Tavis Smiley was also the guy who said that Christians often go around America suicide bombing things.
Between our bingo games and bake sales, I guess.

Were these people lying also?

“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.” Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA 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
“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.” Letter to Ex-President Clinton, signed by Senators, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace 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, December 5, 2001

For a moment, I actually thought Christopher would act like a real reporter and stick to facts.  With his apparent inability to disappoint those who understand his true nature, he concludes that Bush acted on weak intelligence and basically bullshited the nation into war.  Yeah Christopher, lying and misleading truly are semantically different, but any idiot can see through your message.

How’s it go?  Bush lied, millions died?

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did lie. More Americans have died as a result of those lies than died in the 911 attack.If we were a country of laws rather than a counrty of men, the Bush administration would have been the subject of investigations followed by indictments with ttrials now pending.

They lied.

Unhinged liberalism at its finest – devoid of facts but replete with emotional nonsense.

This is a joke, off-course he lied. He told Richard Clark to find him evidence that Saddam had something to do with the attacks. W and his cronies want to find any excuse to go to war, so they cook up WMD. So he is a liar, what’s wrong with these jokers on msnbc, acting like puppets. 

If he didn’t lie, I want you Jokers to produce the freaking wmd (8yrs late). If you can’t he is a liar and if you still deny it, then you are also lying. 

So when Oblamer lies it is OK in the Liberal world of Tavis Smiley …the double standard among the left has no shame.

Where are all those War protesting Liberals now that Oblamer is President? Why aren’t they calling for war crimes to be charged against Oblamer?
What happened to all those club Gitmo protestors……Weren’t we promised that it would be closed during Oblamers first year in office?

Not a peep from the double standard left!

“he knew the evidence was weak”I’m a Tommy Christopher fan and not a Bush fan so don’t kill me, but I’m wondering how you know that he knew the evidence was weak; do you have cites for that assertion? The impression I got was that, based on the intelligence received, Bush thought that the evidence was strong.

 held his own pretty good – most guest just back down once Joe starts his verbal bullyingTavis smiley was right .. the Bush administration made it clear to Tenet and others what they wanted to hear back from them.  I thought Tavis held his own pretty well. Most guests just back down once Joe starts interrupting ,bullying and preventing them from finishing their thoughts.  I hope he makes more appearances. 

Nice to know tax dollars are paying this boob’s salary .

Liberals get these stupid ideas rattling around in their empty heads like an endless game of Pong .

You certainly came well armed. If Tavis Smiley isn’t bright enough to review the facts, he deserves to be ganged up on. However, Smiley has demonstrated over and over again that he embraces the role of the fool.
Anyone trying to make the opposition look bad with this debunked argument diminish what ever point they are trying to make.
Anyone attempting to take up Smiley’s side and defend him on most issues diminish their own credibility.

Obviously, Tavis Smiley was not the appropriate guest to have on the show during the American unity segment.  It is revealing though that Joe cannot broker a peace where we all say nice stuff about Barack and George at the same time, and only Barack is eligible to be on the ballot again.

How about these people?  Were they lying?

“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 mandated 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. ” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
 
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
 
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

The entire Obama campaign for the 2008 election was a lie so more than one person lied.

We were promised so many things we did not get,so much change that did not happen,so many dreams that will not be fulfilled.

They all lie.

Did Saddam Hussein have WMD’s or didn’t he? That is not the question. I’m not a big fan of Tavis Smiley, but he is right on the money this time. There never was any proof that Hussein had WMD’s. Judith whatever her name from the NY Times notwithstanding, distorted this story for which the Times has apologized. There were many official voices from around the world who had doubts about Iraq’s actively possessing WMD’s, and the millions of people who came out on the streets in virtually every country including the US also had doubts. Because the spineless Democrats signed off on some vague threat to get Saddam proves nothing except that they were go with the flow ‘patriotic’ fools, who were genuinely surprised when Bush/Cheney actually invaded Iraq,and most of them have come to regret going along to get along. My final comment is what difference would it had made if Saddam had actually had some WMD’s, whatever qualifies for a WMD. Would it had justified starting a war that destroyed a country and needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people and has brought enormous shame on our country and led to the collapse of our economy. Bus/Cheney wanted this war and obviously distorted reality (lied) to make it happen.

Are you as eager to support the many investigations into the Obama administration or just a Bush hater?

Would Tavis also say that Pres. Obama LIED about shovel-ready projects in his stimulus plan?  (I know, people didn’t die, but isn’t the issue lying vs. misjudgment?)

Face palm…..

For eight years, Pres. Clinton had been privy to daily security briefings, the last just eight months prior.   Clinton completely agreed with the theory that Hussein was stockpiling WMD.

Um, no, they were all regurgitating what they had been told by their Commander in Chief.  Not even remotely comparable.

These things are dishonestly buried in their fervor to bash the former administration.

That’s at the base of it. Their contemptible dishonesty in order to falsely vilify the opposition. To them, that is somehow not lying. 

How many people have so far died due to the carelessness of the Obama regime?

-Continued war in Iraq
-Libyan War
-Fast and Furious
-Afghanistan war

How many people have so far died due to the carelessness of the Obama regime?

-Continued war in Iraq
-Libyan War
-Fast and Furious
-Afghanistan war

“There never was any proof that Hussein had WMD’s.” 

No?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgJmlpL1Jw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2ez7TPxVw&feature=related

What about these people?  Were they lying?  Are these statements comparable?

“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.” Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
 ”If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
 ”Iraq is a long way from USA 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
“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.” Letter to Ex-President Clinton, signed by Senators, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
 ”Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
 ”Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

No, they reviewed the intelligence sources too.

Right.  I guess the WMD’s he didn’t use against the Kurds and the WMD’s he didn’t use against the Iranians prove he didn’t have WMD’s.   People forget Iraq was not an insignificant threat to the region and US interests.  On too small a scale perhaps to be considered WMD, but during the Kuwait withdrawal he had botulism and other nasty biological diseases smeared all over hospital operating rooms.  I worked with a chemist who had a special cleaner they needed.  I didn’t know how much he charged them but I took a pallet of the stuff to the airport and spent a fortune to overnight it to Kuwait – figure it must have been some good soap…  It certainly was a priority.

Not sure about the suicide bombing reference, but there are plenty of Christian terrorists, friend.  Timothy McVeigh would be #1, the guy who went on a rampage in Norway, killing dozens of children, being the most recent example.

I know, I know, those people weren’t “real” Christians.  Unlike Muslim terrorists, of course, who represent every Muslim ever to walk the earth.

It’s funny, I missed the part where Clinton sent thousands of our finest young men and women to their deaths in Iraq over any of these issues…

Oh fer crissakes Tommy…why must you embarrass yourself with statements so easily refuted….?
Ever hear of a little thing called the internet…?
EVERYBODY believed Saddam had weapons.
Everybody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg195sgzXhU

“Did Saddam Hussein have WMD’s or didn’t he?That is not the question. …….Bus/Cheney wanted this war and obviously distorted reality (lied) to make it happen. ”

John Kerry :  “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler, and the United Nations. ”
Face The Nation  9/14/03

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk

I saw that and Smiley was made to look like the FOOL he is.

Keep up with current events, CC.  Tavis Smiley is NOT a big fan of President Obama.

–Cobra

You can come up with all kinds of excuses if you want.. We got into a war we didn’t need to, that has put us into the financial dire straights we are now in, killed tens of thousands, all for nothing. So who is foolish here. ?  Yeah I’ll keep my distance ….from the unintelligent.

McVeigh lol….stick to the facts. even McVeigh said he was not christian

Tim McVeigh, Scott Roeder, Eric Robert Rudolph, the Lord Resistance Army, Anders Brevik, James Kopp, Paul Jennings, Peter James Knight. 

All Christians….All Terrorists….anything else?

Fact are indisputable. Bush lied. Others covered it up. Anyone who defends it is just as guilty as he is.

The Clinton Administration viewed Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as a far bigger threat than Saddam Hussein.

–Cobra

they lied also, according to you

it’s a shame that Tavis Smiley (and all other liberals) haven’t heard of such a thing called the Internet, especially since Al Gore created it:
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/clinton-kerry-gore-call-for-war-against-saddams-iraq/

Misdirection and diversion, nice.

No, they chose not to act on what was obviously extremely dubious intelligence.  

Throwing a lie out there is not even remotely comparable to throwing a lie out there, using it to exploit the greatest tragedy this nation has ever seen, and sending thousands of our young men and women to their deaths over it.  

Do you honestly have so little respect for the American lives lost in Iraq as not to understand their critical importance in this equation?

Its the facts you don’t seem to like..

but….but…he’s black!…and liberal!…

I love it.  The war that you were traitor for questioning during the Bush years is now proof of the “carelessness” of the Democratic president who has spent his entire term trying to responsibly wind it down.

Logic not your strong suit, eh?

Its the facts you don’t seem to like.I repeat

you labored to come up with two, 1 false and the other “out of country”.  Advice friend:  quit trying to jam your agenda into your logic.  Now go vote striaght blue next election.

:O))

Raised a catholic….lost touch….claimed agnostic during trial….on death bed took Catholic Right of the Sick. Pretty much describes every catholic I know. Well except for the rape and sodomy of alter boys. 

Facts suck. 

do you really want me to list the 1000′s of non christains moroon.  Your logic and you are damaged.

bush is a war criminal and a liar. these fools just have a vested interest and can’t speak truth to power.  it’s shameful. 

Most ultra far left Liberals like Tavis are not happy with Obama….they think he caves in on the progressive agenda.

Stick to the topic at hand:  Was it a lie?  If Bush lied, did the afroementioned also lie?

I think Bush lied.  He saw the evidence – and it was scant.  None of the rest of us were briefed by the CIA.  I don’t think he ever believed it was a slam dunk.  Then again, could be he just can’t think.

smiley is right

and he could have taken it a step further

they chose not to act on their lies is all you are saying…….but they still lied

We all knew that if Bush became president, we would be marching into Baghdad for some reason or another. There was never any doubt. Unfunded, unplanned, Bush wanted to be remembered in history. Why the whole Cheney cabal isn’t in Gitmo is beyond me!

I didn’t want us in all these conflicts either and I don’t like the further escalations since Obama.
However, that’s not the point here, is it? We’re talking about Smiley demonizing Bush.

Clearly, you three are racists .

Both Clintons, Gore, Albright and 20 other major Dems are on the record (and utube) saying Iraq has WMDs and Saddam must go.  Sorry these are all facts on the record (and utube)  The Liars are every DEM who says these things in your comment.  Filthy liberal liars when there are vidoes so now your simply stupid too.

The CIA didn’t brief YOU??  The audacity!!

was anyone here really worried about “being kept safe”?

not me.  

Because Obama closed GITMO by the end of his first year in office, remember?

Bush pulled the trigger.he made the bad decision

My point is that no one would have had more ability to ascertain whether the evidence was weak and exaggerated.

Maybe I will put this in a way you can understand. 

CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS 

I personally don’t care what country the commit the acts of terror in. American catholics funded the IRA for 50 years. K-Street fund the Ugandan anti-gay slaughter. You are the same as muslims you just cut your beards a little closer and have more lobbyist. Now go rape an altar boy. 

And I remember how all the Christian churches cheered and said “God bless, Andrew Brevik!” “That James Kopp, he’s in Heaven for sure. Finishing the work Jesus started.”
Please.

if scott ritter was there to help mr. smiley, it would have been much, much better

Moroons? 

Keep em coming…..Altar boy. 

John Kerry :  “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler, and the United Nations. ”Face The Nation  9/14/03

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

Repost, george c

so that explains your eating disorder…

and that made his act a form of christian terrorism

the fact that weak democrats got on the bandwagon is immaterial. 

i thought the president was in charge of such decisions.  and by that i mean cheney, of course.  

duh. 

so all terrorism is because of religion?

You wanna hug sweetie….maybe a kiss. 

Only gullible fools believed that crap.

Turns out that Congress has these things called legislative powers…

Yeah I remember all those joyful marches and celebrations in Brooklyn, NY and Dearborn, MI after 9/11 praising the acts of terrorism. 

Anything else?

scott ritter didn’t believe it:

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

the fact that weak democrats got on the bandwagon is immaterial. 

i thought the president was in charge of such decisions.  and by that i mean cheney, of course.  

duh. _____Bush = LiarDemocrats = Team PlayersLMAO !!!Yeah , I’m now laughing at you too .

I mean, wow.  

Do you honestly have so little respect for the thousands of American men and women lost in Iraq as to view their loss as immaterial???

“he’s our president and we should salute him”

no, we shouldn’t.  we should keep him in check.

I’m aware of that.  Are you aware that the Democrat Party held a supermajority in the House and a majority in the Senate?

They were talking about the WMDs that were destroyed by Clinton’s 1998 missile attack.  Fools who take 3 & 4 year old comments out of context are simply ignoramuses, brainwashed fools, or LIARS,

Misdirection to acknowledging the thousands of American troops lost over a war based on a lie?  What respect you have for their sacrifice, ass hat.

So, was Secretary of Defense, William Cohen regurgitating what he had been told by his CIC. Pres Clinton?

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…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.

Or, how about Algore in the 1992 debates accusing Bush 41 of ignoring Saddam’s terrorist ties:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&feature=related

Or perhaps you choose to elect dummies that haven’t a thought in their heads to represent you, naieve, innocent little lambs that have to ask their political enemy what to say, how to vote, etc.  Sound realistic to you? Pfft!  You are quite the kidder.

This is the type of crap we don’t need. We had it from the left during Bush. Now we have it from the Right. You can always disagree on policy, but it’s idiotic to get personal and try to get into the heart of any president and know what they’re thinking and try to invoke conspiracy theories. That’s why we’re so polorized and paralyzed.

No….not at all. You actually make good points CJD. You just pal around with morons who claim that there has never been a Christian terrorist….for which there has been hundreds of thousands. The same people claim every Muslim and Muslim country is a terrorist country and is out for jihad. 

Racist!!!

bush knew the weapons intelligence was barely there

bush knew saddam had nothing to do with al qaeda

those were the twin pillars behind the rationale for war….

the worst foreign policy decision in our nation’s history

yeah, we “should just salute him”!

that must be nervous laughter as your point is busted. bush and cheney lead the war. weak democrats jumped on, which is also shameful.  

what are you, 10 years old?  read a book. 

My mother-in-law had wine in her fridge….I KNOW because I gave it to her. But when I later looked, it wasn’t there!  Ergo there was no wine in the fridge!

This Scott Ritter?

Former UN weapons inspector Ritter guilty on all but one charge in sex sting.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110415/NEWS/104150353

Pedophile Scott Ritter Headed for Jail
http://sheikyermami.com/2011/04/16/pedophile-scott-ritter-headed-for-jail/

Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector who was arrested for
reportedly seeking sex from teen-age girls he met online, was targeted
for bribery with gold by Iraq, reports the London Telegraph.

Scott Ritter mug shot (courtesy WNYT-TV)

Documents reveal the so-called “Scott Ritter Project” where Iraqi
intelligence services bought expensive jewelry intended for Ritter’s
wife and daughter to encourage him to work closely with Saddam’s regime

Read more: Baghdad tried to bribe Scott Ritter with gold http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=18605#ixzz1XkqvYNdi

but not everyone in intelligence agreed with clinton

in fact, quite the opposite

check the UN weapons inspections’ scott ritter’s statements….

UN weapons intelligence gatherers had that ability

and they disagreed with bush

You know darn well that there were celebrations. They were on CNN. You know, in those countries that sponsor terrorism. Usually those ones that keep themselves warm by burning American flags. Please don’t get the impression that I’m anti-Muslim. And yes, there are “Christians” that do horrible things, but in doing so they are going against the teachings of the One they claim to follow.

Must have been a big trigger, bipartisan as it was.  It appears that there were a whole lot of powerful democrats doing the aiming long before Bush left Texas.

sounds like you need the hug and some therapy. poor boy using food as comfort to your ills.

why don’t you show us on the teddy bear where the mean old priest touched you…

then dont judge me like that, hell that guy that killed that abortion doctor..now that was a guy that killed for religion,  rarely is everything just black or white

Of course Bush lied and he lied intentionally. Of course this will be impossible to prove since politicians always look out for plausible deniability. You will have to search long for a guy who is better at it than Rumsfeld. 

A narrative was created for the American public. Not everybody bought the narrative at the time and today everybody knows it was a lie. The crucial point is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have absolutely no right on any excuses. They are responsible for their actions and decisions. But since shit runs downhill they like to pin it on the guys beneath them.

“worst foreign policy decision in our nations history”     are you a moron…..WWI , korea, vietman

The same goes for Muslims….ask one. 

I never considered them “traitors” they were just stupid or partisan.  It was a bipartisan effort, we’ve all seen the vote and read transcripts of all the democrats that were on board.  Their passionate oratory on the floor of the Congress, racing to the mike to show us they were tough too.  Funny how it all got miscombobulated when the going got tough and the dems found out the enemy had weapons too, the   bastards.

“the fact that weak democrats got on the bandwagon is immaterial”

 
Yeah , that a keen analytical mind you have there christop .  Stay in the shallow end , it’s for your own good .

its bad when they refer to pedophiles for a statement , pretty low darla

The only news organization that speaks truth to power is Fox, and look how that gets you snot nosed liberals’ panties in a bunch. LOL.

Hey, is killing Bin Laden on sovereign soil a war crime?

enough with citing what the pedophile said

I wasn’t worried about you being kept safe either.

and how many of those democrats, with access to intelligence, actually invaded and occupied iraq?

iraq:  longer and more expensive than WWI, vietnam, and korea

not “all the democrats” were on board.  not even close.  

bail him out of jail then darla

So why did you make the statement:

“So when Oblamer lies it is OK in the Liberal world of Tavis Smiley …the double standard among the left has no shame.”

 Tavis Smiley prides himself on criticizing President Obama. There are indeed people on the left who support Obama on everything, but Smiley sure as hell ain’t one of them.

–Cobra

Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had a common enemy.

The phrase the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a proverb
that advances the concept that someone who is the enemy of your enemy
is therefore your friend. It further means that because two parties have
a common enemy, one can use the other to advance their goals. Often
described as an Arabic proverb, there is also an identical Chinese proverb.

Imagine that.

Like I said…..any good point to tend to make gets lost in the rest of rabble on this site. One only needs to see the ones who don’t even make points anymore and just spew personal attack about what they think they know about someone’s life. You know when they stalked them…

If you look at the world major terrorism groups the majority are based on religious views if not actual religious doctrine. The manipulation of that doctrine is where the entire religion gets dragged in. In a similar the Teabagger/Religious right have taken over the GOP. Sure you and I can have an honest exchange of ideas. But the radical element takes down the whole conversation because of ideology. Same goes for the “Fringe” elements of the left except they don’t have the funding that right has. 

Was Bin Laden a citizen of that sovereign nation?

–Cobra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YckmZnqy1U4&feature=related
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I think you need to do a little more reading. 

so you judge by money not lives…..OK

were there thousands of dead drunks laying around as proof they drank the wine? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgJmlpL1Jw&feature=related

you guys are so weak, bringing up obama, clinton, bin laden, etc.  
try as you might, you cannot face facts. wait – you aren’t even trying.

cognitive dissonance much?  look it up.

so full of fail i am embarrassed for you.  as a proud american you make the rest of the country look like such ignoramuses.  shame on you.

bush must be your daddy figure and you can’t let go of the fact that you need such an authority figure in your life.
pathetic, really.

Clearly a case of msnbc’s blatant racism, what else could it be?

Not all Muslims are bad, just the Arab Muslims that want to slit your throat just for being an infidel, silly.

A lot of the comments are from 2003 and are in context.

lives, too, cjd

Good point, if using liberal logic.

Wow, dude, you need help.

just because he had an online sexchat with an underage girl doesn’t mean
his arguments are invalid

And are you aware that the GOP began invoking the filibuster at an absolutely unprecedented rate the second the Dems took power, and that they got the few Dem senators they needed to ensure that Obama could not possibly fulfill his promise?  

online sex chat w/ underage girl?

great. 

so how does that mean his arguments are invalid, again?

Yes, chose not to ruin the lives of thousands of military families by sending their loves ones to their deaths in an entirely unjustified war.  That is EXACTLY what I am saying.

well over 200,000 dead americans in those foreign policy decisions

“August 20, 1998. U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border.” 

How does that destroy WMDs in Iraq?

Islamic Terrorists murder in the name of Islam. You have something against christians. Muslim?

It was never just about WMD, read the AUMF.  It was Colin Powell’s decision to only present the WMD material to the UN thus making it a media focus.  It was always about all of the UN Resolutions that Saddam defied and they are all outlined in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that was voted on and passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis.

Included was reparations to Kuwait.

Return of all non Iraqi prisoners.

Attempted assassination of a US President.

Abuse of Iraqi citizens, seems the UN frowned upon Saddam’s and the boys rape rooms, torture chambers, putting Iraqis into shredders in front of their children, lobbing off Iraqis limbs for sag’s.

Harboring and supporting terrorism……..all terrorists, not exclusively…al Qaida

Violating the No-Fly Zone.

and others, look it up, it’s all there.  As a matter of fact, the same violations were used by Congress when they passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, many of those same members  voted to support OIF.

nope….but still would not cite somebody like that……not a real honest person it seems

He originally did, but when you mess around with minors one could have a tendency to change his opinion once the screws get tightened.  That one was not a very bright boy.

You’re right about that. I’ve yet to encounter a bigger racist than Cobra.  A VERY angry individual indeed. 

So when the Ku Klux Klan was riding around with cross insignias, and burning crosses while terrorizing minorities, that doesn’t count as “Christian terrorism?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EScp7V2DlRU&feature=related

Uh-huh.

–Cobra

Like passing bills before they are even written, let alone read?

Since when do liberals think our military is comprised of fine young men and women?  The left drips with disdain for them and they know it. 

Funny since Clinton refused to take Bin Laden when it was offered. 

We did not go to war based only on WMD, all this Bush lied about wmd crap is irrelevant.  Read the AUMF, it’s all there.

Well we have to pass them to find out what’s in there, according to Nance.

yeah, i was pretty bummed out about having to pay bush’s salary, too

Was he a guest? LOL. Wow.

–Mongoose

looks like cjd lost that one

again, cjd lost that one

Yeah, that’s what they want you to think.  

In reality, intelligence experts came to the Bush administration numerous times to report no link between Iraq and 9/11 and that there were no WMD, only to be rebuffed and told to “look again” until they came up with the “correct” evidence.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

still hasn’t understood the difference between:

a.  listening and agreeing with dubious intelligence

b.  acting on said dubious intelligence (to the tune of 4 trillion)

were the KKK motivated primarily for religious reasons….they did not like catholics either, but not the same kind of hate they had for minorities

gee, i wonder WHY liberals would want to bash the former administration?

again, just because ritter had an online sex chat with an underaged girl
doesn’t mean that ritter’s statments are invalid

fox speaks truth to power?!??!

funniest line of the day

hey, if you agree they all lied…clinton,albright, kerry,pelosi…thats fine, then you point is taken

No I have something against those in the Christian faith who sit on their hands and do nothing when the radical elements take over and make you all look like morons. 

Examples

Bradlee Dean
Pat Roberson 
Michele Bachmann 
Cindy Jacobs
Jay Swallow
John Benefiel

I could go on and on. Speak up and call these people out in public, in the media, and in your places of worship. “These people do not represent me and my reiglion” do that and you will not get lumped into other radical religious fundamentalists. 

If you don’t, which most Christians (and catholics) wont. It just makes you “Austrians” looking the other way while genocide was being committed in their backyards….literally. 

He masturbated in front of a web cam thinking it was a 15 year old girl, oops, it was an undercover cop.

Found guilty in six of the seven charges.

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/NEWS/110419856

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans “in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.  The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community.” The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically “cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest” while officials deliberately “bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.” [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: ”In CIA Director George Tenet’s January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea.” [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: ”The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.” [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq’s declared nuclear power plants “fully within the parameters he could operate” when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that “Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program.”  [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: ”In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies–noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA’s classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration’s claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes.”  [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: ”An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq’s chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’” The report also said, “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions.” [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: ”Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence.” [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: “The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.” [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Why is it so easy for Democrats to overlook the amount of uranium that WAS found in Iraq?I suppose Saddam was just stockpiling it for fun, maybe to use it on the remaining Kurds that didn’t die in the Halabja massacre.  Yet Obama lends millions of US dollars to oust a Libyan dictator, who poses no threat to American interests, habors no weapons, has never proclaimed war on the US, but  for “humanity reasons” and to stop large scale brutality, this after proclaiming that America has no business ‘meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations”.  Could it be that this was a preemptive move to stop a possible alliance with Syria? Then by Tavis’s own criteria both Bush and Obama should not be trusted, for they both bend and define who, what and where America will fight against without a clear cut criteria for justification, right? Does that make them liars or pragmatic political tacticians or both?JULY 2008 CNN:  ”The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.”

Why is it so easy for Democrats to overlook the amount of uranium that WAS found in Iraq?I suppose Saddam was just stockpiling it for fun, maybe to use it on the remaining Kurds that didn’t die in the Halabja massacre.  Yet Obama lends millions of US dollars to oust a Libyan dictator, who poses no threat to American interests, habors no weapons, has never proclaimed war on the US, but  for “humanity reasons” and to stop large scale brutality, this after proclaiming that America has no business ‘meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations”.  Could it be that this was a preemptive move to stop a possible alliance with Syria? Then by Tavis’s own criteria both Bush and Obama should not be trusted, for they both bend and define who, what and where America will fight against without a clear cut criteria for justification, right? Does that make them liars or pragmatic political tacticians or both?JULY 2008 CNN:  ”The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.”

Tavis is your typical libturd.

He somehow missed these gems from Democrats going all the way back to 1998!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Madeleine
Albright, President Clinton’s
Secretary of State:

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, 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.”
- Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University, February 18, 1998

“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.” S
- 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 invigorated 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,
December 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 mandated 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), 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.” 

- 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm
Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive
regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real …”

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Now libs, kindly STFU!

Right, the other lies (Iraq was behind 9/11, for instance) were equally as important.  And utterly false.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

 No, they don’t..

They may be privy to some intelligence from other agencies in order to better do their investigation, but they are one source of information .

They do not receive broad intelligence and interpretative information from the CIA and NSA, etc..

Reid was invoking cloture as soon as he submitted the bills, that shows up as a fillibuster.  And, here we go again with those itty bitty weakling democrats that those big, bright, powerful Republicans run right over.  WTH are you doofusses sending to Congress, I blame you.

No, but turns out they DID brief the Bush administration on the absence of WMD and the utter lack of any cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden…

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: ”The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.” [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: ”In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies–noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA’s classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration’s claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes.” [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: ”Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence.” [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: “The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.” [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. “The activities we have detected do not … add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.” INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: “The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States’ UAV program — the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center — had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq’s UAVs were being designed as attack weapons” – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Such a drama queen.  Are you still in HS?  Grow up!

Turns out you can find this on the internet – apparently you haven’t heard of it either?

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: ”The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.” [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: ”In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies–noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA’s classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration’s claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes.” [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: ”Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence.” [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: “The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.” [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. “The activities we have detected do not … add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.” INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: “The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States’ UAV program — the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center — had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq’s UAVs were being designed as attack weapons” – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Are the terrorists your ilk describe as Muslim terrorists primarily motivated by their religion? Nope.

Are the people who’ve terrorized abortion clinics 100% motivated by religious reasons? Yes.

He’s in prison for being a pedophile. I know, you re-elected a serial adulterer and impeached president once, and he’s made MILLIONS speaking on “America’s behalf”, but really, have you no shame in the characters you pick to advance your sick liberalism?

So you can excuse Clinton and all the Democrats, the UN, our National Security Advisor, Intel from at least 5 other US allied countries from 1998-2002, but not Bush. Amazing. Is Bush to blame by extension of the war, for the European financial crisis as well?  I will assume then that you are outraged at the millions of dollars to “aide” Egypt and our bombing Libya, since we can ill afford to help out these nations.

dell, address what i say, not what others do…..i think for myself

Filibusters??? Is that why Bush was unable to get any federal judges on the bench in 8 years? Unprecedented? You are a joke. How is it no filibuster was able to stop the bill Nancy didn’t even read???

Filibusters??? Is that why Bush was unable to get any federal judges on the bench in 8 years? Unprecedented? You are a joke. How is it no filibuster was able to stop the bill Nancy didn’t even read???

And Scot Ritter was right. However, that’s not the point.

Neither is how you feel about the action of going to war in Iraq.

The topic is whether Bush lied and misled, as well as soft-soap accusations of exaggerating and overselling.

McVeigh stated clearly “science in my religion.”

Good grief… I would have much preferred to have gone my whole life and not heard that.

Frankly, that … accusation… has nothing to do with validity of Ritter’s analysis.  He was right.

Actually, a more correct and accurate description of the KKK was “Democratic Party Terrorism.”

the same internet where you can find this … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

Tommy should seriously start giving hat tips to Newbusters,as every day it seems as though he reads Newsbusters, then writes a bizarroworld exact opposite post.

The liberal media does??? Who else brings up the news you liberals detest so much, sweetpea? MSNBC? CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN? Pay attention much?

And which news outlets aid in keeping him in check? You liberals whine about Fox 24/7. Please, which networks are not in the tank for your hero, again?

Bush (and his crew) did lie a couple of times. But mostly, he and his administration distorted reality, and omitted caveats that they should have included, were deceptive and dishonest in ways other than outright lying.

And so, if you want to hide behind the fact that he didn’t lie much, although he and his administration were serially and apparently congentially unable to adhere to the truth, go ahead. But know that there’s a special kind of Hell reserved for people like you, who enable dishonesty.

And it’s undeniable that the Bush administration was incredibly dishonest about many things regarding the invasion of Iraq. The resolution called for Bush to do everything he could, short of war, before he invaded Iraq. He didn’t. He could have simply left the UN Weapons Inspectors there – well, he could if he wasn’t determined to invade, regardless of whether or not there were any WMD’s there!

See, he knew that the country wouldn’t support a full-scale invasion of Iraq without the justification of WMD’s, and so he couldn’t wait until the UN guys had documented beyond all doubt that Saddam had ended his WMD programs and had virtually no effective WMD’s left in any stockpiles he had access to. The weapons inspectors had already reached that tentative conclusion more than a month before the invasion, after having open access to sites and scientists and military personnel for 2 months. They’d visited all the most likely places and talked to all the important people, and they found out then what we didn’t find out until later – that there were no WMD’s.

And that’s the greatest dishonesty by Bush – that he still had reason to believe, when he invaded, that Saddam had WMD’s that threatened others.

We know that many people thought that he had them before those UN Weapons Inspectors got there. So what? What’s important is that Bush invaded in March after he was told in late January that there almost certainly weren’t any WMD’s! If you can’t fault him for that gross dishonesty to the American public, then there’s something seriously wrong with you.

He’s looking for pen pals in prison. Are you 12 years old?

again, just because ritter had an online sex chat with an underaged girl
doesn’t mean that ritter’s statments are invalid

Even if he was named something like…Tim Foley? Or been a republican?

There was serious evidence from the UN Weapons Inspectors in early 2003 that Saddam no longer posed a threat via WMD’s.

Bush knew that. It’s undeniable. Yet he still invaded. That’s the salient point you and many others miss. Bush could not have legitimately thought in early 2003 that there was strong evidence that Saddam had WMD’s or WMD programs or any urge to re-start WMD programs even!

fail. bush and cheney were at the healm. try again. 

And Hussein continually kicked them out, and broke 17 resolutions, ANY OF WHICH allowed for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Smiley=”Hater”

Let’s not forget that Halfbright and Clinton are the reason Kim Jong Il is a nuclear power.

Yes, they were deluded by Saddam’s lies too.

But then the UN Weapons Inspectors went into the country and found out that he didn’t actually have any usable WMD’s and had not programs to make any.

And yet Bush still invaded. No one else who was deluded by Saddam’s lies invaded Iraq. Bush, who knew by early 2003 that Saddam almost certainly didn’t have any WMD’s that posed any threat to us or anyone else, invaded.

How do you not see the problem with Bush’s behavior versus that of others who were deluded before Saddam capitulated and allowed the UN Weapons Inspectors in in December of 2002?

Yes, many people were of the belief that Saddam had WMD’s – that’s what our best intelligence (educated guesses) told us.

But then the UN Weapons Inspectors actually got into the country, and then we had actual evidence, not guesswork, about what Saddam had!

And after those feet on the ground experts told Bush that the intelligence had been wrong, he still invaded. What part of that baffles so many rightwingers?

Ah, yes, they did. The UN Weapons inspectors went into Iraq and told Bush that Saddam had no WMD’s in ANY of the places that they were told were all the most likely places for them to be. And they were able to freely interview military personnel and scientists, and they all told the UN guys that there’d been no WMD programs in more than a decade!

I understand that facts are inconvenient things for rightwingers nowadays, but that doesn’t change them from being facts! The intelligence, which is simply educated guesses based upon the best info we have, was wrong. The people who went into Iraq showed us that the intelligence was wrong – Saddam didn’t really have WMD’s. But Bush invaded anyway.

And you should admit that Bush did wrong by doing so.

Ah, yes, they did. The UN Weapons inspectors went into Iraq and told Bush that Saddam had no WMD’s in ANY of the places that they were told were all the most likely places for them to be. And they were able to freely interview military personnel and scientists, and they all told the UN guys that there’d been no WMD programs in more than a decade!

I understand that facts are inconvenient things for rightwingers nowadays, but that doesn’t change them from being facts! The intelligence, which is simply educated guesses based upon the best info we have, was wrong. The people who went into Iraq showed us that the intelligence was wrong – Saddam didn’t really have WMD’s. But Bush invaded anyway.

And you should admit that Bush did wrong by doing so.

–Mongoose ……… bwahahaha 

–Mongoose ……… bwahahaha 

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans “in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.  The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community.” The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically “cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest” while officials deliberately “bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.” [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: ”In CIA Director George Tenet’s January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea.” [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: ”The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.” [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq’s declared nuclear power plants “fully within the parameters he could operate” when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that “Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program.”  [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: ”In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies–noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA’s classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration’s claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes.”  [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: ”An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq’s chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’” The report also said, “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions.” [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: ”Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence.” [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: “The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.” [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

BOOM!

lol

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans “in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.  The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community.” The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically “cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest” while officials deliberately “bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.” [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: ”In CIA Director George Tenet’s January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea.” [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: ”The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials.” [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq’s declared nuclear power plants “fully within the parameters he could operate” when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that “Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program.”  [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: ”In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies–noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA’s classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration’s claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes.”  [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: ”An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq’s chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’” The report also said, “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions.” [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: ”Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence.” [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: “The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.” [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

That would be why.  That, and the fact that it was merely one aspect of what was needed for any serious threat to exist.

HATER WE MUCH!

I swear, this has been debunked for years - how is it that you don’t know this already, Michelle? And why do people like you think it’s a good idea to publicize your idiocy as you did here?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/clinton-passed-on-killing-bin-laden/

Hard to believe that so many people don’t understand the logical fallacy of that argument!

Close enough.  Let’s compare the votes for the Iraq Liberation Act with the AUMF for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In 1998, 360 members of the House of Representatives voted that Iraqis should have their liberty, in the Senate ot was unanimous consent.

Here’s the text of the bill signed into law, note the similarities with the AUMF:
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/NEWS/110419856

My, my, how rapidly times change after our country was attacked and known terrorists are residing in and beating a path to Iraq…….while our troops were still in Afghanistan.  Saddam still firing on our planes in the no-fly zone, pilfering food money from the Oil For Food Program, letting his people starve and babies go without medicine and hospital care.  Some members in our Congress, being well aware of Saddam’s violations and having the opportunity to read the intel regarding the wmd…….six democrats did take advantage of that, btw.  Here’s how the vote went:

House:  82 dems vote aye, 126 nay.  Over half the dem senators voted to go to war….29 ayes, 21 nays.

So, given the opportunity to look tough, as with the Iraq Liberation Act, many dems jump on board, when it comes time to act, they melt into chicken crap.

You hit it square on my friend.  McVeigh was not a real Christian nor are these  bombers real Muslims. I have many loving Muslim friends who are not in agreement with terrorists. It is so pathetic to see the hate mongering brewing in his country.

Um, all you have to do is look at a graph of the invocation of filibusters over the past 10 years to see that the GOP DOUBLED THEIR USE once the Dems took power.  

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016901.php

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/gop-wins-filibuster-gold-medal

So from 54 during the 109th Congress to 104 during the 110th. Yeah, I’d say that you’re the one who is a joke here.

And that judicial crisis you were so concerned about during the Bush years?  It’s only gotten worse under Obama…

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168990/For-Obama-diversity-but-delays-on-judicial-confirmations.html

BTW, that’s 322 federal judicial nominees who were CONFIRMED UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH.

Sorry, I am an intelligent human being.  

If you want to convince me of something, you can submit in article form; I don’t need to waste my time with YouTube videos.

Hahaha, because everyone knows that foreign policy should be based on shallow cliches.

Are you saying the filibuster is illegal?  And the Senate had the super-majority, i.e., filibuster proof (unless their happened to be an intelligent Democrat).

Bush lied, people died.

I love how I proved you wrong so you had to resort to name calling.

I want to  reply to your statement above.  You are correct.  I have been trying to call out the hate mongers in the church.  Many people in the church are so swayed by the hate speech on the air. They no longer think for themselves. Some of the ministers in this country should be ashamed by what they have started. Jesus did not preach hate!  He said every commandment starts with this; love your brother as yourself and forgive.  If no you are lost.

lilyluminatus, I personally know that troops are not fond of lefties using their lives and careers as debate points.  They do what they do because of love of country, they know what’s in store when they make their committment to serve and they serve and protect this country with honor , devotion and much sacrifice, their families sacrifice as well.

Our men and women in the military are above the petty politics they are drug into on a regular basis, they willingly serve under presidents of either party because they are serving country first above politics.  Leave them alone, it’s hard enough for their families to lose their loved ones, using the loss of our heroes  for political fodder is outrageous and uncalled for.

I DID address exactly what was in your post – are you stupid?

The KKK weren’t motivated primarly by their religion. Neither are so-called Muslim terrorists – they’re primarily motivated by things other than their religion.

But abortion bombers are primarily motivated by their religion – Christianity. IRA terrorists were also primarily motivated by their religion.

So, you have no point and no logic behind your post. I understand that it must be frustrating to have that pointed out – too bad, so sad for you.

Right, which is why it is THE LEFT that has promoted every single program meant to care for veterans at home, right?  Because we hate them so much?

The facts?

The facts?

VR, instead of posting your inane crap, take a couple of minutes to read some of the responses from the dear readers who contributed here.  These are the FACTS that YOU are ignoring.

Idiotic responses like yours are clearly the reason why liberals shouldn’t post comments before noon.  Hard to make sense when you’re still waking up!

If only you had an ounce of intelligence of your own.  What about the violations of the U.N. resolutions that Sadaam agreed to in order to save his ass during the first Iraq War?  Those violations alone made the U.S. excursion into Iraq legal.

Still hasn’t come to terms with the fact that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not Operation Iraqi WMD.  Read the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.  That was was about all the UN resolutions lodged against Saddam Hussein.

Focus on the WMD portion of the AUMF was due to Colin Powell’s decision to only take that part to the UN, he was entirely wrong in making that decision and 8 years later we have idiots in blogs that still don’t know what that war is being fought for still whining about WMD.

Um, I was responding the woefully uninformed dude who called me a joke.  Beyond that, you didn’t prove anything, other than what we have known all along – Joe Leiberman is not a Democrat.

Hahahaha, oh you’ve studied international law under the tutelage of one of the nation’s most respected international law scholars, as I have?  Silly me.

But way to change the subject from the lies the war was based on (i.e. NOT a decade-old UN resolution) to its legality. I will take that as an acknowledgment of Bush’s lies.

Hahahaha.  Media studies have routinely shown that regular Fox News viewers are by far the most woefully uninformed on the issue of the Iraq war.

“As the researchers explained in their report, ‘The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.’”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html

Sorry, Rio, but you must have missed the part where the entire Democratic party rallied around the young senator who voted against the Iraq war…

BUSH LIED 222 TIMES OUT  935 BY HE AND 11 STAFFERS.
DOCUMENTED BY CENTER ON INTEGRITY IN MEDIA

YES! HE LIED. i WATCHED HIM LIE OVER AND OVER. I KNEW HIS  INTENT. TO DECEIVE
KARL ROVE , AN ADMIITED DISCIPL E OF JOSEPH GOEBBELS TAUGHT HIM JOSPEH GOEBBELS TECHNIQUES. ROVE TAUGHT RICK PERRY.

TELL A BIG LIE NEVER BACK DOW AND IT BECOMES TRUTH
INSTILL FEAR IN THE PUBLIC AND YOU CAN GET ANYTHING YOU WANT
USE WORD ASSOCIATION. USE TWO NAMES CLOSE TOGETHER CREATES A RELATIONSHIP
SADDAM/OSAMA—SADDAM/TERRORIST  SADDAM/NUKES 

I HEARD SUCH MANY MANY TIMES AND WAS AWARE OF HIS INTENT AND TECHNIQUE.

MADMADMAD AT INEQALITY IN AMERICA 

5% OWN 62% NET WEALTH–20% OWN 93% FINANCIAL WEALTH–25% TAKE 67% INDIVIDUAL INCOME

AMERICA RANKS 25TH ON EQUALITY IN 28 OECD NATIONS
AMERICA RANKS  26TH OF 28 ON LEAST TAXED AS PER CENT OF GDP
AMERICA CORPORATIONS RANK 27TH ON LEAST TAXED AS PER CENT OF GDP

AMERICA GIVES TOP 2% A HUGE TAX CUT IN A WAR
2% OWN 50% FINANCIAL WEALTH
2% TAKE 67% INDIVIDUAL INCOME  po luckie duckie
2% INCLUDE INCOMES IN THESE MILLIONS–4000-3000-2000-1000-500
WHAT A COUNTRY! WOW!
CUT TAXES IN WAR FOR FEW ULTRA RICH— AND BORROW BORROW BORROW BORROW
LET THE KIDS PAY TOMORROW

Sure you have.  And I have a PhD in global warming, and it doesn’t exist.

Was one of about 12 to study with this man, Professor Alan Weiner – Stanford University School of Law’s Director of the Stanford Program on International and Comparative Law – in Paris in the summer of 2008.  

I was one of the few students who took it seriously (it was Paris in the summer, after all), meaning I got more one-on-one attention than I have ever received in a law class. Received an A-. Care to see the certificate I received when the program ended?

http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/60/
http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/people_cv/weiner_cv_1.pdf

He, ahem, WROTE the textbook on international law. Congrats on your Ph.D., jackass.

Another depending on what the meaning of the word is moments for Clinton.  First he admits to letting OBL go and then retracts.  From your source,  Lawrence Wright, in the Looming Tower writes that those denying it weren’t in the meeting, that OBL in fact had been offered up.

I remember reading years ago that Susan Rice was involved in decisions regarding working with Sudan who was waiting to hand him over.  I looked it up again, she blew it, Madeline Albright was open to it, but for some reason Rice undermined her.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-157587

It’s true, Bush and Cheney lied to get America into war with Iraq. It wqas his personal war and he murdered over 4000 troops.

The Liberal View:

Remove an anti-American dictator and install a democracy = Bad.

Remove a pro-American dictator and install the Muslim Brotherhood = Good.

The Liberal View:

Remove an anti-American dictator and install a democracy = Bad.

Remove a pro-American dictator and install the Muslim Brotherhood = Good.

The comments you have listed may be truthful, I don’t know but, BUSH LIED and there is no excuse for what he did!! He’s a murderer and could be listed as  a TERRORIST!!

I tried finding the articles you reference so I could read the full article – Can’t find them.  I did find this interesting observation by David Kay speaking to Ted Koppel:

“We missed how far the Soviet Union had descended into economic incapacity and decayed military might before its collapse. And the stories of the great surprise of what the Soviet Union, this giant of a superpower, looked like when we really saw it from the inside. So, I think we missed that. We missed a society coming apart.”   Can never get enough of the Great fall of Communism – Abject failure.

By the way –
  We are discussing whether George Bush lied.  Of course we grieve for the service men and women who have lost their lives and have been wounded.  Our sympathies to the families left behind struggling to recover.  We thank them all for their service as we thank the police and firefighters who protect us daily. 
  
It’s too bad the left finds themselves in such an indefensible position that they now lash out even if it means having to be hypocrites.
Gitmo needs to close – Gitmo still openIraq war unjustified – Libyan intervention justifiedBig business bad – bailouts for big businessOff shore drilling bad – let’s help Brazil with $2 billion in loans for off-shore drilling
Iraq surge bad – let’s send more troops to AfghanistanMore gun laws needed – let’s sell arms to Mexican drug cartels members

David Kay and Charles Duelfer searched…..after Saddam was removed from power, evidently they were not yet convinced by those UN weapons inspectors that there was nothing there,   So the :Bush knew” mantra is sheer folly.

 David Kay reported to Congress that Iraq was more dangerous then first thought and his testimony regarding what he did find revealed that Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions regarding bio and chem stocks and plans he had hidden throughout Iraq.  Not forgetting his illegal missiles.

About those cooperative Iraqi scientists you mentioned earlier…..you might want to get together with Duelfer before you continue to bleat whatever comes to mind, facts be damned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/world/iraq-arms-inspector-says-search-is-a-tangle.html?ref=davidkay

I swear, clueless people – did you read the link you provided? It says “not vetted by CNN.” It’s ridiculous the lengths you fools will go to in order to attack your opponents and support your politically partisan beliefs!

It’s not another “what the meaning of “is” is” at all. The issue isn’t whether or not OBL was, at one time, “offered up”.  Clinton didn’t “refuse to take him”. That’s the issue. It wasn’t that Clinton could have done so, but chose to not do it! OBL was never “offered up” to the USA or Clinton! 

Really, educate yourself before you make a greater fool of yourself!

“The false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association’s annual luncheon, Clinton said he “pleaded with the Saudis” to accept Sudan’s offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.”

Thanks for the long reply- but the uranium was found it, wasn’t fake or made up it was moved secretly for obvious reason, all your points are made in 2002, doubts aside at that time, the uranium was found. It doesn’t take an idiot to understand why a country stockpiles the stuff. I would be more interested in your opinion of Obama lending military/US financial support in Libya for no justifiable reason, no serious threat.

What were the other aspects ‘needed’ ? A pilot’s license and and hatred of America?

The Bush Administration was, undeniably dishonest, as I’ve repeatedly explained on this topic. They didn’t literally LIE many times, but they did lie a few times. Most of the time they were simply terribly dishonest, disingenuous, disrespectful and disreputable, but they didn’t outright lie very often.

And their major sin is that, despite info that refuted the intelligence we had, info that told us that the guesswork which said that Saddam had WMD’s was wrong, Bush still invaded. More than a month before the invasion, he knew that, almost certainly, Saddam didn’t have WMD’s, yet he went ahead with the planning and invaded anyway.

The resolution from Congress told him that he had to do everything short of invasion first, and he claimed that he had done that in his justification for the invasion.

THAT WAS A LIE.

And then your distractions, trying to derail the conversation onto your Obama Derangement Syndrome? Your bogus accusations* have no place in this discussion.

*Politifact, for example, called the allegations about the $2 billion to Brazil a Pants on Fire lie just the other day. Why is that rightwingers act like factchecking sites are toxic to them?

Uranium alone cannot make a dirty bomb.  It is necessary, this is true – but so is a lot more that was not found.

Notorious WOJo: Please reconcile your two statements (if you can, legitimately I mean) in which you chose to write:

1. Pretty much describes every catholic I know. Well except for the rape and sodomy of alter boys. Facts suck.

2.  One only needs to see those who don’t even make points anymore and just spew personal attacks about what they think they know about someone’s life.

Debunked, even by politifact, btw.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-fox-news-viewers-are-better.html

Also, this is nothing new with these studies, and so far, they have all been proven to be inaccurate and funded by big money leftists.

Like clueless people like you who think that hyperbole isn’t hyperbole.

See, Obama has been in Congress. He understands that a bill has to be written and then voted upon, and so when he said that it needs to be voted on right away, he didn’t mean that it had to be voted on before it was seen by the members of Congress, you idiot. He’s not stupid like you are.

Our economy needs this second stimulus soon – it’s hurting. It needs to get passed soon so that it’s not encumbered by election season. And it needs to be pointed out that the Republicans have been obstructing progress in Congress for almost 3 years. So, it’s these 2 reasons I list above that Obama said that it needs to be done right away.

And he’s right. Your side is on the losing end of this argument, once again.

Speaking of lies, you just presented another whopper.  Investigation after investigation proved the Bush administration did not promote Iraq being behind 911.

You were just presented with factual quotes, and yet you rejected them as “excuses.”  This confirms my statement in my comment in the preceding article that we all take the facts we have (and in some cases, limited, incomplete facts), and then we add in some half-truths and poll results and such to arrive at our own conclusions about these things.

But for you to take these quotes which sum up our attitude towards Saddam Hussein prior to 9/11 and call them excuses really shows that your mind is blocked to anything that anyone says unless her name is Maddow or Smiley or some such liberal Republican-hater.  Your problem is not lack of intelligence, but lack of open-mindedness and the ability to do your own independent critical analysis.  People like you, whether left or right, just love to watch or listen to Limbaugh and Maddow and Hannity and Olbermann and these other talkers who twist facts around.  Therefore, your lack of knowledge of events is caused by your own closed-mindedness and refusal to analyze ALL the facts.  I kinda feel sorry for folks like you.

It’s an ad hominem logical fallacy called “poisoning the well”. Go ahead, look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

There’s no reason to assume that his comments about WMD’s (his comments are based upon his team’s results, anyway) are tainted by his personal failings. None.

The “turd” here is you. Our intelligence that misled many people isn’t the issue under discussion. It’s the dishonesty in how that intelligence was manipulated and dishonestly portrayed by the Bush administration that’s the issue.

American Progress, get real.  Looking at the October 2002 – CIA directly warns…”  Iraq WAS trying to buy from Africa.  Don’t you remember the whole Mr. Plame lied flap written about in the WaPo.  They took him to task for embarrassing them earlier, those damn investigations kind of zap all the juice out of the lefty journos and blogs.

The CIA is made up of career intelligence officers and operatives and to pretend that the intel they gathered and analyzed was politically biased is insulting to the thousands who serve and many of whom work in dangerous conditions.  To attack the intel is to attack these honorable people who serve our country and keep us safe.  Tavis and Tommy should both be ashamed of their ignorance, but neither will, of course. 

To attack the CIA’s intel as being faked by a specific administration is beyond idiotic.  As Meacham points out, the CIA believed what it reported.

I wish ignorance was painful.  You are so over the top.  The comments are from democrats promoting the Iraq war, they had access to the same intelligence, only six democrats took advantage of reading it before they voted.  Using your logic we also  had liars and terrorist democrats in Congress.  Get a grip.

Not just a fool.  Anyone with such little understanding of how the CIA operates shouldn’t be commentating on these things.   He insulted thousands of people who keep us all safe every day by stopping terrorist threats.  To call the CIA ‘liars’ is to call the CIA analysts liars.  I’m glad they came down on him like a ton of bricks.  

Tommy needs to update the headline.   It should read that Tavis said that Bush and the CIA lied.  

John Meacham is an embarrassment

Still, I opposed the Iraq war then, it went as I thought it would and I opposed it, and I oppose our continued presence there, but George Bush did not lie about WMD.  He really was a true believer in Cheney’s stove-piped intelligence.

The Iraqi/AQ connection was moronic and counted on people who didn’t know anything about the regions involved.  Did anyone, except Sean Hannity, believe that stuff. 

I think they are right about misleading in the second point and wrong on the first point.  George Bush wanted there to be WMD in Iraq so that the invasion could be justified.  He was more disappointed than anyone else that he was rolled by the American Likud (as Colin Powell called Feith and the other nudniks).

Still, nice of Morning Joe to have Tavis Smiley, an actual liberal on, instead of just the usual smug recitations of Village nonsense and CW for middle of the road, Evan Bayh types

all of them

Haha, someone cited john lott.

Bush probably has sovereign immunity to prosecution

Um, what?  Joe Wilson exposed the fact that there was no evidence any transfer ever even took place, which is why the White House retaliated by outing his CIA wife.

On what planet do you live???

 Problem is that if we actually installed a Democracy in many of these nations, the Muslim Brotherhood would rise to power anyways.

This story contains at least one outright lie. It claims Bush said to Tenet, “Is this all you have” and that alleged question can be found nowhere in the blogosphere as attributable to  Bush or anyone else.

Please not this “QUOTE” the author attributes to Bush does NOT appear in quotation marks.

Also please note multiple Intel Agencies around the world had the same assessment regarding Hussein and WMD. Rhese include Britain, France, Germant, Spain, Israel and even the UN. Also Norway, Sweden, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and more. Anyone who believes it was ONLY our CIA which had these ideas is insane and uninformed.

Christians CONDEMN the fruitcakes who did this all TWO of them but we don’r see or hear of Muslims standing up to be heard  CONDEMNING the savages who KILL in the name of their pedophile Allah, do we?

Well DO WE LIBERAL?

Christians CONDEMN the fruitcakes who did this all TWO of them but we don’r see or hear of Muslims standing up to be heard  CONDEMNING the savages who KILL in the name of their pedophile Allah, do we?

Well DO WE LIBERAL?

Isn’t going to matter how many times you post this, the information is not accurate.  Bush was vindicated, Saddam sought to buy uranium from Africa, the rest of what you’ve c&p’s is more of the same leftist spin.

BTW, google wikileaks vindicates bush uranium.

Hahahaha.  You’re actually kind of funny. 

“AL QAEDA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE.”  [GEORGE W. BUSH, SEPTEMBER 25, 2002]

Actually, nothing was debunked.

This is a study from 2003 and relates SPECIFICALLY to Iraq and WMD, not to misinformation in general.  And it was a University of Maryland study, not some leftwing think tank. Do you even try to read things before responding to them, or just run with your gut?

In fact, the link you provided not only does NOT debunk the study, but doesn’t even mention it or make any attempt to debunk it.

Sorry Tommy. Bush was the last President who thought saddam had WMD and wanted regime change. You need to be blaming saddam since he had multiple un opportunities to stop the war, not Bush who was looking to protect us.

And please use some of your heightened journalistic skills to review the multiple times that the Bush admin said Iraq was not connected to al queda.

and how many of those democrats, with access to intelligence, actually invaded and occupied iraq?

***************************************************************************************************************************************

The Iraq war was approved by 99 Senators and all but 1  Democrat. The Democrats on the Intelligence Committee had access to the same intel as the president did. It is claims made by ignorant people such as you which are causing the hatred and strife in the country.

Quit getting your information from MSNBC and you’ll be a better person for it.

One of these days, these authors are going to wise up and STUDY a show host before setting themselves up for failure. Joe is not only a bully, he’s a half-intelligent bully, which is worse because it gives him the impression that’s he’s really smart. 

Pretty sure the UN investigators also begged Bush to give them more time to look into the situation…

Are you kidding me right now?  Thousands upon thousands of Muslims have stood up to condemn the horrors of 9/11, not the least of whom are those brave Muslim soldiers who joined the army following 9/11.

You are despicable.  I don’t remember hearing a single Christian fundamentalist take an ounce of responsibility for George Tiller’s assassination.

Another inconvient fact – Richard Armitage from the State Department leaked her name.  What palnet do you live on? 

You’re not telling the truth – either you’re poorly informed, or you know that what you’re saying isn’t true, and therefore you’re lying. Which is it?

GWB was told in the resolution from Congress that he had to do everything short of war before going to war, and only if there were no other option did he have the approval to go to war.

And there was no good reason to go to war, because he knew that there were almost certainly not any WMD’s or programs to create them or plans to begin programs to create them when we invaded. Bush knew this more than a month before we invaded, yet he still invaded.

The intelligence we’d had was wrong. It misled many people. And then Bush invaded when the boots on the ground told us that it was wrong. Citing the intelligence is an argument for dunces, since that intelligence was proven wrong by the UN Weapons Inspectors!

How sad; what a pathetic display of ignorance.

Not a single mention of a UN resolution (or the many resolutions) on Iraq, not a single mention of the attacks on our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone….nope, just a bunch of ignorance claiming Bush lied people died.

Thank God history will get it right eventually and the media will be excoriated for it’s lack of factual reportage and it’s attack on this country rather than on the terorrists and enemies of it.

For shame.

Again, the intelligence was wrong, and Bush knew that before he invaded. We didn’t know that the intelligence was wrong until the UN Weapons Inspectors went in after Saddam capitulated.

Bush had the opportunity to stop the war, and he didn’t. Saddam, on the other hand, had the opportunity to stop the war, and he took advantage of that opportunity by allowing the UN to enter Iraq, search all around, and ask scientists and military personnel anything they wanted to!

It’s you who needs to either use the brain God gave you or learn from others who DO use their brains.

Have yet to hear of a report from the media (and if it occured, you can bet the media would have reported it) where a “Christian Terrorist” yells something to the effect that “God is Great” as he or she kills? 

I seem to remember “some guy” who yelled something as he killed many at Ft Hood.  Oh, what was it he said…and what was it that was written on his “business card”?  

Let me think, it will come to me….

the truth is thousands of people in the CIA and intelligence community work hard, ever day to protect our country and people like you, who think its fine to call them liars because, no matter what, intelligence can never bey 100% correct.  The rest of us honor their sevice and are grateful while also expecting constant evaluation and improvement since their task is, by its nature, so complex and impossible.

take your meds, it’ll all be okay…

Right, until we had FACTS that disproved the intelligence (intelligence is educated guesses based upon info we can gather), many people, in fact most people thought that Saddam had WMD’s! So what?

The Congressional resolution told Bush that he had to determine that there was no pathway available short of invasion. But there was a path he could have taken instead of invading, since he knew more than a month before the invasion that there almost certainly weren’t any dangerous WMD’s or WMD programs in Iraq!

Bush is a liar because he lied to Congress when he justified the invasion. It wasn’t justified! He knew it wasn’t justified. That makes his falsehood a LIE! He LIED. It’s indisputable.

No one else led us to war with the inaccurate info that Saddam had WMD’s. Bush did. No one else knew before early 2003 that the intelligence was wrong. Bush knew in early 2003 that the intelligence was wrong. That’s the difference between everyone else who believed the intelligence and Bush, who went to war after he knew that the intelligence was wrong!

Saddam didn’t try to buy uranium from Africa. That’s a lie.

And there was plenty of contradictory intelligence that the Bush Administration failed to cite, just as the previous poster mentioned. I understand that’s a killer to your argument. Too bad, so sad. Omission of relevant info is equivalent to a LIE! It’s call a lie by omission! Bush lied.

Facts aren’t “inaccurate”. Facts are facts, and the fact is that there was significant info that told us that there was contradictory intelligence that could have led one to disbelieve the intelligence that told us that Saddam had WMD’s.

Saddam had no access to the uranium that was in Iraq.

So, a much better question is, how is it so easy for YOU to overlook THAT FACT? If Saddam had no access to the uranium, then it wasn’t a threat to create WMD’s!

This is not rocket science, dummy! Intelligent people already knew that uranium was shipped out of Iraq -  but see, we know where it was both before and after Bush invaded! I swear, get a clue!

Huh?

The UN knew where the uranium was for years! It was under their control for long before we invaded Iraq!

Saddam couldn’t make any WMD’s with it. He didn’t have access to it, nor did he have the other things necessary to make a bomb, nor did he have plans to restart any programs to build any WMD’s of any kind.

You have no point. The uranium wasn’t a threat. That’s a fact.

Christopher, you’re a liar.  

“Beyond that, though, Smiley, et al, completely gloss over the fact that Bush and co. pushed the idea that Iraq was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks, which turned out to be as reality-based as Saddam’s WMD.”

LIE!  When asked if the Iraqis were involved in 9/11, Bush said no.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

And, unlike you, Christopher, my link is actually relevant.  There is a BIG difference between saying that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda — and I would advise you to check out the work of Stephen Hayes before you dismiss that– and saying Iraq was involved in 9/11.  The worst any administration figure said was that they didn’t know if there was a link or not, and at the time they said it, that wasn’t an unreasonable thing to say.

Of course, we already had foreshadowing of your dishonesty when you said “the fact is, whether Bush believed there were WMD is irrelevant; that he knew the evidence was weak, and that he and his administration oversold it anyway, is what’s relevant.”

How is whether or not Bush believed there were WMD’s irrelevant, you idiot hack?  If he believed the WMD’s were there (like all the intelligence services of nations both for and against invading Iraq), then the evidence wouldn’t be weak to his thinking; any evidence would be a confirmation of his belief.  And if you think Saddam has WMD’s (a belief Saddam himself encouraged, by the way), why would you undersell it?  If I think a mugger has a gun on me, I’m not going to bother comeing up with any reason for handing over my wallet other than, “I think he has a gun.”  If your partisan head wasn’t stuffed up your partisan backside, you’d know that.

.. so you’ve got your standard, go-to handful of alleged “Christians.” Sooner or later you’re going to have to move on to something else. BTW, I was in OKC when the Murrah Building was bombed. McVeigh was no Christian; in fact he was a white separatist who had ties to the Palestinians.

You state it so nonchalantly, “people already knew that uranium was shipped out of Iraq”

Uranium in Iraq, – at some point.  Hmmmm  Doesn’t sound good to me.  Possibly not all the uranium shipped out.   Also, where did the uranium come from originally?  Hmmm, possibly Niger? 

@DellDollyLet’s do a comparison count on abortion clinic murderers vs. Islamofascist murderers. Not even close.

Perhaps you did not want to hear Christian fundamentalists denounce the murder of George Tiller:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=christians+denounce+murder+of+george+tiller&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Looks like they did.

Now you’re talking end results. I’m talking about political views and political alignments.

The Bush Administration, repeatedly, either directly asserted or implied that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were linked. They did it over and over again.

And yeah, occasionally, they admitted that it wasn’t true. So what – they get a free pass for being dishonest most of the time because they were honest a few times? In the real world, that doesn’t give them a pass, you fool!

The intelligence was wrong. It’s irrelevant whether or not Bush believed the intelligence that said that Saddam had WMD’s, because there was intelligence that he didn’t have WMD’s too, but his administration failed to inform us of that info for the most part – that’s called a lie by omission!

The person deluded by his partisan beliefs is you.

Sorry lillyluminatus, if your are referring to the young senator from Illinois who later became president, you might want to look up dates.  He was not in the US Senate to cast a vote for anyone to rally around.

A- you say?

Hog wash.  Most of the garbage you’ve been posting today is just pulled from your fanny.  Now you claim to be in the former president’s head, reading his mind.  What a hackery trip you take us on.

Not a single mention of the UN resolutions, none of which justified or called for an invasion? Why would we have to do that, when they support OUR argument – why would you bring them up? Oh, right, that’s because you’re stupid!

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy, but that doesn’t justify the invasion. The only thing that the American public and that the US Congress would have accepted as a reason to invade was an implicit threat from 9/11 combined with the assertion that there was a growing threat from WMD’s. But the UN Weapons Inspectors showed us that there almost certainly wasn’t a threat from WMD’s. And Bush couldn’t afford to wait to find out that they were absolutely positive that there were no WMD’s, and so he invaded despite the info that disproved the intelligence we had that had been telling us that Saddam likely did have WMD’s.

Bush, and his administration, did lie, distort, deceive, and omit relevant info, and as a result, thousands of families in the USA lost a family member, tens of thousands had servicemembers who were seriously injured, many maimed for life, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s died.

And I do believe that eventually the media and history will get it right – eventually you rightwingers will thoroughly discredit yourself and you’ll stop having the impact you currently do!

I have been noticing the same pattern.  Mediaite is a not-so-obvious version of Media Matters.  Yuk

Tavis Smiley is an ASSHOLE, a DOUCHE BAG, a PIECE OF EXCREMENT, and a LYING FUCK.

And he is a racist who hates white people. I bet he hates Jews and other minorities, unless your skin happens to be black.

Clearly, you are an asshole.

Did your Mother know that when she threw you in the trash as a baby?

Where are the liberals to ask for investigations into “Fast and Furious,” or the billions lost on their phony green jobs, such as Solyndra?

BTW, where is the media on this? Crickets chirp louder.

Then it is really going to piss up your leg that George W. Bush will have been re-elected, and your hero, Obummer the Cancer, is going out after one failed term.

And that “serious evidence” was handed right over to David Kay and later, Charles Duelfer just so they could…….speed up their dangerous mission and get the heck out of Iraq.  I mean, why waste millions of dollars and risk lives combing through Iraq when the UN Weapons inspectors already had that undeniable evidence.  Why not just give it over to the NEW UN WMD INSPECTORS.

I’m amazed at how many dumbasses are on this website’s comment section.

Bush DID lie. You fucking morons.

  And that means what…precisely?  Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1794. He also owned slaves and sired numerous illegitimate children with at least one of the teenagers. Shall I draw a conclusion that all CURRENT Republicans want to own Black people and rape the teenage ones?

–Cobra

Reply to DelDolly.

The reference to the definition of the word is is due to the fact that Clinton bragged on tape that he could have had OBL only to later say he mispoke.

Sudan tried for a long period of time to offer the files full of extensive personal information  they kept on bin Laden and the terrorists in his group.

http://www.espac.org/terrorism_pages/osama_files2.asp

They eventually went through Mansoor Ijaz and also wrote to Rep. Lee Hamilton in an effort to get the Clinton administration to listen to them and view what they had. 

http://old.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz042903.asp

It happened, the Clinton administration refused access to the Sudanese, refused to accept crucial information that in the least would allow them to keep OBL & terrorists under a watchful eye.  The FBI wanted to go in but was not allowed by, who else, the Clinton administration. 

I swear, this is old information that had NOT been debunked, you are the one that is clueless.

You poor thing; you need to learn how to read.  You can start with the resolution for War in Iraq.

Don’t feed the troll, friends.

“Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are indistinguishable.”  [George W. Bush, September 25, 2002]

Care to try again? 

Oh, my God, you are delusional.  Why on earth do you think the Bush White House went after Valerie Plame?  Because her husband HEADED the mission to discover any link between African uranium and Iraq, and found absolutely none.

As did Karl Rove, genius.

Probably not, but as far as I know, no advisers came to President Obama saying that there was very little evidence of shovel-ready projects, to be told to try again until they came up with the desirable results.

My apologies.  The young senator who opposed the war from the start.

And yes, A- was exactly what I said.  

It’s funny, because I mentioned taking responsibility.  But I will take that as a concession.

Wow, Cobra.  Your grasp of history has to have come from public education.   Just a note here, Thomas Jefferson, was the founder of the Democrat party, and the Republican party did not come into being until 1856, and was founded for the express purpose of opposing slavery.  Perhaps you have heard of our first Republican President?   Abraham Lincoln?

No he didn’t!  Quit making up stories…in some circles, it would be called lying Y.F.M!

Just a short note at the end of this thread. Rightwingers have been spoonfed so much Fox-like propaganda and, unfortunately, the truth eventully comes out. Whatever info Bush had wasn’t sufficient to do a pre-emptive war in Iraq. You people have to get out of denial mode. The whole world knows that Bush did not have sufficient justification to do what he did. And what he did what disastrous for us and the Mideast. Also, it really was Cheney who pushed more for this miserable, needless war. Cheney saw that 9/11 was their road to success for gaining real power over the country. Before 9/11 Bush’s presidency was quite shaky. Then, as now the Republicans were having problems governing and, war is always a great way to go, especially for rightwingers. My advice is either do a coup in this country or face the consequences of all the bad government we’ve had, mostly Republican, for many decades. The truth on many issues is going to continue to overwhelm you.

And the conservative view:

Imposing a “democracy” by bombing a country back to the stone ages = good.

Supporting a genuinely democratic uprising = bad.

“Wow, Cobra.  Your grasp of history has to have come from public
education.   Just a note here, Thomas Jefferson, was the founder of the
Democrat party, and the Republican party did not come into being until
1856, and was founded for the express purpose of opposing slavery. 
Perhaps you have heard of our first Republican President?   Abraham
Lincoln?”

Why don’t you dig up Tommy J and debate him yourself?

“The rise of two rudimentary political
groupings during the early 1790s reflected Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s
differing philosophical views. Formed generally along sectional lines,
these early parties were known as Federalists (with strong support in
the North and East) and Republicans (with a southern base). In later
years the Republicans would come to be called “Democrats,” but in the
1790s, that term carried a negative connotation associated with mob
rule….

…Worn out from his battles with Hamilton,
Jefferson resigned as secretary of state at the end of 1793 and handed
leadership of the emerging Republican party to his fellow Virginian
James Madison. For the next three years, Madison worked to strengthen
the party in Congress, transforming it from a reactive faction to a
positive political force with its own distinctive programs and, by April
1796, a congressional party caucus to establish legislative priorities.”

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Thomas_Jefferson.htm

”
Sharp political conflict developed, and two separate parties, the
Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to form. Jefferson
gradually assumed leadership of the Republicans, who sympathized with
the revolutionary cause in France. Attacking Federalist policies, he
opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of
states.

As a reluctant candidate for President in 1796, Jefferson came within
three votes of election. Through a flaw in the Constitution, he became
Vice President, although an opponent of President Adams. In 1800 the
defect caused a more serious problem. Republican electors, attempting to
name both a President and a Vice President from their own party, cast a
tie vote between Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House of Representatives
settled the tie. Hamilton, disliking both Jefferson and Burr,
nevertheless urged Jefferson’s election.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/thomasjefferson

What…don’t you folks know by NOW that I look these things up before I post them?

–Cobra

But they LOVE being sent off to a war that has been planned for years by an administration knowingly exploiting the worst terrorist attack this nation has ever seen, eh Rio?  The troops you know must be very different from those that I know.

People that kill can be acclaimed to be any religion. One isn’t any different that another. Muslim seems to be more radical than most but that is because we have seen full disaster mode from them. Anyone can be a killer and claim to have a religion. The one who killed abortionists can claim to be Christian but that doesn’t mean he did it for religious reasons. He just didn’t like the idea of babies being killed.  People are too  quick to pass judgement.

Timothy McVeigh said his religion was science. Look it up. The guy was not a christian. 

Passing judgement is definately one of your attributes. If you hate Christianity….that is your business. Evidently you have been abused by one or two. I’m sorry you feel that ALL Christians fit into your agenda. All people tend to appreciate a religion of some kind.  If you have none….just don’t pass judgement on all of them just because you have a personal hate.

“Re-elected”???

Considering that G.W.B. was not elected, but appointed by the Supreme Court, in 2000, I would say that he won one (extremely dubious) election at best.

What exactly is it that you are disputing?  This quotation??

“AL QAEDA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE.”  [GEORGE W. BUSH, SEPTEMBER 25, 2002]

Reply to Lilly:  Are you aware that Christians are Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, 7th Day Adventists etc. etc.?  You seem to differenciate between Christian and Catholic.  I don’t think you understand that many faiths make up Christians.

“Rightwingers” or not, I’d venture the part that baffles is the part where you don’t seem to ascertain what was being debated here..

It was not a discussion of the necessity of the Iraq War.  It was rather or not Bush lied, misled, exaggerated and oversold… (and couple of more descriptions that I’m sure I’ve missed…_

The UN inspectors had not completed their work when Bush decided to go in anyway.  He did with the former president avowing that he thought there were WMDs. and House and Senate having seen the evidence and backing the effort. 

Bush did it in what Brian Williams calls the panic of post 9/11 fears of A
acquiring a potent weapon. 

Now it’s pertinent in a discussion about the war to argue whether or not Bush should have waited.  However, that Bush didn’t is not Exhibit Athat

You place too much designation on to any one particular religion.  It’s like life itself.  We can say we are a particular religion but if we don’t practice it….of course, people like that are going to do terrible things. again, don’t judge by that.

where did i describe  muslim terrorist dell?

First hand knowledge of hypocrisy….It’s a curse I know. You going to be the first to call out the hate filled elements of your branch of religion? If you do I will be the first to commend you and stand next to you in your crusade. But in my experience almost all religions are full of cowards when it come to this. 

tommy jefferson founded the democratic-republican party which became the democratic party…..read history…..if even states to not confuse with the republican party

Wha…?  BushDrunk “lied”??  The guy lied all the time.  He was/is a liar, an alcoholic, delusional, a Geesuss-Freak – and much worse.  A disgusting stain left upon civilization itself.

Tavis history will prove you right.  Just like history will prove history right about the liars who should be in jail Bush/Cheney. 

Cobra, you have read, but clearly do not comprehend.   The modern Republican party, after the demise of the Whigs, was founded from whole cloth in 1856.  It did NOT arise from Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party, which became the Democratic Party.   You know, the Democrats, the party of slavery, Jim Crow, Dred Scot, Segregation, Separate but Equal, segregated military and govt, white’s only.   You need to go a bit “deeper” than a cursory reading of Wikipedia to grasp what actually was true and not true.  You stated that Jefferson, the slave owner, started the Republican Party.  You are dead wrong.

More crap from your lefty sites?

Full context of the President’s quote shows that he was NOT drawing an Operational link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein…”

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html

Are you kidding?  I read articles on the Fast and Furious operation almost daily on Politico.  Same goes for the Solyndra episode – I can’t count the number of articles I have come across about it in just the past few days.

Good one. These dam quotes and facts. LMAO.

I would love to see a trial against W, but since he very likely wont set foot into a country where he gets arrested it wont happen. After all, wouldn´tit  be a great chance to prove to the world in a trial he´s innocent? 

It’s true that one of these guys lied to the American people.

All finalized bills were supposed to be posted online for 5 days before Obama signed them into law.

The health care debates were supposed to be televised on C-SPAN.

Passage of the stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%.

Stimulus funds were supposed to be spent on shovel-ready jobs.

Passage of Obamacare was supposed to bend the cost curve downward and create thousands of jobs.

The Obama administration was supposed to be an open book – the most transparent ever. Besides refusing to release his college transcripts and many other requested documents, Obama’s cronies met with lobbyists and others in a local cafe’ to keep their visits off West Wing visitor records.

This list is far from comprehensive. The current lie is that Obama is focused like a laser on creating jobs. He’s actually focused on getting re-elected and wants to spend a whole bunch more taxpayer money to shore up union support.

Bush endorsed a policy that was in agreement with the intelligence estimates put forward by experts of many nations, got bipartisan, majority support from both chambers of Congress and ended up being wrong. (Obama’s lies about the failures of the first stimulus basically fall into this same category – except the people who were advising him were yes-men, partisan hacks and Keynesian morons, not experts of any kind. He also didn’t have bipartisan support in the House.)

Maybe Smiley was talking about Obama.

Nah.

Clearly they would rather take Husseins word that he had no intention of using the uranium, or starting up a weapons program? 

So let me see if I have your facts straight- The uranium, in the city of Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad was under the control of the UN when Hussein was still in control? I had no idea he was so open to the UN weapons inspections! Or are you talking about AFTER he was toppled from power in 2003 and had no therefore had no access to it?  The uranium wasn’t shipped out until 2008 – it was guarded by our troops from 2003- before it was shipped. The towns people went it in and raided the 23,000 acre nuclear compound and took what they thought they could sell, used the barrels for water storage not aware of the danger of the radio active material until we were able to secure the facility.  He had all the access he wanted to it prior to the invasion of Iraq and that is point. You say the UN had control of it for years prior to the invasion – please show where Hussein allowed the UN to control his nuclear facility, in his country while he was still in power, I can find no such evidence to support this claim.

Obama KNEW Obamacare WILL cost $1 TRILLION more than he said it would cost.

Good thing Bush got the “Authorization for the use of Military Force in Iraq”.

But don’t take OUR word for it…  Listen to Hillary making the case for the war in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/sixteen-truthful-words.html

Oh,  looky here……..Great Britian’s Butler Report claims the “16 words” were well founded.”
The Senate investigation…….”the conclusion was reasonable.”
and, Wilson’s report did not change CIA analysts assessment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A482-2004Jul20.html

Chopped and out of context to slur the actual statement.  Full statement in context:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html

Why, thank you for proving my point for me.  Quite helpful, you are!

“They’re both risks, they’re both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, BUT THE DANGER IS, IS THAT THEY WORK IN CONCERT.  THE DANGER IS, IS THAT AL QAEDA BECOMES AN EXTENSION OF SADDAM’S MADNESS AND HIS HATRED AND HIS CAPACITY TO EXTEND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AROUND THE WORLD. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it’s a comparison that is – I can’t make because I can’t distinguish between the two, because they’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks In A Photo Opportunity With Colombian President Uribe, Washington, DC, 9/25/02)

Thanks again, my helpful friend!

“They’re both risks, they’re both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, BUT THE DANGER IS, IS THAT THEY WORK IN CONCERT. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it’s a comparison that is – I can’t make because I can’t distinguish between the two, because they’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks In A Photo Opportunity With Colombian President Uribe, Washington, DC, 9/25/02)

Oh dear. We gotta go through this crap, again?

Bush lied? What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq’s WMD?
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/

And, don’t hate the messenger….

Bush lied to start the Iraq war.

And most of those countries rejected the intel which is why the UN wouldn’t back the USA and UK.

Bush lied to the Americans and Blair lied to the British, both should be held accountable for their actions, but I doubt they will.

Senate.gov and Whitehouse.gov. are NOT wikipedia.

 Second, I didn’t make up the names of the parties, Jefferson and Hamilton did. 

 Third, if you want to compare the Ku Klux Klan founder, Confederate Military commander Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1865 with today’s Democratic Party, then the Jefferson analogy I draw is absolutely appropriate.

 Fourth, Dred Scot was a Supreme Court decision decided by White Conservative Judges.

 Fifth, it is today’s Republicans like Rand Paul who are running around talking about repealing parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that private businesses can discriminate by race.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/2010_Elections/rand-paul-fires-back-critics-civil-rights-act/story?id=10705651

  Sixth, it’s today’s Republicans, like Virginia’s State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who want to neuter the Voting Rights Act in their state.

 –Cobra

Hey Joe…we have been attacked since Obama took office…say hi to the people at Fort Hood for me.

Smiley reminds me of that Green guy, who was running for Congress, the real dumbass one who couldn’t even construct sentences.

Damn Joe Blowhard stood up for a Republican President? WOW. Amnd to think Tavis Smiley calls himself a Conservative. Something is wrong with this picture.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it remains HINDsight.

But let’s see if I understand your argument: in a post 9/11 situation, Bush was just supposed to ignore intelligence saying Saddam had WMD’s, knowing that he had possessed WMD’s in the past, had used WMD’s in the past, sponsored terrorism around the world, and had more than enough incentive to try to strike at the U.S. (and had already attempted to murder a former president of the United States), all based on the notion that some intelligence suggested otherwise.  Oh, and in light of the fact that when intelligence services got a chance to go into Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991 they discovered that they had grossly underestimated the extent of Saddam’s WMD program before that war (they were, by all accounts, genuinely shocked at how advanced his nuclear program was).  The same administration that was attacked for not concluding, based on intel that Muslims were trying to learn to fly airplanes, that 9/11 was coming, was supposed to just ignore evidence suggesting that a psychopath who’d been ready, willing, and able to use WMD’s in the past was looking to go again, evidence his own CIA chief said was a “slam dunk,” evidence that was apparently convincing enough that most of those opposed to invading Iraq did so because they were afraid that either a) Saddam would use the WMD’s or b) the WMD’s would fall into the hands of God-knows-who in the post invasion chaos,  because of a few counterindicators?  THAT would be responsible behavior by someone charged with protecting the United States?

While you’ve got your head where it is, you might as well look for any potential evidence of colon cancer.

Okay, so Bush NEVER says Saddam was behind 9/11 but, that both Saddam and al Qaeda are dangerous terrorists and might work together.  Guess what? They were and they did!  

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/the_new_report_on_iraq_and_ter.asp

I use the past tense because, thanks to Bush, Saddam’s a threat to no one now.

Comment was cropped, taken out of context, see full comment:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html

You have issues with our country’s Constitution?  A-, pfft!  You embarrass yourself.

Responding to lilly:

I do know some troops that do in fact love to go to war, it’s what they are trained for.  I knew one Sgt. Major that volunteered to go back to Vietnam over a dozen times, he had a wife and seven kids, he served around 8 or 9 tours by the time that war wound down.  He was a bit more aggressive than others, but in that group alone there was no shortage of Beanies that were volunteering before they were assigned missions, including my ex-husband.

Now with my nephew, he’s regular army with a wife and two little ones, he takes it in stride, as does his lovely wife.  Even when he’s not overseas, he’s sent out for periods of time for various training missions to other bases around the country.  These separations are not uncommon in mil families, I saw my ex only on payday weekend for a period of seven months during one stretch, he was in country, but on training missions throughout the country, he was in Alaska on winter survival with Sgt. Jeffrey McDonald two weeks before he murdered his wife and daughters.

Bottom line, it’s an all volunteer military, they know what they are getting into when they sign on that dotted line, they are proud of their country and like it or not, they loved serving under President Bush, VP Cheney and Rummy and they did their jobs well.  BTW, most believe taking Saddam out was justified.  My nephew was one of his guards, after the execution he was assigned to Abu Gharibe to guard terrorists during interrogations.  He was to make sure the terrorists were not physically touched during interrogations.  He said they were the most evil, vile creatures he’d ever seen in his life and he was told to protect them.  Yep, al Qaeda in Iraq, an evil being stomped out by the good guys.

Partisan hackery, hate, ignorance.

They should have. 

Interesting that Putin warned the U.S. that he had intel that Saddam was targeting our country and our interests abroad prior to OIF.  Forgot about that. did you?

“Most” of those countries were later to be found caught up in the Oil For Food scandal.

Even the Russians were caught up in it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051501024.html

But, Putin did warn us of receiving intel that Saddam was targeting the  US or US interests for attack, ah, memories:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html

Yep, al Qaeda did become an extention of Saddam’s madness being as though they beat us to Iraq and had a bit of real estate to call their own all set up to launch attacks before Saddam was even…..on the run.

Those Iraqi documents that were later found and translated, were quite the vindication:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9762

Nothing to do with any transfer, the only thing Mr. Plame exposed was that he is a bald faced liar.  The CIA tripped him up with the Italian forged document issue he later claimed to base part of his opinion on.  Unfortunately for Mr. Bald Faced Liar Plame, information regarding the Italian documents was not available for Mr. BFLP to have knowledge of and the CIA knew it, he was either fed info from the partying spy wife or he added it to his spin later.

Anyway, it wasn’t the Italian forged documents that the Brits based their finding for Saddam’s attempted purchase of yellowcake on but the mix of the news at the time led to confusion, until the Brit’s Butler Report and our Senate investigation cleared it up:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A482-2004Jul20.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/sixteen-truthful-words.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Read the damn authorization and show me where it says Bush “had to determine that there was no pathway available short of invasion”

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

You bought into the democrats whining lies.  And, do tell how was it that Bush had more information than the UN.  Tell me why the UN supposedly knew Iraq had no WMD yet had inspection teams in Iraq, under fire, costing millions……if they were certain there was nothing there.

You are one off the deep end fool that can’t see the facts through the rage you have been feeding since 2003 or the 2000 election dispute.  Sucks to be you.

Um, no, he said that they DO work together and that, in terms of the War on Terror – the nation’s direct response to 9/11 – they are indistinguishable.  

Do you always grant so much leeway when plausible deniability is the obvious goal?

Eh.  I would stick with the weapon’s inspectors whose sole job it was to determine the existence of a weapons program.

Which they did. His biological, chemical and nuclear facility was never in doubt. The question was how far along it had gotten and whether to believe Hussein had the means and support from other countries to actually do anything with his stash of radio active uranium or if he had actually destroyed or stopped his manufacturing.

The big controversy was if a connection/support ever existed between Hussein and Al Qaeda. One of the main tenants for the invasion of Iraq.

Tommy just double downed on Smiley’s ignorant, partisan and hate filled accusations. Rant as you may guys, but it does not change the fact that EVERYONE believed the intel.

What leeway?  It’s a War on Terror, not a War on Al Qaeda.  So what’s so hard to understand that Bush was lumping Saddam and al Qaeda together in terms of going after them? 

Your problem is that the claim that Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11 is patently false, but you just can’t let it go so you need to grasp desperately at any harebrained argument that somehow validates the claim.  You’re like Chris Matthews, who apparently believes that because Bush didn’t stand on the roof of the White House three times a day and scream “Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11″ he was guilty of saying Saddam was behind 9/11.  I’m pretty sure the technical term for that kind of thinking is “bats**t crazy.”

The lie was presenting Saddam as a threat and some kind of Hitler like figure. I was woefully ignorant of our history in the Middle East and began doing some research when Bush began talking about a 2nd war.
Here’s what I found out and am sure they knew in DC.
Saddam was considered a more secular leader of the ME and actually a barrier to fundamentalist radical Islam.
Although a cruel and brutal dictator Saddam did want to survive and retain his power. He had no desire to to draw the attention of the American military and incur another costly war like Desert Storm. This was demonstrated when he invited the inspectors back in as soon as Bush started rattling his sabre.
 He did not invade either Iran {something we helped him with} or Kuwait simply because he was power mad. He even asked the American ambassadress about it before he invaded Kuwait.

Bush invoking images or Hitler and the UN “imminent threat” rule was the lie. Richard Clarke says immediately after 9/11 Bush told him to connect it to Iraq. It wasn’t just a bad call based on incorrect conclusions. It was an unnecessary and planned war of choice that wasn’t connected to either the war on terror or any threat to the US.

You don’t start a war and send Americans to kill and be killed based on something bad you think might happen, possible someday, we’re not really sure.

Tommy spending all his time as an apologist for despicable people. First the slug Krugman and now the hateful racist Smiley.

The entire world thought Saddam had WMDs. Clinton certainly did. All the security agencies too. So tired of this “Bush lied” nonsense. Every politician “lies”, i.e. SELLS his or her ideas. Bush did what he thought was right. The attacks by the left were despicable and borderline traitorous (Hello NYT – I’m looking at you!). Obama is continuing those wars, GITMO still open, and now the media goes silent – nothing to see here folks.  Coincidence? Obviously not. The hypocrisy is boundless.

They either PROVED themselves to be Bad Truth Tellers or Very Good Liars?

Neither will serve them well and their own party proved it by NOT having them at their own 08GOP Convention.

Bush and his Boss Cheney had an Agenda to invade Iraq and were going to do so, Facts supporting their intentions or not?

Repeating ALL those Imminent Claims, Immediate Threat Claims, Smoking Gun Claims, Training with Alqueda, meetings in Prague, mobile Labs, Little Debbie Yellow Cakes, 45 minute Mushroom Pizza clouds, Caches,…is an exercise in the same perversion they used on a Duped Public.

Which they turned out not to be even remotely true?