Give it a rest you old douchbag. We all know what ya did and said. Save it for the judge.

Classic Cheney - you spread around until it sticks all the crap about Iraq and 9/11, then say you never actually said it.

"Cheney: No evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11. We tried to get someone to say so via torture. No go. Dammit! I could just shoot a lawyer in the face right about now!"

What a worthless piece of shit he is. He is about as useful as a chump in charge of the Prison outreach ministry. Now He is whoring His daughter Liz Cheney out there to save His ass. What utter and complete poppycock.

Larry

Deadeye Dick goes on to claim that the invasion of Iraq was STILL justified despite the Saddam-911 lies he kept telling BECAUSE Saddam was known to coddle terrorists, and with a straight face ignores the FACT that Saddam hated bin Laden almost as much as bin Laden despised him.

9/11 commission discounts Saddam-Bin Laden link

with a straight face ignores the FACT that Saddam hated bin Laden almost as much as bin Laden despised him.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2009-06-01 11:29 PM | Reply

That's right Corky! The only way to support terrorism is to be a poker buddy with bin Laden.

Your bi-polar view is worthy of Danni!

Good-bad
Dem-Repub
bin Laden-Western Civ

Fact is, Saddam may have hated bin Laden, but probably because bin Laden was better at manipulating the media. Saddam in his own right did plenty to foment terrorism.
------------

Saddam diverted millions to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, officials say

NEW YORK (AP) - Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil- for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, say congressional investigators who uncovered evidence of the money trail.

Wow, next thing you'll know Mr. Cheney will be saying the mission was NOT accomplished ;-)!

More seriously, your #6 post vernon misses the point COMPLETELY. Where is ANYBODY saying that Saddam Hussein was a 'good guy'??? In case you missed it, the "Hundreds of Billions" dollar question is: Was Saddam Hussein supporting Al Qaeda? The answer is NO! MORE to the point, the fact is he was opposed to Al Qaeda.

ANOTHER related point: IF the last administration had approached the Congress with a proposal to attack/occupy Iraq for the purpose of eliminating Saddam Hussein's 'benefits program' for the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel, they would have been laughed off The Hill and we would not be occupying Iraq today. Please don't excuse the past administration's actions and/or divert attention away from that key issue.

Posted by TrueBlue at 2009-06-02 05:03 AM | Reply

Let's not forget if they were to have done that they would of had to include Saudi Arabia into that mix because they do the same thing but Oh My they are our buddies so we couldn't do that. (ROLLS EYES)

Larry

I watched Cheney's performance at the National Press Club . . . and yes, it was a "performance" . . . and I marveled that he could say those words with a straight face.

I'm not clever enough to come up with an anology which aptly equates to Dick Cheney's modus operandi but we've all seen this tactic used repeatedly by others who find themselves in a CYA position and perhaps, just perhaps, on his way to the Hague.

We can only guess about how Cheney's mind works. The pathology he displays indicates to me that he's consumed with hatred for everyone in this country who had the audacity to disagree with him on November 4, 2008.

For eight years he had unbridled power which he used in the most amoral ways imaginable. I'm not in the least surprised that he's trying to be just as manipulative now as he's been in the past.

It IS all about manipulation isn't it . . . and Cheney still thinks of himself as the master manipulator. For someone who says that he doesn't care about public opinion (or polls for that matter) he working overtime once again to juggle his version of history against reality.

As in, perhaps "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

So yes, Cheney is running scared, probably for the first time in his life. He's trying to erase history and replace it with his own, just on the outside chance he might actually come to trial. His defense attorney can play a tape of that National Press Club speach in an effort to confuse the jury . . . provided, of course, he can pack it with some really stupid people.

The Rocky Mountain News asked Cheney in a Jan. 9, 2004, interview if he stood by his claims that Saddam's regime had maintained a "relationship" with al Qaida, raising the danger that Iraq might give the group chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to attack the U.S.

"Absolutely. Absolutely," Cheney replied.

A Cheney spokeswoman said a response to an e-mail requesting clarification of the former vice president's remarks would be forthcoming next week.

"The (al Qaida-Iraq) links go back," he said. "We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology. These are all matters that are there for anybody who wants to look at it."

Dick Cheney

2002

"In Afghanistan we found confirmation that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents. We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction." - Vice President Delivers Remarks to the National Academy of Home Builders, White House (6/6/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

"There is also a grave danger that al Qaeda or other terrorists will join with outlaw regimes that have these weapons to attack their common enemy, the United States of America. That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002) - BushOnIraq.com

2003

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Vice President's Remarks at 30th Political Action Conference, White House (1/30/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. . . We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we've had a government -- not only was it one of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past . . . but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization . . . ." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"(I)f we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities." - Vice President Dick Cheney Remarks at Luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach, White House (10/3/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs." - Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror -- hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, and making payments to the families of suicide bombers. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida -- providing training to Al Qaida members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs. He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at the James A. Baker, III, Institute for Public Policy, White House (10/18/2003) - BushOnIraq.com

2004

"We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." - Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11." - Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, White House (1/14/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction." - Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Dick Cheney, Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004) - BushOnIraq.com

"vernon misses the point COMPLETELY"

That's really all you needed to say Larry.

Mr. RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:

(Videotape, September 16, 2001):

Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

(End videotape)

Mr. RUSSERT: Has anything changed, in your mind?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business.

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that and the president?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point. We've got...

Mr. RUSSERT: Anything else?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is-again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan-we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein has, over the years, been one of the top state sponsors of terrorism for nearly 20 years. We've had this recent weird incident where the head of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world's most noted terrorists, was killed in Baghdad. The announcement was made by the head of Iraqi intelligence. The initial announcement said he'd shot himself. When they dug into that, though, he'd shot himself four times in the head. And speculation has been, that, in fact, somehow, the Iraqi government or Saddam Hussein had him eliminated to avoid potential embarrassment by virtue of the fact that he was in Baghdad and operated in Baghdad. So it's a very complex picture to try to sort out.

And...

Mr. RUSSERT: But no direct link?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can't-I'll leave it right where it's at. I don't want to go beyond that. I've tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments, and I hope that everybody will recognize that.

"It IS all about manipulation isn't it . . . and Cheney still thinks of himself as the master manipulator."

He IS.

He, along with that entire administration manipulated intelligence, manipulated our government bodies, manipulated Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Now he's trying to manipulate history.

Lisa I am so glad you have returned. You need to spend more time here.

Interesting discussion, but here's a question to ponder:
Was their EVER a war where the pretense to start it was not B.S.? Even Lincoln dropped his "preserve the Union" line and switched to "End slavery." Pearl Harbor was bad, but look at our economic war against Japan for the previous years and you'll see a country being ruined by us. Oh yeah, my favorite. Woodrow Wilson making the world safe for democracy. He sure made it safer for Hitler.
So Bush's pretenses I understand, but I think he was an idiot to go as far as he did.

-That's right Corky! The only way to support terrorism is to be a poker buddy with bin Laden.

No, Vermin, but that was the only excuse that MIGHT have been enough reason to invade Iraq. Half the countries in the ME support Palestinian bombers.

I suppose you want to invade them, too?

What about Iraq's air space violations over and over again? Especially in the 9/11 era. "Saddam,we are warning you, you violate it one more time and we will take action." Saddam-"fuck you." "I mean it this time Saddam." Saddam-"fuck you again."
And then you have to listen over and over again to the likes of Hilary preaching why we need to attack. Give it a rest you blow hards.

Saddam in his own right did plenty to foment terrorism.
------------

Saddam diverted millions to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, officials say

So did the saudi royal family, Vernon. Saudi TV also ran telethons for these families.

Given the saudi link to al queda, their funding of the wahabist imams, their support of the taliban ( 1 of only 3 nations to recognize the taliban government of afghanistan) and all those saudis involved on 9-11, wanna tell us why saudistan wasn't the first target?
I mean, other than the Bush family's really really close personal and economic ties to the saudi royal family.

What about Iraq's air space violations over and over again? Especially in the 9/11 era. "Saddam,we are warning you, you violate it one more time and we will take action." Saddam-"fuck you." "I mean it this time Saddam." Saddam-"fuck you again."
And then you have to listen over and over again to the likes of Hilary preaching why we need to attack. Give it a rest you blow hards.

Posted by fishpaw at 2009-06-02 10:23 AM | Reply

You mean those Illegal No Fly Zo9nes established by the united States Great Brittan and France which France later pulled out of after they learned of their illegality. You mean THOSE Fishpaw??

Larry

"""Saddam in his own right did plenty to foment terrorism."""

As has the u.s. over the years. What's your point?

Interesting discussion, but here's a question to ponder:
Was their EVER a war where the pretense to start it was not B.S.? Even Lincoln dropped his "preserve the Union" line and switched to "End slavery." Pearl Harbor was bad, but look at our economic war against Japan for the previous years and you'll see a country being ruined by us. Oh yeah, my favorite. Woodrow Wilson making the world safe for democracy. He sure made it safer for Hitler.
So Bush's pretenses I understand, but I think he was an idiot to go as far as he did.

#19 | Posted by Diablo

Well the Iraq war was unprecedented in the amount of lies and lack of justification.

Lincoln responded to armed rebellion, Wilson responded to German attacks on US citizens and what we perceived as our inalienable right to travel the seas, Pearl Harbor was Pearl Harbor and the sanctions against Japan resulted from their actions in China. The policies that lead to the wars was self defense-which is a legitimate cause for war.

The Iraq war was justified by lies that matched a foregone conclusion, that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. that is not an acceptable reason to start a war. Therefore, the bush administration mislead the nation that Iraq was a threat to us. They knew he was not, that he possessed no capability to attack us, despite what the administration claimed.

Therefore the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and therefore an illegal act of agression.

"I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he (Hussein) was involved in 9/11."

That isn't news!!! It was claimed that hussein had training camps for terrorists.

Pathological Liar.

its nice anyway that the left is jumping on his bandwagon about gay marriage.

all of a sudden he isnt just an 'old douchebag'
more proof that free speech is only guaranteed by libs if you agree with them..

in his interview with greta as well as at the press club he was very clear in stating that there was no connection as far as planning and such but sadaam was a terrorist supporter and had algaida people living in iraq with no fear of capture...

of course the MILLIONS OF iraqis who are now free to run thier own country dont care about this anyway..

and it really shouldnt matter anyway

"THIS WAR IS LOST"

harry ried....sometime JUST before he closed one of his questionalbe LAND DEALs

No evidence but he still believes there was an association!

After all the drama, all the money, all the torture, ALL THE LIES he is STILL sticking to his sad story.

Somebody serve Cheney a big fat juicy steak!

Sadaam was an open supporter of terrorism. There is no doubt about that. He should have been taken out a long time ago.

Cheney was the puppet master and Bush was his tool. He would "leak" crap intel to Judith Miller types and they would report on it in the papers.

Then Cheney would go on TV and point to the false info in the papers and say "See, there is evidence out there to justify the Iraq invasion"

"Dick Cheney, in a speech at the National Press Club, said "I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he (Hussein) was involved in 9/11."

Well, shit! Does that mean the left has been lying to us this whole time? Nawwww, I don't believe they would do that.

If yall right wingers are so interested in states that are open supporters of terrorism then why didnt Bush invade Saudi Arabia? 15 hijackers were Saudi, and that Wahhabi brand of radical Islam is the real culprit behind 9/11

pop quiz: what ME gov has suffered the most attacks from muslim extremists/'terrorists'?

"[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, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

u mean bush/cheney weren't the only ones warmongering rightisright???!!!

stop teaching them, they will forget these pesky facts again.

RIR,
From your quote: including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites.

It wasn't appropriate. They did not give clearance to do whatever Bush felt.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

You missed one salient fact, RIR:

All politicians spout rhetoric, but ultimately, actions are the proof. Clinton thought Saddam was contained. Bush invaded and occupied.

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

Post a link.

Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

#39 | Posted by rightisright

Yes. But the fact remains... the ONE person who's most solemn responsibility it was to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of the facts before sending our troops to fight and die, didn't.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

There are those two words again:

I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary -

Clinton debated the meaning of the word "Is," perhaps the right doesn't understand the meaning of the word "IF."

Yes. But the fact remains... the ONE person who's most solemn responsibility it was to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of the facts before sending our troops to fight and die, didn't.

#52 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

Quit being a pussy. Bill Clinton's administration were running no-fly zones and embargoes against Iraq for years. Last I checked, those are acts of war.

You're a typical Dem. You love war as long as it's your guy in the White House dropping the bombs, and as long as it's your guys standing in front of the microphones telling you it's all a good idea. But as soon as it's a Repub, you start getting all sanctimonious about responsibility.

Man up.

Can we piss on his head yet?

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

You're a typical Dem. You love war as long as it's your guy in the White House dropping the bombs, and as long as it's your guys standing in front of the microphones telling you it's all a good idea. But as soon as it's a Repub, you start getting all sanctimonious about responsibility.

Man up.

Posted by rightisright

And, as usual, you are utterly full of shit. I, like most Democrats fully supported Bush's actions against Afghanistan. Don't blame us if he fucked up and left the job half done so he could go invade some other country on trumped up evidence.

You missed one salient fact, RIR:

All politicians spout rhetoric, but ultimately, actions are the proof. Clinton thought Saddam was contained. Bush invaded and occupied.

#48 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

I missed nothing. Your Dem leadership were talking about the need for disarming Saddam. You don't do that by containing him; you do it by removing him. And that's what they voted to do. Now, typically, they want to pretend it never happened, and that they never said the things that they said. Pelosi, Graham, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Clinton, Albright, Edwards--they all wanted war. They all voted for bombing and maiming and torture and Gitmo and Patriot Acts.

If you wanna send Cheney to jail, better make it an awfully big cell. He's going to have a lot of company.

#59 | Posted by rightisright

So I'll ask you again. Which, of all the names you so giddily post, had the ULTIMATE responsibility to make sure they were right before sending 4100 young Americans to die and 30,000 to to injured and maimed?

And, as usual, you are utterly full of shit. I, like most Democrats fully supported Bush's actions against Afghanistan. Don't blame us if he fucked up and left the job half done so he could go invade some other country on trumped up evidence.

#60 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

I don't believe you. Easy to say now, but let's see a post or two from you from 2001-2002, that says you were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It was backed by 70% of Democrats, who now are running around saying just what you did. Now, they claim they were lied to by Bush, when most of the quotes were coming from the Clinton people.

You're typical. And you're funny. Clinton gets a pass, Bush doesn't. But now, Obama does.

So I'll ask you again. Which, of all the names you so giddily post, had the ULTIMATE responsibility to make sure they were right before sending 4100 young Americans to die and 30,000 to to injured and maimed?

#62 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

The president. And if he's not doing his job, it's the job of Congress to cut off the funding. There's an important document that lays all this out, written way back in 1789.

ULTIMATE responsibility. You're hysterical. "I'm just a member of Congress! You can't blame me!"

LOL. You're a joke.

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

Look! I found one from Nancy!

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"I missed nothing. Your Dem leadership were talking about the need for disarming Saddam. "

Too funny.

So tell us...if we invade North Korea, will it be because Obama made the decision, or because Republicans spouted rhetoric?

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Yet the Bushies kept saying "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same sentence over and over until all the cretins who voted for them believed that Saddam masterminded the whole thing.

And that was an intentional deception no matter what this traitor says now.

Too funny.

So tell us...if we invade North Korea, will it be because Obama made the decision, or because Republicans spouted rhetoric?

#70 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

Ah. I see.

It's always the president's responsibility. And as soon as Congress starts allocating the money and making big speeches as to why it's a good idea, the responsibility is shared by Congress. And if we, as a people, choose to re-elect that Congress and that president, the responsibility is shared by us all.

Separation of powers, and all that. Look it up sometime.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Had Bush followed through with his publicly stated purpose of a War Authorization to force Saddam's cooperation with the UN inspection teams (which they'd gained by March 2003 according to Hans Blix's report and pleas for more time) we wouldn't have gone to war. That was the whole point in stopping the inspections IMO based on then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in "The Price of Loyalty" of the first National Security Council meeting in Februdary 2001 where they rolled out maps of Iraq and said "we're going in".

Saddam didn't want to be attacked and deposed. The inspection teams were the last remaining obstacle standing in the PNAC crowd's way.

dan, u don't get it, the responsibility falls on both. thats his point.

sully, iraq/911 was barely spouted, it was the BS WMD that was constantly spouted by both sides. yet only one side gets all the blame.

and the other side that wanted to tuck tails and bounce in '05 claim total innocence from the beginning. clearly bs.

I don't believe you. Easy to say now ...

#63 | Posted by rightisright

I don't really care what you believe.

I want to know how many of you lefties were asking for Bill Clinton's head in 1998-2000, for bombing a country that you say posed no threat to us, for putting on an embargo that took tens of thousands of Iraqi lives? How many letters did you write? How many phone calls of protest?

Or was his word on the matter enough? That he relied on the same intelligence Bush did, and had HIS SecDef, SecState, and his VP make his case that Iraq had to be bombed and attacked and starved?

Just askin'. Let me know when Cheney's trial starts. I'll be amused to see his witness list.

au, yea because the inspection teams were given full run of the place prior to that for a decade right? lol

so it doesn't matter what dem leaders said and advocated?

So keep posting your intellectually dishonest crap. YOUR boy bears the ultimate responsibility for Iraq, no matter how many posts you make about what other people SAID.

#76 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

Well, we're in Iraq right now. Isn't it Obama's responsibility that we're still there? He can pick up the phone--right now--and we're gone in 30 days.

Why hasn't he?

Be a man, for a change. Your party was wrong---or lied to you--vis a vis Iraq. And you don't care about that. But when Dick Cheney does it, well, that really gets you going.

RiR

Blix's teams concluded Saddam had disposed of all his WMD's before 2002. You're quotes are largely from 1998.

The proof he had is pretty clear now. Too bad the UN teams didn't get the 2 months they were pleading for, eh? We'd have saved 4000 lives and a couple trillion.

so it doesn't matter what dem leaders said and advocated?

#79 | Posted by Yodar013
* * * *

Nope. We all just have to know that the Dem leaders are a bunch of lying douchebags, and political opportunitists. That includes our current president, by the way.

It only matters what Bush does and says.

Levin, Kerry, Rockefeller, Jeffords, Gore, Gephardt--all of their quotes were 2002 or later.

String 'em up! They were lying to us!! About going to war, no less!! Where da libbies at?

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"It only matters what Bush does and says."

He's the one that started the war.
What about that don't you rightie tighties not understand?
You can't all be thick as bricks.
(Can you?)

RisR, you beloved lied to you and left you out there naked defending the lie. Got a secret for you. You are the fool and the sucker.. They made you a Loser

So keep posting your intellectually dishonest crap. YOUR boy bears the ultimate responsibility for Iraq, no matter how many posts you make about what other people SAID.

#76 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * * *

Those "other people" aren't exactly powerless. They head important committees, and control the spending of trillions of dollars every year. Quit pretending your so-called leadership didn't either (1) lie to you, or (2) were wrong. Soon as you start holding your same people the standards you want for everyone else, you'll see progress. Until then, you're just another partisan hack. And there's no shortage of those.

So I'll ask you again. Which, of all the names you so giddily post, had the ULTIMATE responsibility to make sure they were right before sending 4100 young Americans to die and 30,000 to to injured and maimed?
#62 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

The president. And if he's not doing his job, it's the job of Congress to cut off the funding. There's an important document that lays all this out, written way back in 1789.
#64 | Posted by rightisright

There was no way on earth that they were going to cut the funding (something I argued for, and something that couldn't even be conceived of before 2006) because they believed that the political price would be too high.

Nothing ever gets done if they believe it will affect their incumbency.

Quit pretending your so-called leadership didn't either (1) lie to you, or (2) were wrong. Soon as you start holding your same people the standards you want for everyone else, you'll see progress.

#89 | Posted by rightisright

I never said they weren't wrong. And I've been more than critical of the ones who never even read the bill.

But I DO hold the Commander-in-Chief to a higher standard. You obviously don't.

"Show Dick some respect!"
- John Bender

Thanks to RisR for pointing out that none of the Dems were saying that Saddam was related to 911, as Darth Cheney was.

Yes I do. Including the current one. I just find it amusing how the Dumbos all lined up behind Clinton, then behind Bush. Then, just at the precise moment when public opinion started to take a turn, they switched sides and pretended the last 15 years never happened.

They love a parade, those Dems. Not exactly the definition of "leadership". But when you pull the lever for the Demtards, you know you won't be getting much of that anyway.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

#86 | Posted by rightisright

According to the scrubbed intel Congress was provided. No mention of the doubts about Curveball or other "sources" that had been discredited by foreign intelligence services and information relayed then to the CIA.

The UN Inspectors were getting a perfectly clear picture of an Iraq that had disposed of its WMD's, and were thrown out before they could ruin the PNAC crowd's multitrillion dollar debacle/tragedy.

"sully, iraq/911 was barely spouted, it was the BS WMD that was constantly spouted by both sides. yet only one side gets all the blame."

I blame anyone who voted in favor of the war.

But the "side" that started the war for no reason without bothering to plan it properly certainly deserves more blame - especially when you have guys like Cheney on that side using the war to increase the value of his stock options and then lying about divesting himself of those options.

You really don't see how the people who were in charged and pushed for the war to begin with are most to blame?

Give me a fucking break. If you were that stupid, you wouldn't be able to tie your shoes.

But the "side" that started the war for no reason without bothering to plan it properly certainly deserves more blame - especially when you have guys like Cheney on that side using the war to increase the value of his stock options and then lying about divesting himself of those options.
* * * * *

That's another myth. Cheney assigned all the ownership and future profits on his stock options to charity. I would have expected better of you, honestly. The others, not so much.

"Where da libbies at?"

In power.

"Ah. I see. It's always the president's responsibility."

Nice to see you avoiding the issue.

Again, if Boehner states we should depose Lil' Kim, and Obama invades and occupies, who bears the responsibility: Those spouting rhetoric, or those making the final decision?

"Cheney assigned all the ownership and future profits on his stock options to charity."

Not exactly. From your link:

"The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities"

On top of that, if anyone believes strengthening Halliburton didn't strengthen Cheney's pension, talk to a former employee of Delta, US Steel, or GM.

Yeah it went to "give the after-tax profits to three charities".

Not to Cheney.

Thanks to TH for his posts of the Cheney statements.

He never said there was alink between Iraq and 9/11.

That is MSM ballyhoo and people--reading too much into what he said.
-----

And...

Mr. RUSSERT: But no direct link?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can't-I'll leave it right where it's at. I don't want to go beyond that. I've tried to be cautious and restrained in my comments, and I hope that everybody will recognize that.

#16 | Posted by truthhurts

MOTHER FUCKER
tell that to the families of 5,000 dead American who manily join the military to punish Hussin after YOU led them to believe there was a link and going to Iraq is a pay back for 9-11
MOTHER FUCKER

You really don't see how the people who were in charged and pushed for the war to begin with are most to blame?

Give me a fucking break. If you were that stupid, you wouldn't be able to tie your shoes.

#96 | Posted by Sully

yet ur the one that thinks all the dems in charge at the time should bare no responsibility at all.

how's them velcro shoes doin for ya sully?

And thanks to RiR--you are correcto mundo.

And there are so many statements from the Dems and all sorts of people leading up to the war in Iraq.

----

As to mismanagement of the war--there is clearly that!

I don't recall any war going smoothly and without incorrect decisions.

tell that to the families of 5,000 dead American who manily join the military to punish Hussin after YOU led them to believe there was a link and going to Iraq is a pay back for 9-11

#104 | Posted by Samtheman

Where is that link Sam?

Instead of spamming...one could just post this:

Ayes = 297
Nays = 133

An authorization to go to war should be the most important consideration a representative of the people can make. 297 equates to a bipartisan majority. Most did not read or understand what they were approving, based on their later comments. To me, authorizing war without knowing for an absolute fact that it is justified, necessary, and a last resort is completely unforgivable.

Cheney may have played head cheerleader, but a bi-partisan majority were so enamored with his pom-poms and high kicks that they blindly spelled W-A-R. Maybe we should stop electing the living embodiments of Daffy Duck to represent us in DC simply because they have the correct letter next to their name?

"Yeah it went to "give the after-tax profits to three charities"

Not to Cheney.

That's not the issue. Giving all of it to charity, vs. giving only "after-tax profits" are different.

So the lesson is that the liar and those who believe the liar are equally guilty. Which is probably why many people, back then, said that Cheney cannot be believed. And were called traitors for their effort. Which is obviously beside the point.

I wonder how many of the people who made their statements in 1998 changed their minds when they learned of the inspectors' findings in 2002. Or is the idea that once you state something you can't change your mind.

RE: #110 | Posted by AILtd at 2009-06-02 02:33 PM

AILtd, you really must stop presenting reasoned thoughts/questions to the supporters of the last administration. It's apparent they've formed their opinions (regardless if they are contradicted by facts). As you can see, not much has changed (for them) in the last eight years.

I wonder how many of the people who made their statements in 1998 changed their minds when they learned of the inspectors' findings in 2002. Or is the idea that once you state something you can't change your mind.

#110 | Posted by AILtd
* * * *

I dunno. But obviously, Edwards, Kerry, Hillary, Lieberman, Graham, Levin, and Clark didn't.

How about we just do this? I'll go along with sending Dick Cheney to prison for the rest of his life, if you'll agree to do the same to every one of the people I've just posted quotes from, including Bill Clinton. Is that fair?

#112 | Posted by rightisright

The inpectors handed in their findings in December 2002 (I believe). Of the quotes you provided (quick check) the only quote after that was William Cohen's. Kerry's 2003 quote merely stated that Saddam needed to be disarmed. Yet you state they hadn't changed their minds. What is your proof?

#113 | Posted by rightisright

And that will prove that they didn't change their mind in Dec. 2002 how?

"How about we just do this? I'll go along with sending Dick Cheney to prison for the rest of his life, if you'll agree to do the same to every one of the people I've just posted quotes from, including Bill Clinton. Is that fair?"

No, it's not. There's a difference between rhetoric and invasion.

On Monday, Mitt Romney said "North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community". If we invade and occupy, will it because of Romney's statements, or the fact the Commander-In-Chief gave the order?

"yet ur the one that thinks all the dems in charge at the time should bare no responsibility at all.

how's them velcro shoes doin for ya sully?"

I'm not a democrat and I said I partially blame anyone who voted to go into Iraq.

It is still the Bush admin that came up with the stupid idea, lied about it and sent guys over there to fight without bothering to plan a fucking thing. So they are most to blame.

What part of that don't you understand?

"yet ur the one that thinks all the dems in charge at the time should bare no responsibility at all.

how's them velcro shoes doin for ya sully?"

I'm not a democrat and I said I partially blame anyone who voted to go into Iraq.

It is still the Bush admin that came up with the stupid idea, lied about it and sent guys over there to fight without bothering to plan a fucking thing. So they are most to blame.

What part of that don't you understand?

"yet ur the one that thinks all the dems in charge at the time should bare no responsibility at all.

how's them velcro shoes doin for ya sully?"

I'm not a democrat and I said I partially blame anyone who voted to go into Iraq.

It is still the Bush admin that came up with the stupid idea, lied about it and sent guys over there to fight without bothering to plan a fucking thing. So they are most to blame.

What part of that don't you understand?

I'd like to see him say this to a room full of the families of the nearly 5000 dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of severely disfigured.

Sorry for the triple post....

By the way, if you don't think Cheney personally profitted from Halliburton's work in Iraq, I have a bridge to sell you.

First he said he divested himself of Halliburton. That was a lie. Then he came up with the charity thing on his stock options. Never mentioned that he was also heavily invested in mutual funds that heavily invested in Halliburton.

If you believe that after he was caught in a lie over the same issue that he told the truth when he said he gave it all to charity, you're an imbecile.

What about Iraq's air space violations over and over again? Especially in the 9/11 era. "Saddam,we are warning you, you violate it one more time and we will take action." Saddam-"fuck you." "I mean it this time Saddam." Saddam-"fuck you again."
And then you have to listen over and over again to the likes of Hilary preaching why we need to attack. Give it a rest you blow hards.

#21 | Posted by fishpaw at 2009-06-02 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Fishpaw,

Tell that to the nearly 5000 Dead American Soldiers.

BTW....Do You Like Fish Sticks??

is this really news? thought iraq was just a wmd argument. did i miss something - aside from a bunch of piss-pant libs taking another shot now that they're feeling their oats.

That fucking son-of-a-bitch took the country to war on a deliberate lie, outfoxing everyone in Washington starting with the idiot Shrub. Haliburton will be eternally grateful.

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

#65 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-06-02 12:26 PM

This statement is absolutely true if you replace the words "Saddam Hussein" for "Israel" but I won't hold my breath waiting for Carl Levin to do it.

Ditto dummies - We told you!

What is so republitarded is that nobody with an ounce of normal perception (democrat) is surprised by these long known and awaited confessions from the republi-psychopaths

"Without a doubt"; the high crimes and attacks on America and Iraq from the Bush-Cheney crime family were brutal!

Yet - you dittos still refuse to accept reality and will deflect all truth even when it is being presented by the criminals themselves

I don't recall any war going smoothly and without incorrect decisions.

#106 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-06-02 01:07 PM | Reply | Fl

This isn't a war. There is no army opposing us. There is no army opposing us. There is no leader who can surrender to us and say the war is over.

No democrat and no republican congress person voted for war in Iraq. They gave Bush the option of choosing to do so as a LAST RESORT. Bush simply started the war on his own initiative, and did not do so with the approval of congress, since congressional approval hinged on the phrase---last resort----and that point was never reached.

That's right, Buffalo Bob. I applaud you.
Now admit it: Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty had the same BS behind it as far as who is the leader of poverty to tender the surrender, as did the Nixon-through-Clinton/Bush War on Drugs, now the War for Energy Independence....hey, wait a second, where are the enemies??? Who surrenders for them?

No democrat and no republican congress person voted for war in Iraq. They gave Bush the option of choosing to do so as a LAST RESORT. Bush simply started the war on his own initiative, and did not do so with the approval of congress, since congressional approval hinged on the phrase---last resort----and that point was never reached.

---------

Bullcrap. They knew full fucking well what he was going to do.

Next up: the democrats didn't vote, and don't continue to support the patriot act.

Also Next up: the democrats didn't want the office of homeland security(just forget that it's still here).

Iran did sign the NPT but that was before Khomemi came to power back in 1980. Irans goals and aspirations have changed. There government is the bigest security risk in the world.

Dick Cheney, in a speech at the National Press Club, said "I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he (Hussein) was involved in 9/11."

Here's some evidence about the real terrorist that he did see. All of them are subject lines of Richard Clarke emails to the Bush Administration prior to 9/11/01.

"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (5/3/01)

"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (5/26/01)

"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent" (6/23/01)

"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (6/25/01)

"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (6/30/01)

"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (7/02/01)

Cheney's response. Probably from one of his friendly chats with Limbaugh or one of his exclusives with FOX News.

"You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it."

Then there was the CIA's Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 which said that "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US" and specifically mentioned New York City. But maybe George didn't tell Dick about it so we'll have to give him a pass on that one. After all he was only the VP.

I missed nothing. Your Dem leadership were talking about the need for disarming Saddam.

aS USUAL you missed EVERYTHING. Where are those weapons of mass destruction? They did not exist. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Congress and the American people were LIED to.

All those statements you quote were based on LIES from BushCo with Cheney leading the charge to war. All those quotes assume that the President was being truthful about the threat that Saddam posed to America. Since they were all lies there was no threat.

So RiR, WHERE ARE THOSE WMD?

WHERE ARE THOSE WMD?

Jeezus, Donnerboy, what the hell's the matter with you? There's no mystery. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

#132 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

oh dear! my bad Doc!

Donnerboy -

Doc - I regularly quote the famous war poet Rummy when I submit my annual budget for approval. I always have to remind my superiors that though I have accounted for the budget of all the things I know...

there are also unknown unknowns, (you know?)
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

I am not sure if they get a chuckle out of it but my budget is always approved.

Donnerboy - You've learned from the master. I mean, Rummy was one of the great bureaucratic infighters in recent memory. Keep quoting him and watch those budget dollars roll in. Careful, though. Don't quote Cheney too much or you might end up in jail.

Bullcrap. They knew full fucking well what he was going to do.

Next up: the democrats didn't vote, and don't continue to support the patriot act.

Also Next up: the democrats didn't want the office of homeland security(just forget that it's still here).

#128 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-06-03 03:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

You can deny it all you'd like but that doesn't make it so.

To deny what is so widely known as fact is not going to do much for your credibility here......but then again, there are swarms of your kind on here to seem to care very little about such things.

"Bullcrap. They knew full fucking well what he was going to do.

Next up: the democrats didn't vote, and don't continue to support the patriot act.

Also Next up: the democrats didn't want the office of homeland security(just forget that it's still here).
#128 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-06-03 03:00 AM"

Hey Shawn, since you seem to be an expert on Bullcrap, how about THIS:

"Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography. 'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz.

Herskowitz also revealed the following:
In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.

Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been "excused."

Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.

Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light. "

For those of you who still think that taking Saddam out was a bad idea, just think how things would have been once his genocidal, sadomasochistic sons gained control. Thank god we killed them too, but had they elevated to the top spot we would have seen atrocities that made Saddam's look like Summer camp. Those two were ruthless killers and who knows what connections they may have had for biological weapons. They certainly would have been in hot pursuit in obtaining them and who knows where they would have ended up.

I look at the overthrow of Saddam as only one piece of the puzzle. It was his sons that we needed to get just as importantly and we did. If we would have just left Saddam alone it wouldn't have been long before Uday and Qusay were calling the shots and that could have been a huge disaster.

especailly since 911 was an inside job anyway. Saddam wouldn't have figured that out ~ would he?

RE: #139 | Posted by everlong at 2009-06-03 06:48 PM

AGAIN I ask: WHO is claiming that Saddam Hussein was a 'good guy'??? Will you PUHLEEEZE quit building that Strawman! What IS being claimed is that the reasons for invading Iraq were WRONG (and the evidence seems to indicate that it's likely that it was INTENTIONALLY wrong)!

ALSO, in what BINARY WORLD are you living in that these are the ONLY two options:

1. Invade/occupy Iraq and kill Saddam Hussein (and his heirs).

2. Do not do Option #1.

There were/are other options. BTW, regardless of the weakness of your EJTM (End Justifies The Means) argument, tell us all again about the 'could have been huge disaster' compared to the REALITY of the present situation: