Only the latest in a long line of people to say the same thing

America was hoodwinked by the Bush Administration.

Righties want their lapdogs back in power. Go figure.

Former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill wrote in his book that the first item at the first cabinet meeting of the new Bush Administration was invading Iraq.

Those criminals are revered by the righties to this day. No accountability for anything. Not debt, not unfunded liabilities that'll cost us a trillion dollars a year, not even a war that cost $2 Trillion and 4000 American lives, nada.

Oh but some of them claim now that they criticized the spending. I think some of them actually think we believe them. They also think we ought to care what they think now. They just don't get it.

Hell, It was a done deal when 41 was in office...

Norman Schwarzkopf has this on lockdown in... '91?

Gotta help out daddy in them history book revisions

http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=CfQG0I9eTWk

Cheney personally put pressure on the CIA operatives to make sure the Intelligence Reports would show that Iraq was producing WMD's.

Then when the Bush Admin was caught redhanded they denied everything. What is worse they blamed the Intelligence community 'errors' that casue them to make the VERY BAD decision to invade Iraq.

The same tighty righty cheerleaders who thought SHOCK AND AWE was a great way for the Federal Government to was billions are very silent about this issue.

But these same individuals are QUITE vocal about opposing the Feds wasting money here at home on health care reform.

I truly cannot understand right wing assholes who think it is great to waste money overseas but cannot support taking care of people here at home. And I hope I never do.

THE IRAQ WMD LIE - one of the BEST recent examples of the DANGER ON THE RIGHT in America.

furthermore, Tenet in his book said it was a done deal from the minute GWB took office.

It's so awesome that the Left is now in power in the United States, because they never lie, make any mistakes, commit any crimes, or engage in any unethical behavior. I'm looking forward to at least 3 more years of the most transparent, most ethical, most forthright, most peaceful, most diplomatic, and most respected government on the planet.

NO COMMENT! (we are busy trying to scuttle Health Care Reform)

-The Right

Fuck off all of you. Kerry was behind, Clinton was behind it in his second term. The whole congress voted on it. We all got fucked. This was Washington at its finest. Quit trying to make it a partisan issue.

*running in circles, waiving arms in air*

Waaaah, Iraq, arrrrg, Bush, errrrr, WMD, waaaah, Lies, arrrg, Cheney....

-The Left

I am still amazed at people NOT upset that our government invented evidence to justify invading a sovereign country in search of fictional weapons. And BOTH parties are to blame on this one. It is now 2010 and we are STILL THERE.

Sadam was a nut case and needed to be put down.

"It is now 2010 and we are STILL THERE."

Colin Powell warned us about the Pottery Barn Rule.
And sorry but both parties are not equally to blame by any means, sure some Dems voted to give the president the power to use force but he was supposed to come back to Congress before he invaded AND even more importantly he controlled the intel which was given to the Congress.

I hate lukewarm cocksuckers who make comments like "Both Parties are to blame" without even batting an eye when it is so obvious the blame is like 80% republican 20% democrat.

That's OK Kreator, I pity people who can't read.

I said "And BOTH parties are to blame on this one. It is now 2010 and we are STILL THERE." The Dems have had the Congress since 2006 and the White House since 2009 and we are still there. They just had a vote to leave Afghanistan (another pointless war) and only 65 memebers of the House voted to leave: out of 435!

I listen all day here about how the Democrats are blaming a minority RNC for blocking everything, yet somehow were unable to block the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? They begged us for control of Congress in 2006 to end the wars and we are still there.

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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

"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

He was to pussy to actually do anything about it though.

#17 | Posted by boojiboy

Yea firing 500 cruise missiles is such a pussy act!

"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

"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

He was to pussy to actually do anything about it though.

#17 | Posted by boojiboy

oh yea Up to five nuclear carrier battle groups, with over 100 warships, patrolled the Gulf region. Carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines and a wide variety of support vessels stayed within striking distance of Iraq.

such a pussy move!

The U.S. strategy was to keep the Middle East dictator in a "box." The so-called box included U.N sanctions, and round-the-clock air cover patrolling the northern and southern areas of Iraq.

The U.S. dedicated its front line reconnaissance U-2 spy planes, electronic warfare planes, radar planes, and space based satellite surveillance all upon Iraq for ten years. Unmanned aerial vehicles flew regular spy missions while manned aircraft struck at Iraq almost on a daily basis.

At any one point, over 100,000 troops were in the region keeping the box in place. The cost was enormous.

Pussy pussy pussy!

Yea firing 500 cruise missiles is such a pussy act!

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-03-17 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Diversion during impeachment hearings.

America was hoodwinked by the Bush Administration.

And the Bush Administration was hoodwinked by the Iranian ayatollahs. Chalabi ( or Iraq's George Washington, as McCain and the Bushies called him), Curveball (the only WMD "expert source" used by Bush)and the entire Iraqi National Congress (the GOPpers favorite group to donate millions to,so they could live in the best London hotels for years)were Iranian fronts.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-03-17 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Lot of good it did.

No denial of the facts in the artical from the rightards here, just spin and finger pointing at those to whom the lied were fed.

Exemplar of the mind set of the partisan bull shitters who love the Republican party more than the Country and who mourn not, the wasted lives of those who were believers of their lies.

Great way to support the troops dipsticks.

Anybody who didnt see the giant game of pretend that W and Cheney and Rummy and Condi played in the lead up to the Iraq adventure are prolly too stupid to understand how they were played.

Continue to rant against the pols who didnt dream up this huge waste of blood and treasure and defend the Preznit and the cabal who did, seems to be as close to understanding as these mental midgets will ever stand.

No offense to little people intended.

No fuckface, I see it clearly. I also see that your precious saints were in support of it because they were too afraid for their careers at that moment in time (post 9/11) to vote against it.

I remember when Colin Powell was showing his power point of train cars with gas factories in them and thinking 'give me a fucking break'.

But the little dem's wouldn't step up.

Then 2 years down the road they were all outraged.

All I'm saying is this is a bipartisan issue. Both parties owned the rhetoric.

He was to pussy to actually do anything about it though.

#17 | Posted by boojiboy

look up the definition of justified war, or war of agression or justification for war idiot.

BTW do yourself a favor and read the congressional resolution that supposedly authorized war.

It said confront the ongoing threat posed by iraq.

it was PROVEN without a doubt that iraq posed no threat to the us.

bush didnt have authorization to invade you douchebag.

"But the little dem's wouldn't step up."

Some did, just not enough.
I protested.
In the end America listened to the wrong people.

I protested. I remember Ted Kennedy begging Congress to watch the end of Saving Private Ryan and all of Blackhawk Down because that was the situation they were voting to send our military into.

No arguments there Danni.

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."

William Tecumseh Sherman

bush didnt have authorization to invade you douchebag.

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-03-17 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

That wasn't my job in 2003.

However, none of the members of either house of congress who were elected to do that job seemed to have a problem with him invading.

Or did he do that at night when they weren't looking?

Some other good ones from Sherman:

"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast."

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster"

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."

"Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

you should educate yourself, bush received a letter from the senate around a week before the invasion saying his actions were unjustified.

However, none of the members of either house of congress who were elected to do that job seemed to have a problem with him invading.

The invasion of Iraq served two purposes:

1. Revoke all energy and oil nationalization efforts.
2. Perpetuate instability requiring further military presence.

Mission accomplished. As ruthless and sadistic Saddam actually was he never posed any factual threat to US interests, and in actually kept the actual Muslim radicals at bay.

The invasion was not advised by intelligence gathered, but ignored.

The invasion of Iraq served two purposes:

1. Revoke all energy and oil nationalization efforts.
2. Perpetuate instability requiring further military presence.

See also: Preventing Saddam from following through on his threat to sell oil only in Euros thus threatening the Petro dollar.

And: Making the cash register over at the Pentagon go *ching ching*

It also garnered Dumbya undeserved support as a "War President"

Anybody who still doubts that the Iraq War was on the table even before the 2000 election much less 9/11 aint been paying attention at all.

Be Well.

Anybody who still doubts that the Iraq War was on the table even before the 2000 election much less 9/11 aint been paying attention at all.

Been on the table since 1996 I think was when PNAC was written.

With Cheney, Wolfowitz, O'Neal, et al, Saddam only had to sneeze to make them cry "WAR!" It is a shame the Democrats did not stand up to what they knew was bullshit. I actually blame them more for Iraq. The RNC is showing now you can stop a President from doing the wrong thing even when in the minority and the people will go along.

Been on the table since 1996 I think was when PNAC was written.

True that.

The PNACers tried to talk Clinton into that madness for the last 4 years of his term.

Be Well.

SNL knew Bush wanted to invade Iraq. The first Saturday after Bush won, they did a skit with Bush and Gore having lunch. Gore asks "so now that you won, what are you going to do?" Bush answers "I am going to start a war. It is like an execution, only grander."

Intelligence was manipulated, scrubbed of doubts, cherry picked, Congress was spoon fed only what the WH wanted them to know, the American people lied to.

It's time the Justice Dept gets into this and indicts the war criminals who started this war to divert us while the fox cleaned out the chicken coop and left America in a smoking heap for the next guy to clean up.

Guys like boojiboy like to remind us all that many democrat members of congress were also in favor of going to war in Iraq but he forgets that it was all because of lies and manipulated CIA data on the part of the Bush administration. Assholes like these (which includes the liars like boojiboy) is the reason why the republicans can't get any respect anymore. We the people already know the real truth. It's as plain as the nose on our faces, but there will always be fools who pick and choose what they want to believe.

This was not the first war based on fabricated lies. The Golf of Tonkin incident was a far more devastating lie as was the resulting war, and it won't be the last either, but there is absolutely no excuse to back these liars up. Shame on you BBoy. May the feces of a thousand cockroaches season your next Thanksgiving turkey.

Let me get this straight, this article claims that this CIA agent say's that Washington fabricated the lies to get us into the Iraq war.

So now Washington wants to take over the healthcare sector of our economy, and will do a better job, and it won't cost us any money.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a 2nd time shame on me, fool me a 3rd time, natural selection didn't work.

"The invasion of Iraq served two purposes:
1. Revoke all energy and oil nationalization efforts.
2. Perpetuate instability requiring further military presence."

See also: Preventing Saddam from following through on his threat to sell oil only in Euros thus threatening the Petro dollar.
And: Making the cash register over at the Pentagon go *ching ching*
It also garnered Dumbya undeserved support as a "War President"
Anybody who still doubts that the Iraq War was on the table even before the 2000 election much less 9/11 aint been paying attention at all.
Be Well.
#40 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-03-17 03:41 PM

Winner, winner chicken dinner!

Let me get this straight, this article claims that this CIA agent say's that Washington fabricated the lies to get us into the Iraq war.

Yes, you have that straight. A war that's cost $2 Trillion so far - all borrowed money. A war that increased the threat of terror according to our own National Intelligence Estimates. A war that destabilized the balance of power in the ME and made Iran a player.

A war planned long before 9/11. First item at the first cabinet meeting of the new Bush Administration. Nothing to do with terrorism.

...Washington fabricated the lies to get us into the Iraq war...

BushCo either deliberately bought into obviously false intelligence or took all the caveats out of the so-called evidence for WMD in order to make a stronger case for war than they knew existed.

In some cases it was out and out lies and in other cases it was more a suppression of truths but essentially that argument is valid and increasingly indisputable.

Be Well.

Exerpts from a highly respected man:

Bush Sought Way' To Invade Iraq?
O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

"I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more," says O'Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

In the book, O'Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

(O'Neill - former Treasury Secretary and member of the National Security Council)

Ringmaster,
You need to read my posts a bit closer. I watching the MSM never bought the rationale for the war. And I was a little too busy with my day job at the time to do more than glance at the TV, but it all looked like bullshit to me.

What I don't like is how folks like you write it all off to W and Cheney's masterful stroke at intelligence manipulation duping those poor democratic senators and congressmen. These are the same guys who in one breath you say are total idiots and in the next give them this Machiavellian genius. You can't have it both ways.

The whole point of me chiming in on this post is what a bunch of hypocrites you are. Yes there were a few brave enough to call bullshit, but the overwhelming majority were either to weak to stand up or weren't paying attention to what our soldiers were being asked to wade into.

(Check out the entire article. More damning info that the WH trumped up the war by hook or crook. Mostly by 'crook')

"Ron Suskind: White House ordered forgery to link al-Qaeda/Saddam to 9/11 attacks"

EXCERPTS (from an interview with Suskind - one of America's preeminent investigative journalists):

SUSKIND: What we now know from this investigation is that a secret mission was conducted in which a British manager, intelligence agent, met with the head of Iraqi intelligence in a secret location in Amman, Jordan. And what the Iraqi intelligence chief told the British-and essentially the Americans, because we're all in this together-is that there were no WMD in Iraq. And what that meant is that we knew everything that became so obvious by the summer after the invasion. And the president made a decision essentially to ignore that intelligence...

The book reports (or charges) that the Bush White House faked a letter from Saddam Hussein's intelligence chief to President Saddam in late 2003, backdating it to July 2001 and reports that Saddam's intelligence chief (Habbush) was in the protective custody of the C.I.A. at the time-- even while the U.S. military had him in the "deck of cards," a list of Saddam officials wanted dead-or-alive. The White House ordered the C.I.A. to arrange for Habbush to write the fake letter in his own handwriting. The controversial letter did find itself to the world media in December '03.

In the months before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, British intelligence had secret meetings in Amman, Jordan, with Habbush, chief of Saddam's intelligence network. Habbush demanded a safe way out, if-and-when the U.S. invaded. Habbush repeatedly told the British that Saddam had no WMD; all programs had ended in the 1990's; and the book says the Bush White House didn't want to hear it - and didn't want to hear more reports on what Habbush was saying.

(Mind you, Habbush was in the 'deck of cards' - wanted Iraqis - BWA)

The U.S. invaded in March '03. Habbush was ready. He slipped out of Baghdad with the help of U.S. intelligence and into Amman...

In October '03, CIA paid Habbush $5 million as part of his resettlement. By then, the White House had finally thought of a way to use Habbush. ... The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq -- thus showing, finally that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda... The letter also mentioned suspicious shipments to Iraq from Niger set up with al Qaeda's assistance. The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraqi government stationery, to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media.

Who's to say the Bush administration didn't hold onto Paulson's knowledge about the looming collapse of Wall Street to keep the next administration so busy putting out financial fires the nation's attention would be diverted from what really happened surrounding the Bush WH's plans to invade Iraq (before and after 9/11)?

Guys like boojiboy like to remind us all that many democrat members of congress were also in favor of going to war in Iraq but he forgets that it was all because of lies and manipulated CIA data on the part of the Bush administration.

It wasn't solely because of fabricated intel. Politicians (at least those hoping for re-election) needed to appear tough on terror, which meant going to war, any war.

We Americans are a bloodthirsty lot.

These are the same guys who in one breath you say are total idiots and in the next give them this Machiavellian genius.

This is just the kind of brainwashed crap I would expect from you. Some people just can't ever learn, even when they know they are wrong. Aren't you the same fool who still can't figure out that the climate is warming up? How old are you anyway? 15?

Congress and the American people were fed a bill of goods about Iraq. Everyone who testified truthfully to Congress in the leadup to the vote were punished. Idiots like Wolfowitz were rewarded.

Only the election results of 2006 resulted in Rumsfeld going bye bye. Cheney's still spouting his bullshit, and now his idiot daughter is taking up the torch. W is cleaning up after Barney. They should all be in prison.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a 2nd time shame on me, fool me a 3rd time, natural selection didn't work.

#47 | Posted by 90c2cab

no no no!

It goes like this:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on [pauses] - shame on you. Fool me You can't get fooled again. "

GW Bush 2002

Not a done deal if Sadam had complied before the deadline - or did many of you forget that many months were given for that compliance and the invasion only happened after he failed to do so.

Saddam complied. Hans Blix testified that he was cooperating and that the U.N. inspectors had unfettered access.

Bush and Co kicked the U.N out of Iraq 10 days before the bombs started falling, even while Blix was asking for more time.

"The primary difficulty with looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, said Blix, was the "problem of proving the negative. For example, how can you prove that there is not a tennis ball in this room? Or that there is no anthrax in all of Iraq?" The United States and the United Kingdom wanted black-and-white answers, and instead they got "lots of shades of gray in the reports."

What Blix's inspectors had needed was more time, he emphasized. The Bush administration should have halted its military buildup in the area at 50,000 troops, the point at which the Iraqis had become much more cooperative, providing the lists of scientists and bureaucrats to Blix's team. "Given time, we would have been able to interview the many people who destroyed weapons of mass destruction after 1991," he told Amanpour.

Amanpour asked why, if those weapons had been destroyed, would Saddam have continued to let the world believe he still possessed them at the risk of losing his country? Blix surmised that the bluffing was a cheap and effective deterrent. "[The Iraqis] didn't mind the suspicion from the neighbors - it was like hanging a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the dog' when you don't have a dog," he speculated.

But instead the Bush administration continued to pour troops into the area, an ominous presence portending war. "Once there got to 250,000 troops sitting in the hot desert sun, there was a momentum built up that couldn't be halted," said Blix.

Amanpour pressed him to identify the source of that momentum - in effect, why did the U.S. invasion of Iraq seem in retrospect such a foreordained action? Partly it was because, despite the lack of evidence for remaining WMDs, the Bush administration continued to believe in them, Blix said. Although he places some of the blame on a failure of U.S. intelligence processes - the Pentagon relied too much on its own "silo" of sources rather than more heavily vetted intelligence from the CIA and the State Department, as has been documented extensively by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker - the real problem was the lack of "critical thinking," he argued.

"America was hoodwinked by the Bush Administration"

NO IT WASN'T! America was Brutally "Fucked Up the Asshole" by the Bush Admin and America just passively Took It All and "Patriotically (Idiotically) Sucked that Filthy,Sleazy,Slimy,Diseased Bush "Cock & Asshole" for all it was worth!!! (So what was it worth?)

Not a done deal if Sadam had complied before the deadline - or did many of you forget that many months were given for that compliance and the invasion only happened after he failed to do so.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Saddam could never "comply" because he would, somewhere, have some secret stash of WMD he just wasn't telling us about.

Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003.

MR. RUSSERT: What could Saddam Hussein do to stop war?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the difficulty here is it'she's clearly rejected, up till now, all efforts, time after time after time. And we have had 12 years and some 17 resolutions now. Each step along the way he had the opportunity to do what he was called upon to do by the U.N. Security Council. Each time he has rejected it. I'm not sure now, no matter what he said, that anyone would believe him. We have, Tim, been down this effort now for six months at the U.N. with the enactment of 1441. We asked for a declaration of all of his WMD come clean. He refused to do that. He's, again, continued to do everything he could to thwart the inspectors.
I'm hard-put to specify what it is he could do with credibility at this stage that would alter the outcome.

He's always had the option of coming clean, of complying with the resolution, of giving up all of his weapons of mass destruction, of making his scientists available without fear of retribution, turning over the anthrax, and the VX nerve agent, and the sarin, and of the other capabilities he has developed, and he has consistently refused. And if he were to sit here today and say, "OK, now I'll do it," I'm not sure anybody would think that had credibility.

#63 | Posted by AntiCadillac

Following the convenient excuse 9/11 gave them to do so many dastardly things, America believed our President was acting in our best interests and for our security. We know they were lying their asses off now. But, recall, anyone at the time who questioned them were called 'terrorist huggers', 'traitors', 'America haters', and much worse.

So, they got to rape the U.S. Treasury, take the focus off of Enron and corporate malfeasance (Iraq was came up a week after Enron filled the headlines the focus off), hand hundreds of billions to their buddies, enact the 2005 bankruptcy 'reform' that stripped citizens of the chance at a clean slate, and countless other egregious deeds.

It's the old magician's 'sleight of hand' they used to keep our eyes off of what they were really up to.

THIS is how you fight a 'war on terror':

CIA chief: Al-Qaeda crippled, leaders hiding
Panetta details intercepted plea to bin Laden for help

WASHINGTON - Relentless attacks against al-Qaeda in the Pakistan tribal region appear to have driven Osama bin Laden and other top leaders deeper into hiding, leaving the organization rudderless and less capable of planning sophisticated operations, CIA Director Leon Panetta said Wednesday.

So profound is al-Qaeda's disarray that one of its lieutenants, in a recently intercepted message, pleaded to bin Laden to come to the group's rescue and provide some leadership, Panetta told The Washington Post in an interview.

Panetta credited an increasingly aggressive campaign against al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies, including more frequent strikes and better coordination with Pakistan, in a near-acknowledgement of the CIA's war against extremists in Pakistan. He called it "the most aggressive operation that CIA has been involved in in our history."

In the last year:

Hahaha. this thread has an unsuprising yet still amusing lack of right wing warhawks in it.

i dont care if obama crashes and burns and costs us a trillion dollars of additional debt. if that debt goes to the service of the people of this country instead of starting an unnecessary war somewhere else, obama still wins.

fuck bush. i'll forgive you if you voted for him once, but if you voted for him twice, there's something wrong with your brain.

"i'm tired of hearing people complain about bush"
-righties

my response - i bet you are. when all of his damage is undone, which will probably NEVER happen, we'll shut up about it. until then, just accept responsibility for his clusterfuck of a presidency.

This is just the kind of brainwashed crap I would expect from you. Some people just can't ever learn, even when they know they are wrong. Aren't you the same fool who still can't figure out that the climate is warming up? How old are you anyway? 15?

#57 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-03-17 07:35 PM | Reply | Flag

Probably older than you ring. And as usual you don't read close enough. Aside from a couple of congressmen who had real integrity, most of the party faithful went along with the invasion. I have a pretty strong feeling that the fact that we would be putting our boys in harms way was outweighed by the knowledge that this was a truly stupid idea and once W stepped on his dick in Iraq it would be a rally point for the democratic party. History shows this to be fact.

"I was for it but now I'm against it."

And as for brainwashing, your blind acceptance of our role in global warming, oops, sorry-CLIMATE CHANGE, gotta stay hip on the changing terminology, is as clear an example as I've ever seen. Pay attention ringjob, all I've said is the science isn't settled and there isn't a concensus.

If Congress and the American people had been given an accurate assessment and the full picture we wouldn't have spent precious blood and treasure invading Iraq.

Who doesn't know this already?

Did you see Colin Powell presenting "evidence" at the UN?

No reasonable person would assume they decided to to invade Iraq based on this evidence. They obviously decided they wanted to invade and then desperately tried to spin "evidence" that supported their desire.

I don't see how anyone with a shred of common sense who was paying attention could conclude otherwise.

Only partisans from both parties think voting their own guy in makes a difference---anybody that thinks the American people make a difference in what happens in this country is naive---always felt we had a sell job put to us by Bush on Iraq---same thing is happening to us by Obama with the "healthcare reform" which is really a massive tax and spending bill---Obama like Bush is directed by powers in this country and not the American people.

It's really becoming rather humorous watching Americans bitch about their government. It is a government of the people, after all. Like George Carlin said, "Garbage in, garbage out".