| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Saddam and al-Qaeda, Pre-War; A New Report Says .... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 8 2006, 08:45 AM (607 Views) | |
| Jack Frost | Sep 9 2006, 05:32 AM Post #51 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Published on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 by the Boston Globe Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged by Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago. But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq. Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war. "There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship." A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof. Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding." In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January. But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further. The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim. A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named. Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link. Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees. But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said. Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda. "The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said. Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein. "We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems." The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February. But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth." jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 9 2006, 05:34 AM Post #52 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
What are you trying to prove with all of this? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Sep 9 2006, 05:51 AM Post #53 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Ben is correct. JB is operating with a very literal and specific meaning of the word "lies." When I say that W lied about the 9/11 Iraq connection I include in that all the inuendo, intentional deception, uncorrected rumors and so forth that came from the White House. The fact is, W wanted the American people to think that there was a connection. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Sep 9 2006, 05:57 AM Post #54 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Cheney on Meet The Press - Dec. 9, 2001.
Is that one of the "mind melds"? I think the Administration wanted to use any reason that it could to go into Iraq. They also manipulated public opinion on the reason for invading Iraq, how easy and inexpensive it would be, how we would be greeted as liberators, and other nonsense in order to make it more popular. I also think the stated reasons for going to Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with the real reason - namely, having a forward base of operations in the Mideast. Am I glad Saddam is gone? - yes. Were we lied to and manipulated leading up to the war? - yes. Should we end it all and come home? - no. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Sep 9 2006, 06:00 AM Post #55 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I am not going to disagree. Let me add one... Knowing what you know now, should we gave gone in the first place? jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Sep 9 2006, 06:03 AM Post #56 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
We should have, but we should have done it a different way - more along the lines of what Bush Sr. did in developing a coalition of countries. Bush Jr. is too weak, small minded and incompetent to have done it the right way. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 9 2006, 06:06 AM Post #57 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
The fact is at the present time we do not KNOW Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 because, as of the present time, there is no evidence to support such a connection. Failed attempts to get the Administration to say there was no connection do not amount to a lie. Jack, I have been asking for years for someone, anyone to present me with a clear example of a deliberate falsehood (lie) given by the Administration. So far, all attempts, including yours, have fallen well short. Saying the Administration put a "spin" on things to sell the American people on its policies would be accurate. It is also no different than what any Administration or, for that matter, any politician has done since time immemorial. That is what politicians (and used car salesmen) do. It still is not lying until it amounts to a deliberate falsehood. Clinton's presidency is littered with examples of clear deliberate falsehoods. I have yet to see an example of one by Bush. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 9 2006, 06:10 AM Post #58 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
It never would have happened under the circumstances you propose. We could not even get the French, Russians and Germans to agree that Saddam was in defiance of 1441 after 14 months of trying. The "coalition of countries" you describe was not on the radar screen as long as half the members needed were lining their pockets with Iraqi oil money. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 9 2006, 06:32 AM Post #59 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
How can I say they were living in some fantasyland? Because that is exactly what I believe to be the case. They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein having WMD's. They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein having links to Al Quaeda. They lived in a fantasyland of Hussein being an immediate threat to the US. They lived in a fantasyland of the US being welcomed into Iraq with dancing and flowers. They lived in a fantasyland of Iraq oil revenues paying for the war and reconstruction. They lived in a fantasyland that Iraq could be subdued and transformed with minimal American troops. They lived in a fantasyland that they did not need to provide American troops with adequate equipment, armor or supplies. They lived in a fantasy land that the coalition they put together through deals and pressure was a real coalition that would stay together. They lived in a fantasyland that once the invasion was complete and successful, the occupation and reconstruction was best done by the military not the diplomats. They lived in a fantasyland that they could ignore the social structure, social conditions and social cultural mores of Iraq in planning for its reconstruction. They lived in the fantasyland that the Americans who would be responsible for working with the Iraqi people need not be trained and understand the Iraqi society. They lived in the fantasyland that once the US military was established in Iraq it would be the dominant force in the Middle East and that the peoples of the area would not turn to and support the strengthening of and elevate to world stature a regional Muslim power such as Iran to represent their interests, not to the US. They lived in a fantasyland of invading and occupying Iraq would be accepted and supported by the Muslim world. They lived in a fantasyland that they could impose a democracy on a country which had no history of it and where the people's identity was not defined by a national government, but by religious and regional sectarianism. They lived in a fantasyland that they could invade and occupy a country and be out of there in 18 months. They lived in a fantasyland that the world can be changed by force of arms. They lived in a fantasyland that terrorism could be stopped or even significantly slowed by a military campaign against Iraq. They lived in a fantasyland that they could turn away from the pursuit of the terrorists in their stronghold in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the terrorist would just go away. They lived in a fantasyland that the world would come to respect the US if it exercised its military muscle. They lived in a fantasyland that our enemies would be in fear of the US if it flexed its military muscle and not challenge us. They lived in a fantasyland that the president could undo the Constitution and that such claims would be upheld. They lived in a fantasyland that because the US is the last remaining superpower it could do what it wanted and this would not cause countervailing centers of power to be created to stop the US. They lived in the fantasyland that the US's greatest strength was its military, not it economy, not its values, not its force of moral strength. They lived in a fantasyland that one significant terrorist act against the US was an act of war, not an act of terrorism. They lived in a fantasyland that they could define the situation as an epic and historic clash of cultures and that the Western world would rally around the concept and move to rein in Islam. They lived in a fantasyland that they did not have to look to the long range defeat of the terrorists within Islam itself by focusing on turning the Muslim people against the terrorists who claimed to be acting on their behalf. I could go on and on, Jack, but there is no need to. I have come to the conclusion that Bush and his buddies did not lie per se -- because they were true believers. As such, they would breach no counter opinion, accept as valid any counter intelligence, listen to advice contrary to what they wanted to hear, believed those who did not agree with them were anti-American. They had no doubts as to the truth of their own fantasyland and were not willing to and did not include into their thinking processes anything that did not support their own version of the truth. They had the truth, not ideas, not values, not opinions. No, in their minds they had THE TRUTH! Others did not. Any who disagreed were not worth listening to because they were completely and totally right. As such, they discounted and/or rejected those who presented data, intelligence and/or other information that was contrary to what they already know to be the truth. As for letting Bush off lightly? The retribution for his failures and massive mistakes has already begun. His is and will be seen as a failed Presidency, brought down by military adventurism and a total misreading of geopolitics and the position and role of the US in the world. Iraq is a debacle and the longer they keep us there, the worse it will get until the US leaves as it did in Vietnam with all the damage to the US that Vietnam caused. And they will be blamed for it. Afghanistan which they once saw as a success is turning into another failure. The US's image and influence in that part of the world will be further diminished. They will be blamed for this. They have lost support and respect throughout the world and cannot achieve any further international gains. They have little to no credibility throughout the world and cannot even muster support for their actions against Iran for its nuclear program, which the world generally recognizes as a danger to be dealt with -- but by the EU and Russia, not by a mistrusted US. The American people have turned against them and they are dragging their party down, eliminating any of their hopes for establishing a long-time GOP majority. Domestically, they have three primary victories. First, through their tax cuts, "reform" of the bankruptcy laws and similar fiscal policies, they have dramatically shifted the wealth from the middle class to the upper classes. This will be undone over time and they will have no lasting legacy. Second, No Child Left Behind. This is already being unraveled and will be eliminated quickly by changes that will make it unrecognizable to thsoe who drafted it. Third, the realignment of the Supreme Court. The Justices that Bush has appointed will, within five to ten years, be seen by the right, who the appointments were supposed to appease, as too liberal and as unacceptable. Outside of those three, they have had no significant domestic successes. Bush's Presidency is over, Jack -- and has been for a year or so. He has become and will remain basically irrelevant in the national discourse and national debate. He will be able to have some impact on it, but in the end, he is and will continue to be irrelevant because the people and the politicians, even in his own party, have rejected him as a leader. There is no reason to let him off, Jack. He has been hoisted on his own petard. He will stay there until he is out of office and then, once he is no longer in a position to impact the propaganda about what he has done and there is no longer partisan reasons to justify and rationalize his actions, history will judge him as it has judged other failed Presidencies. It will not be pretty. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Sep 9 2006, 06:48 AM Post #60 |
|
Finally
|
Sen. Feingold: "Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow access to inspection sites had to be answered." ("Political Reaction," Wisconsin State Journal, 12/17/98) 1998!
DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. ... f Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/29/02) (for the record, Rick, I'd like to see where Bush/Cheney ever used the phrase "immediate threat.") Rep. Pelosi: " Now, I may be (and I'm sure that you think this) naive, but I really don't understand how all the Democrats said the same things 3 years ago. How it is that under a Democratic president, regime change in Iraq became national policy. If Bush is delusional and living in a fantasyland, then these people were as well. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 9 2006, 06:55 AM Post #61 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
George, You can pick and choose anyone of those in my list and you can find examples to counter it. Put it all together -- see it as a whole -- and it can't be. I know all of you who support Bush like to pull out a quote here or a quote there indicating the Democrats and others also believed certain thngs. But 1) they were not privy to the intelligence Bush had available to him nor were they in a position to seek more accurate intelligence when contradictions arose; 2) they were not planning an invasion and occupation which placed a greater responsibility on Bush to consider any and all intelligence and data and 3) simply because regime change was a national priority, it did not have to be done in the way it was done -- the method and the resulting morass is the result if Bush's miscalculation and bad decisionmaking. He had lots of options, and he chose this one. Because of this, he is and will be justifiably judged harshly by his contemporaries and by history. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Sep 9 2006, 06:56 AM Post #62 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
You liberals get a whiff of a report released by the Democrats and you think it's gospel. The report you're basing all your "Aha! We've got them on the run" BS on is as flawed and agenda driven as any document to ever come out of Washington. It isn't worth the paper it's written on. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Sep 9 2006, 06:58 AM Post #63 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
This is completely incorrect. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Sep 9 2006, 07:38 AM Post #64 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
JB, I guess we are arguing about the difference between a deliberate lie and a deliberate deception.... jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 9 2006, 07:43 AM Post #65 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
No, we are not. When I say "spin" I am referring to presenting those facts which best make your case. You may call that "deliberate deception" if you like but it is a long way from "lying". |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Sep 9 2006, 08:51 AM Post #66 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States." - White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03 "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." - President Bush, 7/17/03 Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03 "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now." - President Bush, 7/2/03 "Absolutely." - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03 "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended." - President Bush 4/24/03 "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03 "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended." - Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03 "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." - President Bush, 3/19/03 "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations." - President Bush, 3/16/03 "This is about imminent threat." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03 Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03 Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03 Iraq "threatens the United States of America." - Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03 "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03 "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03 "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat." - President Bush, 1/3/03 "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." - President Bush, 11/23/02 "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02 "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America." - President Bush, 11/3/02 "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." - President Bush, 11/1/02 "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein." - President Bush, 10/28/02 "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." - President Bush, 10/16/02 "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." - President Bush, 10/7/02 "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." - President Bush, 10/2/02 "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." - President Bush, 10/2/02 "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined." - President Bush, 9/26/02 "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02 "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness." - Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02 jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 9 2006, 09:29 AM Post #67 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I can post an equally long list of Democrats saying the same things at the time so what is your point? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 9 2006, 09:29 AM Post #68 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Hey Jack: You forgot this gem:
Wanna guess who gave that speech? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 9 2006, 09:33 AM Post #69 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "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 . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, "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." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 9 2006, 10:18 AM Post #70 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Bush took us to war and now we are stuck in a sinkhole. Others were far more prudent and understood the limitations, even while setting policy to control, limit and eventually get rid of Hussein. That's the point. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Sep 9 2006, 10:24 AM Post #71 |
|
Finally
|
Just amazing what you find when you look at the actual report, not just the talking points provided to us by the press: These conclusions, numbers 4 and 8, appear on pages 54 through 58:
Pages 71 and 71:
Page 73:
Page 113
(the NIE is the same agency that gave us the "Bin-Laden wants to strike US" document that everyone has their underwear in a knot about. So, we should have believed them in August of 2001, but not in October 2002?) |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 9 2006, 10:25 AM Post #72 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Wrong. Bush and Congress took us to war. A majority of Democrats voted in favor. Many of them were saying things perfect for my equally long list. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 9 2006, 10:36 AM Post #73 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Wrong. The Congress authorized the use of force. Bush alone decided how that force would be used. He had many options. The one he chose was invasion, occupation and quagmire. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 9 2006, 11:12 AM Post #74 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
What is your point, Rick? Are you trying to say that all these Democrats who were making statements exactly like what was quoted above by the Bush Administration get a complete pass because they merely "authorized" war? That this distinction makes Bush a liar but them truthful? Do you realize how silly this sounds? |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 9 2006, 11:13 AM Post #75 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
What an interesting and illuminating quibble, Rick. :rolleyes: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









12:52 AM Jul 11