Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, March 06, 2010

With his soon-to-be-released book Courage and Consequence, Karl Rove is mounting a rear-guard action in the war over George W. Bush's legacy. "Did Bush lie us into war?" Rove writes. "Absolutely not."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Discerning the difference between what were lies and what was ignorance in the Bush admin? A truly Herculean task.

"Discerning the difference between what were lies and what was ignorance in the Bush admin? A truly Herculean task."

I don't know. I think you mistake that look in his eyes for ignorance where I believe he just didn't care what anybody thought, he was going to do what he was going to do.

I could see why Rove might want to characterize it otherwise.

When did Bush take office?

"We 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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

"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

"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

notice how every so often WHEN DEMS GET THEMSLEVES IN dEEPER SHIT...
that something like this will come out either in its own book or response to this book.

DEMS HAVE to begin the ruse and lies because 10/2/10 gets closer everyday...

okay okay..I GET IT..

11/2/10

- I think you mistake that look in his eyes for ignorance where I believe he just didn't care what anybody thought,

So... discerning lies from ignorance from arrogance.

-When did Bush take office?

-Let's cut to the bottom line: prior to the Iraq war, US intelligence generally produced faulty information overstating Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities, which were actually nonexistent.

But Bush and his crew purposefully and callously overstated these overstatements and made dramatic and untrue assertions unconnected to the flawed intelligence in order to whip up popular support for the invasion of Iraq.

Reading. It's FUNdamental.

So... discerning lies from ignorance from arrogance.

They are not all mutually exclusive.

You can have arrogant ignorance or arrogant lying.

I'm one of those people that believes Bush was at least twice as smart as he made himself look. I understand that isn't saying much, but its a baseline guess. I think his foolery was a distraction to get people to underestimate him.

wow hag...you are really one generous sumbitch..lol

twice as smart???
yeah bush was so stupid that he beat dems twice...

"yeah bush was so stupid that he beat dems twice..."

I think that you're not giving John Kerry enough credit for 2004 and we won't even get into 2000. I'll start with the twitches and I don't have any anti-convulsives on me.

"DEMS HAVE to begin the ruse and lies because 10/2/10 gets closer everyday...

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-04 01:10 PM"

"okay okay..I GET IT..

11/2/10
#5 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-04 01:11 PM"

It's OK afkabl2.

10/2/10 is even CLOSER!

How can you tell when Karl Rove is lying?

He's awake.

yeah I know true

but 10 2 10 looked better...

"In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying powerAmerica in an Arab landwith no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."[14]

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

Saddam put out a bluff and Bush called it.

Saddam lost.

Bush didn't lie.

The entire planet was on Saddam as having WMD and worse.

The congress voted for it.

Get some therapy, dumbass.

Tobillos Arriba!!

"
Saddam put out a bluff and Bush called it.

Saddam lost."

So did America. It's just taking longer for us to fall down.

Of course, in Iraq the Sunnis are just waiting for us to leave so that they and the Iranian-backed Shiites can get it on again unopposed.

They say that the talk in Iraqi coffee shops is that people are becoming nostalgic for Saddam.... anticipating the need for a new strongman to control the political/religious factions once we leave.

Bush's lies, not to mention all that American blood and treasure, all for naught..... OK, all for a second Bush term.

"OK, all for a second Bush term."

Jeb is just waiting his turn. First though a Dem. has to fix the economy so that he can come destroy it again.

The problem with polishing a turd is that you need a turd to start with.

Unfortunately for Rove, all he has to work with in the GWB case is a damp smelly spot in the dirt.

Being 'Bushed' now has an additional definition:

Broken

A former State Dept. official quoted Condi Rice as saying, before the vote, "He's (Bush) already made up his mind."

Most pragmatic people realize Bush and Co decided to invade Iraq long before the words were uttered in public. Paul O'Neill wrote in his book the first item at the first Bush cabinet meeting in February 2001 was invading Iraq.

Rove is the man.........

You people will believe anything.

It ain't about saddam or anything else. it's all about oil. the same thing would have happened if a democrat had been in office.

the us military was just a security force used by exxon to capture the iraqi oilfields.

if you don't understand this, then you are seriously deluded.

I agree with Karl Rove. Bush did not knowingly mislead the American public about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The idiot was convinced by lying scum such as Karl Rove.

#3 | Posted by Petrous at 2010-03-04 01:05 PM

Very true. However, UN inspectors had open access and found nothing. Bush told them to get out because they were about to be bombed out. And let's not forget about the imaginary drones, mobile bio-weapons labs, mushroom clouds... all now known to be completely made up lies.

#24 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2010-03-04 07:52 PM

Possibly, but it doesn't matter who or what party was in charge. It doesn't give Bush a pass. I would of been just as angry if a Democrat had done the same.

I would of been just as angry if a Democrat had done the same.

#27 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar

Absolutely.

the us military was just a security force used by exxon to capture the iraqi oilfields.

#24 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2010-03-04 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a buffoon!

Oil is a fungible commodity. It is global. Exxon does not care where the oil comes from, so long as they can refine it and sell it.

It does not matter who controls oil. It goes into a global market and is bought and sold just like corn, soybeans and frozen concentrated orange juice.

When you pull into your local Exxon, do you know if the oil came from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Kuwait? Can you control where the profits go?

You are an idiot

Karl Rove says they weren't lying and most Americans don't believe him???? What's this world coming to???

Rove is a successfull ConArtist, whose partisanship and bullshit is destroying the US economy.

Americans think they have choices but all they get is the same shit from both parties run by those who sold their souls to the highest recognizable bidder.

Shrub most certainly lied us into war, at Cheney's behest. During Shrub's first term Cheney easily manipulated him and was this countries defacto President. That changed in Shrub's second term, but on Roves advice, Shrub has never admitted error. Instead we are fed the same line of bullshit which has lost wars and diminished our economy for decades.

From the mouth of baby Bushling and as a matter of public record
in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

He demonstrated with that one sentence that he was unable to take an impersonal stance in the matter and should have been removed from any decision making responsibilities. A lawyer would have been recused and prosecution not stand up in lesser matters yet that dick wad was allowed to continue.

Fuck you that still apologize and try to paint Bushholedeux as the "po misunderstood leader that carried a burden of war". You can kiss my patriotic red, white and blue American ass. You remain stupid for supporting that fool before and after the fact and putting your own grandchildren in hock not to mention the continued slaughter of people with your "shock and awe" campaign you were so fucking proud of.
Besided.. all the bull shit about what Clinton said about the potential threat blah blah and other dribble you dig up... the fact remains he did not call for a war based on a fabricated justification that started with a expat cab driver... nor did he send in a goon to lie about the cost ... nor did Clinton lie about nation building... the list goes on and on where Clinton maintained a superior stance because he remained impartial to the situation. Bushhole lacked the ability to do so. No one can can rewrite the facts and change the truth.

In a world filled with uncertaincy, it is comforting to know that KKKarl Rove is still a pathological liar.

"No one can can rewrite the facts and change the truth."

and you seem to like to ignore the facts and truth

The entire planet was on Saddam as having WMD and worse.

The congress voted for it.

#15 | Posted by MURPHY

Ya...... butttttttt....... The dems in congress didn't count and Clinton didn't make this speech.

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
Bla,bla,bla
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

"and you seem to like to ignore the facts and truth"

well feel free to point out where I made a factual error in my anti rightwing diatibe sfb. Everything I spoke of is a matter of public record... so in the words of Dick Cheney

go fuck yourself

"Karl Rove says they weren't lying and most Americans don't believe him????":

Not to mention Tony Blair, Gordon Brown... But what do they know when they both claim Bush didn't lie and that the removal of Saddam was not only needed, but justified as well.

And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
#35 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2010-03-06 11:25 AM |

Try that rhetoric with Iran and see where that gets you.

You are an idiot

#29 | Posted by vernon at 2010-03-06 12:23 AM

Hello Kettle? This is Pot.

"Try that rhetoric with Iran and see where that gets you."

An apology to the world from the POTUS?

Discerning the difference between what were lies and what was ignorance in the Bush admin? A truly Herculean task.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2010

lets JUST SAY you get this point...and the same thing can be said right now...
is the obama white so stupid with a larger majority than bush had
or is the destruction of the economy by design which is whats being said..
destroy it and then remake it in the image of euro socialists...

or are they just incompetent?

"Did Bush lie us into war?" Rove writes. "Absolutely not."

rove: I did!

And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
#35 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2010-03-06 11:25 AM |

Try that rhetoric with Iran and see where that gets you.

#38 | Posted by jerrytarkanian

Did you miss the FACT that HR Clinton said that?

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

#35 | Posted by Sniper

Bush told Clinton war would be the last resort. It wasn't. He couldn't wait to throw the weapons inspectors out and get the war started.

Bush/Cheney/Rove started the war so they could funnel $100s of $billions of US taxpayer dollars to their buddies in no-bid contracts. Everything else is peripheral.

"He couldn't wait to throw the weapons inspectors out and get the war started."

The same weapons inspectors who were thown out of Iraq from 1997-2002? Yeah, we should have trusted Saddam because he was such an honorable and honest dictator.

"Bush told Clinton war would be the last resort."

Just curious when Hillary had this epiphany about the last resort excuse? Was that after she admitted she never read the entire declassifed Intel report available to all members of Congress?

CRISPEE

It was widely reported then (and well known now) the weapons inspectors had unfettered access and were begging for more time before we went to war. After all, their access was then touted as the reason to pass a war authorization and force Saddam's compliance.

That, and the fact there were grave doubts about the WMD claims in the lead up to war from domestic and foreign intelligence services - ignored, scrubbed, hidden from sight. Joe Wilson's findings - at the behest of our own government - were ignored, and the Yellow Cake claims ('or in the form of a mushroom cloud') repeated in Bush's SOTU address long after he'd handed in his report, for example.

Let's just be honest here; the Bush WH wanted the war, and used any means necessary to fluff their case.

Just curious when Hillary had this epiphany about the last resort excuse? Was that after she admitted she never read the entire declassifed Intel report available to all members of Congress?

She stated 'last resort' before she voted. Even if she had read the entire intel report, it was scrubbed of the many doubts about Saddam's WMD's.

Bush told Clinton war would be the last resort. It wasn't. He couldn't wait to throw the weapons inspectors out and get the war started.

#44 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-06 02:42 PM

I would love for AU to point out where Hillary says Bush lied to her or how she misunderstood what her vote meant.

'Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote'

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:10 AM EDT (1410 GMT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority..."
www.cnn.com

Rahm: 'Gore didn't lie us into Kyoto'

Let's just be honest here; the Bush WH wanted the war, and used any means necessary to fluff their case.

#48 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-06 03:20 PM |

OK let's be honest... Did Saddam kick out all UN inspectors in 1998? Did Saddam restrict access to sites when he finally did allow inspectors back in 2002?

Let's just be honest here; the Bush WH wanted the war, and used any means necessary to fluff their case.

#48 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-06 03:20 PM

Sounds hauntingly similar to the MMGW fiasco.

Same shit, different day.

Iraq war authorization was not authority for preemption

CLINTON: I warned at the time the Iraq war authorization was not authority for a preemptive war. Nevertheless, he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today.

Q: Would you say that you were naive in trusting Bush?

A: No. When the Iraq war vote came to the Senate, we were confronting the reality of trying to deal with the consequences of Bush's action. It is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution--not going to war, but going to the resolution--was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. Some now think this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War. Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

January 31, 2008 Clinton-Obama Debate

The Bush WH's touting of the Authorization before the vote was to get the inspectors in. It was never presented at the time as an open/shut 'we're going to war if this vote happens'.

The vote was to create a hammer to hold over Saddam's head and IT WORKED! The inspectors were back in with unfettered access. Then, Bush threw them out and started bombing.

No matter how much you want to avoid that simple truth, CRISPEE, facts are what they are.

Q: Before the US invasion of Iraq, you could have voted for the Levin Amendment which required Bush to report to Congress about the UN inspection before taking military action. Why did you vote against that amendment?

A CLINTON: Although I believe we needed to put inspectors in, that was the underlying reason why I at least voted to give Bush the authority, put those inspectors in, figure out what is there and what isn't there. The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the US would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the UN Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it. I did vote to limit the authority that was being given to Bush to one year, and that was not approved. I've said many times if I had known then what I know now, I never would have given Bush the authority. It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given. He abused and misused that authority.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008

OK let's be honest... Did Saddam kick out all UN inspectors in 1998? Did Saddam restrict access to sites when he finally did allow inspectors back in 2002?

#52 | Posted by crispee_oc

Honestly, you need to read what Hans Blix reported:

Iraq, UN Agree on Unfettered Access, Stop Short of US Demands
STAFF | United Nations | October 1, 2002

The Government of Iraq and officials of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began a second day of talks in Vienna, which concluded in the late afternoon.

UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix said afterward that agreement had been reached on practical arrangements for inspections, with unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi sites.

Blix said he would brief the Security Council on Thursday about the talks.

Perle Says US to Attack Iraq Despite Inspections (November 21, 2002)

inspections. After 16 weeks, inspectors turned up some evidence of undeclared activities, but not enough to convince a majority of the Security Council members that military force was necessary. Nonetheless, on March 19, U.S. and British forces attacked Iraq to forcibly eliminate its WMD. This report, which will be updated as events warrant, analyzes the inspections, their outcome, and possible future tasks.

fpc.state.gov/documents/
organization/19436.pdf


From the UK's Iraq Inquiry:

" Dr Blix also takes issue with a statement made at the Chilcot inquiry this week by Sir David Manning. He told the hearing that Dr Blix's team had examined ten of 19 sites named by British intelligence and turned up some quite interesting stuff'.

But the weapons inspector says he ought to have been asked what interesting' really meant.

Yes, they led to interesting results, that's true but never to WMD. We found a few documents and some conventional weapons grenades and so forth nothing more."

Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON
Published: January 31, 2003

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

In a two-hour interview in his United Nations offices overlooking Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Blix, the chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the administration's campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Mr. Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.

He further disputed the Bush administration's allegations that his inspection agency might have been penetrated by Iraqi agents, and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Mr. Blix said he continued to endorse disarmament through peaceful means. "I think it would be terrible if this comes to an end by armed force, and I wish for this process of disarmament through the peaceful avenue of inspections," he said. "But I also know that diplomacy needs to be backed by force sometimes, and inspections need to be backed by pressure."

Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days

Despite a report from the chief UN weapons inspector (Hans Blix) describing Iraqi cooperation as "active or even proactive", America and Britain today pushed for a resolution giving Iraq a maximum of 10 days to comply fully with UN demands to disarm.

Speaking after Hans Blix's report to the UN security council, in which he called for more time for inspections, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told the council that Saddam Hussein should be set a March 17 deadline to comply with UN demands on disarmament or face the prospect of military action.

www.guardian.co.uk

America and Britain's tough stance comes despite Mr Blix's report outlining improved cooperation from Iraq. Thirty-four of Iraq's illegal Samoud 2 missiles had been destroyed, Mr Blix said, despite Baghdad's insistence that the weapons did not violate the UN-mandated 150km limit.

Mr Blix noted that no missiles appeared to have been destroyed today, and expressed hope that this was a temporary delay.

In sharp contrast with US and British claims that Iraq is not disarming, Mr Blix said the destruction of the missiles was a "substantial measure of disarmament".

"We are not talking about the breaking of toothpicks," he said. "These are lethal weapons being destroyed."

Mr Blix said that, in general, his inspection teams had "been able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq".

www.guardian.co.uk

I have a party to go to, CRISPEE

The world knows what happened. Why some continue to deny the inspectors were doing exactly what the Authorization was intended to allow them to do is baffling. Especially when anyone can find the facts.

We didn't need to go to war. Throwing out the weapons inspectors if proof the Bush WH and the UK didn't like what they were hearing, and wanted their war not matter what.

No WMD's. 4000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and $2 Trillion later ...

Sad.

OK Rove, technically "Bush didn't lie us into war" because he believed the lies you and Cheney told him. He "thought" he was telling the truth, but he still lied because, in the end, he was the decider.

When did Bush take office?
"We 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"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
"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
"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
#3 | POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2010-03-04 01:05 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Not too many Leftists commenting on these quotes

1998 19 shmity eight.

In 2002 and 2003 inspectors were on the ground IN Iraq with unfettered access and cooperation from Saddam (see Blix's comments) and finding no WMD's. Period.

We did not need to go to war. Period.

Not too many Leftists commenting on these quotes

Using quotes out of context, cutting half a statement off, and disingenuously applying the sentiment for one context towards another?

Look up the context yourself, and the full quotes. Oh wait, it won't serve your agenda.

Here's one thing you've proved, unintentionally. Clinton's efforts worked. There were no WMD in Iraq.

It's almost sweet that Rove thinks anyone would take him seriously.

Karl "Who Doth Protest Too Much" Rove is up to his old spin tactics. Give it a rest, Karl.

Is it really the legacy of the Bush administration that Rove and Cheney are defending?

Maybe it's not such a coincidence that these two have become so vocal recently . . . over a year after Bush left office.

At first I wondered who stuck a burr under Cheney's saddle? He and Bush were barely on speaking terms when they parted company. Cheney's contempt for Bush was quite clear when Scooter Libby was thrown under the bus.

Now Rove is joining in with his particular brand of Cover-Your-Ass revisionism.

My fondest hope would be for an international investigation into the war crimes of the Bush administration which resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens . . . all of which could be equally pinned on Cheney and Rove for their complicity. (I'll throw in Tony Blair for good measure since his participation in war crimes is already being investigated in the UK)

We haven't seen the likes of a Nurenburg War Crimes Trial for a long time. Maybe this is what Rove and Cheney fear the most. Maybe this is why they're setting up their defense ahead of time.

Maybe they hear some rumblings on the horizon that we haven't heard yet.

everyone loves to throw stones at Bush over the war, but the majority of the dems in the senate voted yes to the Iraq war on Oct 11th (included Clinton and Biden). they also controlled the senate and could have "postponed a vote" until the after the Nov election, but they didn't, why?

"international investigation" also needs to investigate the senate and who voted for the war

but they didn't, why?"

Oh Gee, I don't know MAVERICK. I wonder if it was because they were working under the illusion that George Bush was an honest broker of the truth and would never, in a million years, use his office to screw over three or four countries, rape the U.S. treasury, destroy the U.S. economy and make the U.S. the laughing stock of the world . . . all so he could get his greedy mitts on Iraqi's enormous oil resources.

Surely George Bush wouldn't do anything like that.

Do ya' think?

"The world knows what happened. Why some continue to deny the inspectors were doing exactly what the Authorization was intended to allow them to do is baffling. Especially when anyone can find the facts."
#64 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-06 07:54 PM

No kidding AU. But then again we differ on the defintion of unfettered access. By the way the last paragraph has a quote by Blix, and your claim Iraq was "doing exactly what the Authorization intended" is factually incorrect. Much like Hillary in 2008.

March 7, 2002: Iraqi officials meet with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) Executive Chairman Hans Blix to discuss arms inspections for the first time since 1998. UN officials fail to win the return of inspectors at this meeting or two subsequent ones that occur in May and July.

November 8, 2002: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441. The resolution declares that Iraq "remains in material breach" of past resolutions and gives Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" set out by Security Council resolutions stretching back to the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It also strengthens UNMOVIC's and the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) powers to conduct inspections throughout Iraq, specifying that Iraq must allow "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to "facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect."

November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 in a letter to Annan from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabr.

November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.

March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.
www.armscontrol.org

CRISPEE

Your quote focuses on Jan 27th and Feb 14. On Marth 7, 2003 Blix said this:

"Mr Blix said that, in general, his inspection teams had "been able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq". "

www.guardian.co.uk

So, those quotes were old news by March 7th. Blix wanted months, Bush and Blair gave him 10 days. This after we'd passed the Authorization to make Saddam comply with inspections - which he was. We now know there were no WMD's - just as the inspectors were reporting. That was not welcome news to Bush and Blair who really sought regime change, public pronouncements about WMD
s withstanding.

It was all a sham perpetrated on the American people by a WH hellbent on war.

Q: What's the difference between Karl Rove and a sack of manure?

A: The sack.

CRISPEE

Your quote focuses on Jan 27th and Feb 14. On Marth 7, 2003 Blix said this:

"Mr Blix said that, in general, his inspection teams had "been able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq".
#73 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-07 02:50 PM

It is almost comical that you ignore the events leading up to Jan 27th - Feb. 14th. Even more strange is you ignore the sentence after those dates which UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors both "deemed the cooperation insufficient"... Just curious how they were granted unfettered access and were still not cooperative? BTW... you also ignore the fact Saddam would not let them back in after kicking them out in 1998 and never bothered to see the UN took 8 months before finally agreeing to allow inspectors back in, and were not compliant for another three months.

CRISPEE

Circumstances change with time.

March 7th is later than January or February, which you referenced (from a March 7th article) as your point of 'not cooperating'.

No, it's not comical at all. It's not comical Blix HAD unfettered access on March 7th (as he testified), wanted more time, and yet, even though Saddam WAS cooperating by March 7th we still invaded on the premise of WMD's, which Blix had found no evidence to support.

It's not comical. It's sad as shit Bush and Blair wanted their war no matter what.

#76...
"No, it's not comical at all. It's not comical Blix HAD unfettered access on March 7th (as he testified), wanted more time, and yet, even though Saddam WAS cooperating by March 7th we still invaded on the premise of WMD's, which Blix had found no evidence to support."

So it is like the 12 months prior to your unfettered access was not relevant. I guess Saddam saw the same light as Hillary did AU.

Blix made his 'unfettered access' statement on March 7, 2003.

We invaded 13 days later.

Blix said what he said and asked for more time.

If only we'd have given it to him ...

But, that isn't what Bush and Co wanted.

#78...

Sure AU, I guess a year isn't long enough. So glad I took the time to paste links, which I guess were too much for you to understand. Not surprised.

Nobody mentions the 500 Metric tonnes of Uranium we took out of Iraq after we invaded... That's not WMD's? Put a pound in a bag with two sticks of dynamite and detonate that in mid town Manhattan... What you would have is a lot of unusable real estate... And probably several hundred if not a few thousands of deaths from radiation related illnesses...

This notion that Saddam was completely clean is a fucking joke.... We just dug up a chemical laden rocket that was berried in Iraq a few weeks ago... How many of those are the Iraqis going to find?

shhhhhhhhhh... I know it's so much more fun for the leftists to say Bush Lied..... The more Obama's poll numbers drop the bigger of a liar George Bush turns out to be in their world.... I'll keep saying it... That's all they have left...

Nobody mentions the 500 Metric tonnes of Uranium we took out of Iraq after we invaded... That's not WMD's? Put a pound in a bag with two sticks of dynamite and detonate that in mid town Manhattan... What you would have is a lot of unusable real estate... And probably several hundred if not a few thousands of deaths from radiation related illnesses...
This notion that Saddam was completely clean is a fucking joke.... We just dug up a chemical laden rocket that was berried in Iraq a few weeks ago... How many of those are the Iraqis going to find?
shhhhhhhhhh... I know it's so much more fun for the leftists to say Bush Lied..... The more Obama's poll numbers drop the bigger of a liar George Bush turns out to be in their world.... I'll keep saying it... That's all they have left...
#80 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-07 09:08 PM

What is even more "fun" is when a certain flavor of "Righties" begin to make assertions protecting BushCo interests with outrageous fearmongering. A flim-flam boogieman justifies nothing particularly helpful without those who would help themselves through it's use. The angle here being a nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his "allies".

Squirm around that fact all that you want to, but it changes nothing regarding the use of anything less than a mushroom cloud as justification for the invasions and their immediacy. I don't care what other weapons he stockpiled - the big threat being nuclear annihilation was never real.

www.boston.com

Bush and UK were bombing Baghdad one month after Inauguration Day. The priority of Bush Jr. was always to go to war with Iraq and to depose Saddam. Bush and Cheney and Rummy were huge monomaniacs in this regard.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable