cams were off, he'd be doing everything in his power to try and hide his WMD aspirations.

Going further, I point out the report (it's name escapes me at the moment) that Saddam's plan was to use chicanery and bribes to get the global community to 'look the other way'. Once that happened, he would re-constitute his WMD programs. This was learned after the fact with full benefit of hindsight.

Mush damage has been done, and mistakes occurred.

Going further, I point out the report (it's name escapes me at the moment) that Saddam's plan was to use chicanery and bribes to get the global community to 'look the other way'. Once that happened, he would re-constitute his WMD programs.

Yes...he has the intent; I just know it! We must strike, and 9/11!!!

Why don't all you who are so much more intelligent than GWB tell the Kurds that Iraq had no WMD?

Why don't all you who are so much more intelligent than GWB tell the Kurds that Iraq had no WMD?

#117 | Posted by FatCat at 2008-12-03 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dumbass -
We were talking about 2002, not the eighties when Saddam was Reagan's buddy.

#117 | Posted by FatCat

Wow. Not too good for a very first post.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-12-03 03:45 PM

JEFF,

The fly in the ointment of your premise is that Cheney and Rice themselves declared after 9/11 that Saddam posed no threat.

Now, just what changed in the intel they were getting between 1/20/01 and 9/11/01?

A convenient excuse to invade Iraq - as PNAC proposed, that's what. And when it seemed the U.N. Weapons Inspectors - who had access and were begging for 2 more months before we started a war - were going to stand in the way they threw them out and started the bombing.

#118

Just like a true liberal, can't think of a good retort so you start calling people names.

When was Reagan Saddam's buddy. Big deal he sold weapons to Iraq. In the next six months it will be announced that we will be selling f-18's to Eqypt. Hardly a friend

"Blame it on I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E."

Or L.A.C.K. T.H.E.R.E.O.F.

Jeff, I remember watching a debate, sometime in December of 2002, between a UN weapons inspector and Richard Perle about Saddam and his WMD program. At the end, both agreed that we didn't know what he still had in his arsenal, if anything. The two differed in that the inspector said we had to believe that his WMD program was, at least temporarily, neutered. Perle said that if there was any chance whatsoever that he still had WMDs, we had to invade. Cheney's 1% doctrine. Not the CIA's doctrine or Clinton's or anyone elses. Therefore, the blame _must_ lie with Cheney et al.

A civilized country does _not_ invade another because it thinks the other may _become_ a problem. Otherwise, Hitler was justified in starting WWII.

Yep, agree that Saddam was evil, etc., and had to be removed sometime. The issue was that 2003 wasn't the right time, nor was the entire operation well thought out. Again, no one else's fault other than Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

Definitely not an intelligence problem, but one of selected policy.

When was Reagan Saddam's buddy.

#122 | Posted by timbci

John Quincy Adams July 4th, 1821 speech.

"She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensi-bly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

He knew the truth then, and we did not listen.

Tell that to George Tenet.

You mean the same tenet that told bush not to use the 16 words in his speech? The ones about aluminum tubes that were laughibly false to even people on this blog?

Bush wanted the war in iraq. Everything else was the excuse.

Oh, and tell me when in history the VP made so many trips to the CIA to hammer them for intel? Even BEING THERE with the CIA KNOWING HIS OPINIONS was massive pressure, let alone what he actually said to these people.

The intel wasn't just bad or uncertain. it was rotten, and whatever didn't fit Bush's "gut" for invasion was ignored, ridiculed, and threats were made and carried out against the sources of this info.

At least kennedy had photos for the cuban missile crisis. Powell went into the UN with "intel" plaigarized from a british college paper and DRAWINGS of weapons site I could have made. It was pathetic, and those of us not scared beyond rational thought by 9-11 knew it then, and told you idiots.

Now, after 95% of the shit WE said turned out to be unfortunately true, and 99% of what you folks believed was proven horseshit, you're still gonna sell us the snake oil with a straight face? Really?

WELL... FUCK YOU!

When was Reagan Saddam's buddy.

#122 | Posted by timbecile

Golden spurs. Go look it up, ignoramus.

Covered that in #125 AU.

I repeat when was Reagan Saddam's buddy. If they were really buddies why didn't Saddam invite him to go fishing and why was he never at Camp David

TIMBCI-
They settled for overlooking Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and looked forward to more weapons sales.

Anyone who can look at the totality of the iraq war, and not see a shit ton of obvious and purposeful you're-going-to-burn-in-hell-
lying is either a complete moron or a dishonest toad.

The Bush administrations natural posture is to lie, even when they don't need to, which considering how fucking stupid their base is...that's often.

Covered that in #125 AU.

#130 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Bears repeating. 'EDU' domains aren't the favorites of the kneejerk Bush crowd. Sometimes you have to lay it out in black and white.

Plus I believe Nancy had a headache the weekend they were supposed to get together with the Husseins.

Bears repeating. 'EDU' domains aren't the favorites of the kneejerk Bush crowd. Sometimes you have to lay it out in black and white.

#134 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

That's true - it does seem to confuse and frighten many of them.

Plus I believe Nancy had a headache the weekend they were supposed to get together with the Husseins.

#135 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-12-03 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nah, the astrologer said that it was a bad shadow of mars or unranus or somethin.

Those who gave Saddam his weapons are of the same mindset that gave Iran missiles days after they released our hostages. We armed both sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict.

Stupid is as stupid does. We have a long history of propping up and arming dictators and others who later become our enemies - like the Taliban, Saddam, et al?

Heh Heh! You said ur anus.

Don't seem to remember Sen. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Bob Graham, Madeline Albright, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Sandy Berger or President Bill Clinton ordering an invasion of Iraq.

When was that?

Hans

#55 | Posted by Hans

Well, I don't recall Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld ordering an invasion either, but those were the quotes that Silence tried to make an example of. Try to keep up, Hans.

Invading Iraq was and is a War Crime by the definitions developed by this nation for prosecuting Nazis.

#57 | Posted by nutcase

Bullshit. Another bald-faced lie. We had every right to go into Iraq WMD or not. Our agreement with them after the Gulf War was not being honored and there were numerous UN resolutions that were ignored. The rest of the world knows we had the right to go in, why don't you?

The rest of the world knows we had the right to go in...

Posted by everlong

I just gotta say it...

Link please.

Well, I don't recall Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld ordering an invasion either

They were just on TV 24/7 making the case ad nauseum using the most terrifying rhetoric for invasion so W could order it.

According to Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary forced out for speaking his mind (he was right by the way on what he spoke), the invasion of Iraq was the first item on the agenda at the very first National Security Council meeting in February 2001.

Now, tell us what 9/11 had to do with invading Iraq besides being a convenient excuse? Expecially in light of the fact Cheney and Rice both said Saddam posed no threat, wasn't behind 9/11, and was "boxed in". What intel changed between January 2001 and October 2001 they weren't privy to? None.

Well, I don't recall Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld ordering an invasion either, but those were the quotes that Silence tried to make an example of. Try to keep up, Hans.

#140 | Posted by everlong at 2008-12-03 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Disingenuous Post of the Day Award

JeffJ still spewing the same fucked up bullshit that You continually do ain'tcha?? Dubya did Lie and continued to lie but people like You who couldn't and wouldn't face the fucking facts Willfully ignores them. He was told Numerous times that Saddam Hussein had NO WMD NUMERIOUS times. He willfully ignored them because He wanted the intelligence to fit around His policy not the other way around. He wanted His illegal and yes it still is illegal no matter how many of You swinging dicks want to deny that fact. He wanted the war he got the war and now revisionistic people like YOU JeffJ are trying their level best to wash themselves of the blood that has been shed in this illegal immoral unjust endeavour. It has got to suck mightily for You and Your ilk. LIVE WITH IT.

Larry

#63 | Posted by LarryMohr

Larry, you're just flat out full of shit. There isn't much more to say because your post hardly deserves a response. Why is it that we only hear BS like this from rabid Bush haters?

Our agreement with them after the Gulf War was not being honored and there were numerous UN resolutions that were ignored

EVERLONG

And yet Saddam was at it in 1991-1992 while there were still hundreds of thousands of soldiers left in the region.

Cheney said in 1994 we didn't invade then to avert everything that happened after the 2003 invasion with 500,000 fewer troops.

The logic you righties use is stunning in it's ridiculousness

Ever long is the line of bullshit you're spewing in the face of incontrafutable facts.

BetelG it's the same song and dance. Deflecty Deny Revisionists. They don't want to face the truth because it hurts their psyches.

Larry

#88 | Posted by LarryMohr

No, it is you who is the revisionist. You have heard this crap about an 'illegal war' and 'Bush lied' so much from the MSM and the liberal bloggers and pundits that you believe it. Jeff is explaining it the way it happened. He is not trying to revise anything.

"Why is it that we only hear BS like this from rabid Bush haters?"

Very few people have Larry's facility with words, but, no, even people who supported the idea of having Saddam removed - eventually, at a favorable time - agree with his general premise.

If you think I am defending Bush's 'selling' of this war 100%, then I apologize for not adequately communicating my thoughts on this.

Don't apologize to him for shit. He's the one who's flipping out and cussing you up and down. He deserves no apology.

#140 | Posted by everlong at 2008-12-03 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Disingenuous Post of the Day Award

#144 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Maybe you need to keep up as well. Disingenuous? If you knew what we were talking about you would see just how stupid using that word is. Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

Silence used quotes from Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld to make a point about how the administration was talking up WMD. So, I posted many quotes from prominent democrats saying the same things about Iraq's WMD's. Hans then commented something about none of those dems made the order to invade, and then I said neither had Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld. Get it? That's the last time I get you up to speed like that.

Am I now Everlong Hmmmmmmmmmm Facts are as follows. Both Condi Rice and Colin Powell said He didn't have WMD in June of 2001. Dick Cheney declared Saddam Hussein Bottled Up during a Meet The Press interview with the Late Tim Russert just days after September the 11th of 2001. Many of the CIA's own declared Saddam Hussein to have had NO WMD but they were quickly relegated to the scrap heap because they were telling Dubya things He did not want to hear. Dubya wanted this war no matter what. The intelligence that Dubya wanted was being fixed around the policy IE Lying out of His ass. When You ommit intelligence to the contrary to what You are saying You are indeed LYING. Dubya agreed to the terms in UN Resolution 1441 which btw is a Self Executing treaty that was formed after the AUMF of October of 2002. Nothing in that UN Treaty gave automacy for the use of Military force. Read it for Yourself and pay particular attention to articles 12 THROUGH 14 of that UN Resolution. It held the UN Security Council to be the FINAL Decision maker upon the subject matter at hand. NO Member State could take Unilateral action against Saddam Hussein in it's carrying out of UN Resolution 1441. Unlike those that were found in UN Resolution 678 article 2 of that Resolution. That authorization ONLY I repeat ONLY Authorized that ANY Member State could act with the help of the Kuwaiti Government to remove Saddam Hussein's Military from Kuwait and NOTHING more. UN Resolution 686 Kept that UN Resolutions 678 article 2's authority while they cleaned up the war mess and repatriated those Kuwaities that were being held by Saddam Hussein NOTHING more. THAT Authorization formally ended with UN Resolution 687 articles 33 and 34 respectively. If You want to say that the AUMF that congress declared on the 11th of October of 2002 gave Dubya permission to act upon Saddam Hussein then pray tell why did He not use that for His justification for the use of Military Force in His letter to congress back in March of 2003. He didn't He used the one that Congress gave Him just weeks after September the eleventh of 2001. He admitted to the Illegality of the War by His very words. Since Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States on September the ELeventh makes that a bald faced LIE. He knew that Saddam Hussein was NOT in cahoots with AL Qaeda because He found them to be in a direct threat to His Secular regime.

CHECK FUCKING MATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry

Oh and a post script Everlong. Had Saddam Hussein attacked the United States Dubya could have legally retaliated against Him and WMD or not would have been a moot point. But since He didn't it was upto the UN Security Council as a whole to decide which next steps to take. Oh and puhlease do not use those No Fly Zones against us during those ILLEGAL No Fly Zones cause Iraq had Sovereignty over their airspace even during sanctions. THAT little jig was hatched out by Great Brittan France and the United States. Frace later pulled out of the agreement when they learned of it's illegality. So please don't use that to justify the unjustifiable.

Larry

Now, tell us what 9/11 had to do with invading Iraq besides being a convenient excuse?

I never said it had anything to do with it.

"...and then I said neither had Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld."

#151 | Posted by everlong at 2008-12-03 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag: Disingenuous, Part II

Sen. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Bob Graham, Madeline Albright, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Sandy Berger or President Bill Clinton didn't advise GWB that he should go ahead and start his war of choice.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Bob Graham, Madeline Albright, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Sandy Berger or President Bill Clinton didn't go around the country pressing the case that America should go ahead and start GWB's war of choice.

Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld did.

Try to keep up.

Hans

Maybe you need to keep up as well. Disingenuous? If you knew what we were talking about you would see just how stupid using that word is. Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

LOL spell out Disingenuous.

The call for war and invasion was made by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and rest of the cabal and advocated by PNAC since at least '98.

Stupid would be trying to tie in the dems mentioned in the same insane call for war.

"#117 | Posted by FatCat

Wow. Not too good for a very first post.
#119 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-12-03 03:52 PM"

"#118

Just like a true liberal, can't think of a good retort so you start calling people names.
#121 | Posted by FatCat at 2008-12-03 03:55 PM"

SanAntonioRogue didn't call you a name.
He said your very first post was not too good.

I'll add that your second post is not too good, either.

Take the chip off your shoulder and quit playing a victim.

This says nothing about dealing with Kuwait. You are talking about a resolution that goes back to the Gulf War. It doesn't apply here.

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".

T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. . .If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution DOES NOT CONSTRAIN any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2]

Checkmate? Tell me, what part of 'does not constrain any member state from acting' do you not understand?

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

Yes indeed the UN so you have a mandate to invade from the UN?

Perhaps someone can explain how 'does not constrain any member state from acting' translates into 'member states must invade'?

War of choice. Mission accomplished.

Hans

Maybe if You were Intellectually Honest Everlong You would have posted the UN Resolution 1441. But You aren't what a surprise NOT. Here it is and pay particular attentions to Articles 12 through 14 please. There will be a test on this tomorrow.

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

continued...............

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

continuing................

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Larry

That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)

EVERLONG

Well, golly gee. Saddam was violating that one while we still had 650,000 troops in region. Did Bush 41 use it to go in and take him out?

oh and psssssssssst Everlong take a gander at this will Ya. It's Article 14 of the UN Resolution 1441.

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-12-03 05:32 PM

Larry,

Keep in mind you're talking to a Bush approval 18%er. Say anything true about Bush's real actions and they cover their ears and go, "Bla la la la la la la la la la la".

Thank you for what? The UN stalled and kept stalling and the US called them on their bullshit. We would still be waiting for them to make a decision if we left it up to them.

You grossly overestimate yourself, Larry. Not just in this series of posts but all the time.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

This is equal to saying 'we don't want to make a decision'. Maybe you see the UN as the final word in worldy matters but, thankfully, others do not.

I forgot AU how crazy of Me. Thank You for slapping Me upside the head with that statement. Kuddos.

Larry

You grossly overestimate yourself, Larry.

That's not the first time someone has used "gross" and "Larry" in the same sentence.

Thank you for what? The UN stalled and kept stalling and the US called them on their bullshit. We would still be waiting for them to make a decision if we left it up to them.

You grossly overestimate yourself, Larry. Not just in this series of posts but all the time.

#168 | Posted by everlong at 2008-12-03 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

BULLSHIT on the very HIGHEST ORDER. The UN Weapons inspectors were on the ground doing their job mandated by the UN Security Council until Dubya kicked them out 48 hours before bombing. The UN Security Council was doing Their Job as well. Nice try once again Everlong.

You go on to State.

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

This is equal to saying 'we don't want to make a decision'. Maybe you see the UN as the final word in worldy matters but, thankfully, others do not.

#169 | Posted by everlong at 2008-12-03 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Beings We were the PRIMARY Founding member of the organization it behooves us to abide by the rules that are set out therein in the UN Charter. If You don't want to abide by the UN Rules then compell Your congressman/Woman to get the United States out of the UN. Until then I expect My Country to abide by said rules. Oh and we will need the worlds help aa whole lot more now than they will need us going forwards and that includes the UN.

Larry

Larry,

No problemo. It's funny to witness the Bush apologists.

Just to let you know, I called bullshit on the war before we invaded. Shit, it didn't take a rocket surgeon to see that the "intelligence" was fixed.

Well, there we will have to disagree, because I happen to think that the UN is inept and anti-American. I don't care if we founded it, that fact does not mean anything when it comes to how the UN actually operates. You take your global overseer you can have it. We proved that we don't need UN approval to do what we think we need to do.

I happen to think that the UN is inept and anti-American.

Yep. It reflects the rest of the world precisely.

"We proved that we don't need UN approval to do what we think we need to do."

Nah, we don't need no approval, we don't need no steenkin' badges, we don't need nothin' but whatever we wanna do we gonna do. Hell, we don't even need no checks, we don't need no balances, we just gonna go and do what we wanna do when we wanna do it.
~Eighth-Grade Wouldbe Politicos
~Adult Sociopathic Boy-Men

Well, there we will have to disagree, because I happen to think that the UN is inept and anti-American. I don't care if we founded it, that fact does not mean anything when it comes to how the UN actually operates. You take your global overseer you can have it. We proved that we don't need UN approval to do what we think we need to do.

Posted by everlong at 2008-12-03 06:47 PM | Reply

Is THAT so Everlong??? then pray tell why did that fucking bastard Dubya always go crying to the UN every fucking time He got His proverbial tits in the wringer. Every fucking time. If "We" proved that "We" didn't need the UN's help then why go on bended knee begging for assistance when shit went south in a hurry. Funny it reminds Me of some fucking kid declaring He doesn't need His parents help until He gets his ass in a jam and goes back crying to Mommy and Daddy begging for them to bail His ass out. Yeah Mister Tough Guy Dubya was that Manchild. Hell He even had to finally get His old man to help bail His ass out with regards to Iraq. Why do You think there was the Iraq Study group in the first place and why were Many of those that Sat upon it some of GHWB's buddies?? Funny how that works Everlong.

Larry

Sorry, Everschlong...

Larry's got yer number.

He's completely schooled you and yer too dimwitted to see it.

You go, Larry.

"We proved that we don't need UN approval to do what we think we need to do."

We did indeed prove that. At huge cost. And now essentially the rest of the world hates us and may, if we're not careful, decide on some nice day to take us out. Can we beat them ALL? herm

We did indeed prove that. At huge cost. And now essentially the rest of the world hates us and may, if we're not careful, decide on some nice day to take us out. Can we beat them ALL? herm

Posted by herm at 2008-12-03 07:25 PM | Reply

Yep after all We ACTUALLY have WMD. They could easily declare the United States a threat to their Country and bomb us into the next ice age and there ain't a fucking thing we could say about it because Dubya "Legitamized" Pre Emptive War. We have permanently lost the right to condemn other Countries for doing the same thing.

Larry

The UN stalled and kept stalling and the US called them on their bullshit. We would still be waiting for them to make a decision if we left it up to them.

So are we going to invade Israel for telling the UN to go perform an anatomical impossibility over and over again?

One single standard is needed here. We can't just pay attention to international law when it suits us, and ignore it otherwise. It takes any sort of moral and legal high ground right off the table and makes our country seem like it's full of excrement to the rest of the world.

If we don't honestly care what the world thinks, then hang the pretense of "international law" and let's just be honest about what we're doing.

Calling Rove's statements bullshit or lies really just begins to describe what he and the rest of Bush's White House have done.

Good men and women of our armed forces have been killed or wounded. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have suffered the same fate. Our country's treasure has been squandered and our nation's reputation sunk to new low. Now this man has he audacity to say these statements with a straight face. The Administration cooked the intelligence, I suspect Rove knows this to be the truth. I have seen people were dead wrong, rationalize their way out of an old position, to provide logical reasons for their action or simply tell a lie. This, however takes the cake.

You know what the big beef about the whole thing is that those who protested this Illegal Immoral and Unjust action undertaken by Dubya got slammed as being UnAmerican UnPatriotic Hate for Their country etc etc. Yet Yet Yet when shit comes to light those same SOB's who condemned We protestors have yet to utter You were Right and Patriotic we were the Cowards who supported this calamity. It sure is a T Total disgrace and a half.

Larry

Maybe you need to keep up as well. Disingenuous? If you knew what we were talking about you would see just how stupid using that word is. Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

Silence used quotes from Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld to make a point about how the administration was talking up WMD. So, I posted many quotes from prominent democrats saying the same things about Iraq's WMD's. Hans then commented something about none of those dems made the order to invade, and then I said neither had Cheney, Rice, or Rumsfeld. Get it? That's the last time I get you up to speed like that.

#151 | Posted by everlong

Sorry, but I know precisely what is being discussed here. So don't get all uppity because you got called out on your pathetic attempt at a dodge.

You see, the difference is that none, not a single one, of the Democrats you posted actually ordered any Americans into that war of choice. But Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld worked for the man who did - and they did everything in their power to sell that phony crap to the American people.

So disingenuous is EXACTLY the correct word to use for your #151 post.

And just so you know - I don't need you to "get me up to speed on anything... ever.

"So disingenuous is EXACTLY the correct word to use for your #151 post."

Actually, your #140 post.

Do any of you know how the CIA estimated USSR's economy? They took the numbers that Moscow advertised and subtracted 1%. That's it.

Jeff--I hadn't heard that one--disgraceful.

As for this thread--there was a huge failure of intel--I think we can all agree on that premise.

It was also the intel of other countries and the UN--that Hussein had WMD.

If that intel had been more accurate--The Resolution would not have had the language it had to go after Saddam.

The Resolution would still have language giving the POTUS powers to decide what to do and resources to protect the country.

But highly unlikely we would have gone after Iraq and taken out Hussein.

The issue of WMD was the biggest factor--along with human rights and his shooting at our planes.

But without the WMD--the country and the media would not have gone along with the decision for the President to go forward.

"It was also the intel of other countries and the UN--that Hussein had WMD."

Uhm, no, it wasn't.

"If that intel had been more accurate--The Resolution would not have had the language it had to go after Saddam.

The Resolution would still have language giving the POTUS powers to decide what to do and resources to protect the country.

But highly unlikely we would have gone after Iraq and taken out Hussein."

Then why do you suppose that Bush told Bob Woodward that if he knew then what he knows now, he would have done the same thing? Why did Cheney say...

Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct
Vice president says we would do exactly the same thing' regardless of intel

Sept. 10: Vice President Dick Cheney tells Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" that the Bush administration would do "exactly the same thing" in Iraq, even if it knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

I just love how You try and cloud Your mind with falsehoods Murphy. First off Many folks in the Intelligence community told Dubya that Saddam Hussein had NOTHING. You can also forget about those Human Rights issues since Dubya behaved just as badly with regards to the Iraqi people as a justification for the Iraq War. Oh and I really hate to inform You Murphy that Saddam Hussein had every right under the sun to fire upon our No Fly ZOne patrols because they violated His Sovereign Country and were Illegal. So You see Murphy You can't try and justify it via that either. Nice try and revisionist history however.

Larry

No Larry--Iraq was under UN Resolution and he was not supposed to be shooting at us. We were allowed to fly over --per UN Resolution and following his Kuwait invasion.

San--what year did Cheney say that on MTP?? Russert died this past June?

These guys are talking now.

Gibson's interview with Bush told a lot about his regrets--one of which was that the intel was not as good as it should have been.

The mood of the country at the time--15 months leading up to the invasion, was go get Hussein.

Hussein was a tyrant and frankly I am glad he is gone and his pathetic sons.

It cost our country plenty in blood and treasure.

As long as we don't phuck up the end --we did bring democracy to the middle east.

History will be the judge on whether or not that was worthy--I think it will be judged that it was worthy.

"San--what year did Cheney say that on MTP?? Russert died this past June?"

It was earlier this year. But what difference does it make? I mean other than the concerted effort currently being mounted to salvage whatever they can of Bush's "legacy". Or do you think a few months ago they wouldn't have done anything differently, but now they've had a change of heart and would have?

"Gibson's interview with Bush told a lot about his regrets--one of which was that the intel was not as good as it should have been."

Of course he said something like that. If he has any hope of ever rehabilitating his image then the whole disaster MUST be someone else's fault, not his. Just another step in the process.

BTW, did you know both Karen Hughes and Karl Rover (and others) are back in the WH working on "The Bush Legacy"?

You are so very wrong Murphy. NONE of the UN Resolutions sanctioned the use of No Fly Zones as a matter of fact they all declared Iraq to have full sovereignty. You can not have full sovereignty if You sanction No Fly Zones. It's just like a person on Probation/Parole. You do not have full sovereignty over Your person until You satisfy the terms of the Probation and have been discharged. Oh and we didn't Bring Democracy unto the Middle East. We brought a Theocracy a HUGE fucking difference Murphy. But the Revisionistic history is understandable. It must suck mightily being a supporter of such calamity.

Larry

"San--what year did Cheney say that on MTP?? Russert died this past June?"

The purpose of the Resolution in Congress and the UN Resolution was not touted as meaning we're 'going to war'. It was touted as a way to hold a hammer over Saddam's head with the threat of war so he'd let the U.N. Inspectors do their job, which they begged Bush for 2 months to finish.

Well, turns out it was just another disingenuous claim by the White House who promptly kicked out the Inspectors and went to war.

Keep in mind you're talking to a Bush approval 18%er. Say anything true about Bush's real actions and they cover their ears and go, "Bla la la la la la la la la la la".

#167 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-12-03 06:25 PM

Sponge Bob? Seems an appropriate enough metaphor for the Bush years...

As we have heard many times, the proper intel was there but ignored. What was really needed was a good president. It is plain the the current resident of the WH is defective and in need of repair. (psychiatric)

Sanan, if you didn't get it from my explanation then you just won't get it at all. The point is not who worked for who, the point that was being made is that Bush ordered the invasion. I'm not trying to squirrel around anything. The discussion was about quotes on Iraq's WMD and Silence tried to make it seem as if only Bush administration officials were making comments about Iraq having WMD. Myself and another poster put up many democrat quotes to rebut it. Why, may I ask, would two people make almost the same reply if they weren't talking about the same thing?

Anyway, I'm done with trying to explain it to you.

Anyway, I'm done with trying to explain it to you.

#197 | Posted by everlong

Probably just as well that you not try to explain something you don't understand yourself.

BTW - the "Democrats said Saddam had WMD too" deflection has been around here on the DR at lot longer than you have, so we can smell the BS a mile away.

Why should Bush have to deal with amibguities and nuances when he had access to "information" from such a rock-solid source as Curveball?

-----------------

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
~Richard "They Don't Call Me Dick For Nuthin'" Cheney

Hmmmmm......You mean as in metaphyscial certitude?

-----------------
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

Mindboggling.

If one reads UN Resolution 687 they will see that one of the conditions for the cecession of hostilites in the 1991 Gulf War was that Saddam immediately provide the locations of any and all WMD's.

Bush's daddy had a golden opportunity to send in hundreds of thousands of troops to find them then when Saddam refused. He had the opportunity when he called on the Iraqis to rebel - which they did while we stood by. 250,000 Iraqis killed in the aftermath of that blunder.

Karl Rove is full of shit. The WH provided only the intel which would help their case for war, and withheld intel that brought the claims of WMD's into question.

We lost a lot of good career CIA and Defense Intelligence officers who spoke the truth and quit in disgust or were fired for not towing the company line on WMD's.

BTW - the "Democrats said Saddam had WMD too" deflection has been around here on the DR at lot longer than you have, so we can smell the BS a mile away.

#198 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Jesus! It's not a deflection when someone posts direct quotes about WMD made by people in the Bush administration and is trying to make a point by doing so. To then, in turn, show where democrats made the same types of quotes is not a deflection. It is simply telling them that their post is irrelevant. Man, try some common sense. It doesn't matter how long it's been around the DR it still makes the same sense it did the first time it was ever brought up. Furthermore, if I didn't make the first post on the subject then I'm not the one dredging up old arguments.

Members of Congress were NOT provided with dissenting intel

They were given intelligence summaries cherry picked and washed of any mention of doubt.

"To...show where democrats made the same types of quotes is not a deflection."

Sure it is, when you consider none of those Democrats made the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. It was George W. Bush who did that.

Had this Iraq fiasco gone as well as Daddy's War, you would have given all the credit to Dubya. None of those Dems would have been praised by you, yet when it goes wrong you want to blame them.

"it still makes the same sense it did the first time it was ever brought up"

Yes...that's correct.

It didn't make any sense back then, either.

what a fucken liar
and that goes for Rove too!

What he meant was that if the White House hadn't ignored the accurate intel that was in conflict with the already decided on policy then war would have been prevented.