GTAVercetti 0 #26 September 11, 2006 QuoteYour point? Pretty obvious to me.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 September 11, 2006 I am glad for you......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #28 September 11, 2006 QuoteI am glad for you....... I think you must be the last remaining person on Earth who still believes the Bush administration's pre-invasion lies. Even the administration itself now admits (in its lucid moments) that they were wrong about WMDs and about the AQ-Iraq link. You clearly have a different view of reality from everyone else.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #29 September 11, 2006 QuoteI am glad for you....... Gee, let me see. A republican endorsed senate report detailing the non-connection and AQ. With sources. But when Cheney comes on and says it is wrong, who do you believe? Yes, blind love and blind hatred work in much the same fashion. It IS okay to admit you were incorrect in doing something. In fact, that is the first step to fixing a problem. It does not make you weaker in the slightest. What DOES make you weaker is refusing to back down and look at other methods of problem solving because of incalculable hubris.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 September 11, 2006 Quote"selective use of intel"Quote BS pure and simple. Really, even the RNC head said on Meet the Press,: - Congress had the exact same intelligence that the president did Again, reitterated the same thing - Congress had the exact same intelligence that the president did Tim Russert: WHat about the Wshington Post's independent review where they established there was intelligence that was ommitted? - Congress had basically the same intelligence that the president did _______________________________________________ Bush was the custodian of those reports, so he just ommitted the ones that shed light on the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Not BS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #31 September 11, 2006 Typical genrealizations. That is OK as I am used to that from libs. As for your assurtions watch Cheney's interview on the link and learn.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #32 September 11, 2006 QuoteDid you watch Cheney with Russert Sunday? Counters and answerer all of your mis-leading/incorrect assesments/statement/lies. Same song second vers and your position is still wrong. Hatred blinds you like that you know!! A) What were lies? B) How did Cheney counter them successfully? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #33 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... Gee, let me see. A republican endorsed senate report detailing the non-connection and AQ. With sources. But when Cheney comes on and says it is wrong, who do you believe? Yes, blind love and blind hatred work in much the same fashion. It IS okay to admit you were incorrect in doing something. In fact, that is the first step to fixing a problem. It does not make you weaker in the slightest. What DOES make you weaker is refusing to back down and look at other methods of problem solving because of incalculable hubris. You show your total lack of knowelge of what is happening here. But that is OK. Watch the interview from the link if you dare but your assurtions above are false regardless"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #34 September 11, 2006 Bush was the custodian of those reports, so he just ommitted the ones that shed light on the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Quote Interesting accusation. Proof?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #35 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... I think you must be the last remaining person on Earth who still believes the Bush administration's pre-invasion lies. Even the administration itself now admits (in its lucid moments) that they were wrong about WMDs and about the AQ-Iraq link. You clearly have a different view of reality from everyone else. Oh no, there are some of those out here too. And there are more in the closet. Many Repub voters who know this admin and repub Congress is a trainwreck, but when it comes to actually voting them out they'll clinch and say, "Uhhh, maybe next time of these guys don;t get it together." This is a battle of antiquated ideology, not logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #36 September 11, 2006 QuoteTypical genrealizations. That is OK as I am used to that from libs. As for your assurtions watch Cheney's interview on the link and learn.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ Do you see the hillarious contradiction? - Typical genrealizations - That is OK as I am used to that from libs The second one is a generalization Show me the supposed lies and how Cheney countered them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 September 11, 2006 QuoteBush was the custodian of those reports, so he just ommitted the ones that shed light on the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Quote Interesting accusation. Proof? He was the link between the intel and COngress. I'll tell ya what, I will research and find the Meet the Press when Ken Mehlman was on and said the 3 statements as I asserted above and you find where Cheney countered some lies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #38 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... Gee, let me see. A republican endorsed senate report detailing the non-connection and AQ. With sources. But when Cheney comes on and says it is wrong, who do you believe? Yes, blind love and blind hatred work in much the same fashion. It IS okay to admit you were incorrect in doing something. In fact, that is the first step to fixing a problem. It does not make you weaker in the slightest. What DOES make you weaker is refusing to back down and look at other methods of problem solving because of incalculable hubris. You show your total lack of knowelge of what is happening here. But that is OK. What the interview from the link if you dare but your assurtions above are false regardless If Teddy Kennedy posing as a right wing conservative posted drivel on DZ.COM to give the right a bad name, it would come out much the same as your posts. You seem willing to swallow anything this administration says, regardless of any evidence. Cheney is a proven liar too, yet you believe him over the Senate report which is packed with source information.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #39 September 11, 2006 kallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #40 September 11, 2006 Quotekallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you. MEA CULPA!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #41 September 11, 2006 The Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #42 September 11, 2006 QuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #43 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060911/cm_thenation/3120112 Cheney even lies about the lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #44 September 11, 2006 QuoteI think the article you link to is missing the best bit. It's being widely reported in the news on this side of the pond that the committee report indicates once and for all that the CIA believed there was NO link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the invasion. You gotta wonder who in the hell Bush was listening to when he put it about before the war that the two were linked because we now know for sure that his actual military advisers were telling him there was absolpositively no link. They knew what they were doing when they put Saddam and al Qaeda together in all those speeches. It was a deliberate association sales tactic. They were selling us a bill of goods and the sad part is that they even told us they were doing it. Remember "you never introduce a new product in August"? The Iraq war was inevitable after Bush took office. It was lobbied by the PNAC, then those folks got into office and used 9/11 to implement it. Anyone who has read any of the PNAC letters and who can also recall administration quotes immediately after 9/11 should be able to recognize that. On 9/11 Rummy called for Iraq invasion plans. Later that week Wolfowitz was quoted as saying that the debate was whether to make the Iraq invasion as part of the initial response in Afghanistan or to launch it as a second offense. Cheney was quoted at a luncheon as saying that regarding the Iraq war "it's not a matter of if but when", and of course there's always Bush's quote, "#$*% Saddam, we're taking him out". By the way, if you want to see PNAC's Kristol squirm a little, watch Colbert go to work on him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgYZ11pIGU4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #45 September 11, 2006 QuoteCheney even lies about the lies You just have to know how to quote... Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Cheney encountered a decent grilling from host Tim Russert, who pressed him on how Cheney and George W. Bush had justified the war in Iraq. "Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?" Russert asked. Yes, indeed, Cheney said, hewing to the company line. And he pointed to what appeared to be evidence that supported that no-regrets stance: Look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts. Well, let's look at the report of Charles Duelfer who headed up the Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for searching for WMDs after the invasion. (Duelfer took the job following David Kay's resignation in late 2003.) It just so happens that in our new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, Michael Isikoff and I quote from that report, and it noted that Saddam's WMD capability was essentially destroyed in 1991. That is the opposite of what Cheney told Russert the report said. Cheney went on to remark, Think where we'd be if [Saddam] was still there...We also would have a situation where he would have resumed his WMD programs. Yet Duelfer reported that at the time of the invasion, Saddam had no plan for the revival of WMD. Cheney even justified the invasion of Iraq by citing an allegation that was just debunked in a Senate intelligence committee report released on Friday. Claiming there was a significant relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, he cited the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who was recently killed in Iraq). After the US attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Cheney said, Zarqawi fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq. The implication here is that Baghdad sanctioned the terrorist activity of Zarqawi, a supposed al Qaeda associate. But the Senate intelligence committee report--released by a Republican-run panel--noted that prior to the invasion of Iraq Zarqawi and his network were not part of al Qaeda. (That merging came after the invasion.) More important, the report cites CIA reports (based on captured documents and interrogations) that say that Baghdad was not protecting or assisting Zarqawi when he was in Iraq. In fact, Iraqi intelligence in the spring of 2002 had formed a "special committee" to locate and capture him--but failed to find the terrorist. A 2005 CIA report concluded that prior to the Iraq war, the [Saddam] regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates. So why is Cheney still holding up Zarqawi as evidence that Baghdad was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden? If he knows something the CIA does not, perhaps he should inform the agency. During the Meet the Press interview, Cheney blamed the CIA for his and Bush's prewar assertions that Iraq posed a WMD threat. That's what the intelligence said, Cheney insisted. Our book shows that this explanation (or, defense) is a dodge. There were dissents within the intelligence community on key aspects of the WMD argument for war--especially the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Cheney dwelled on that frightening possibility before the war, repeatedly declaring that the US government knew for sure that Iraq had revved up its nuclear program. Yet there was only one strong piece of evidence for this claim--that Iraq had purchased tens of thousands of aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge that would produce enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. And that piece of evidence was hotly contested within the intelligence community. One CIA analyst (whom we name for the first time in Hubris) was fiercely pushing the tube case. Yet practically every other top nuclear expert in the US government (including the centrifuge specialists at the Department of Energy) disagreed. This dispute was even mentioned in The Washington Post in September 2002. But neither Cheney nor Bush (nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rce) took an interest in this important argument. Instead, they kept insisting the tube purchases were proof Saddam was building a bomb. They were wrong. And the nuclear scientists at the Department of Energy (again, as our book notes) were ordered not to say anything publicly about the tubes. This is but one example of how the Bush White House rigged the case for war by selectively embracing (without reviewing) convenient pieces of iffy intelligence and then presenting them to the public as hard-and-fast proof. But Cheney is right--to a limited extent. The CIA did provide the White House with intelligence that was wrong (which the White House then used irresponsibly). The new Senate intelligence report, though, shows that this was not what happened regarding one crucial part of the Bush-Cheney argument for war: that al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots. Before the war, Bush said that Saddam "was dealing" with al Qaeda. He even charged that Saddam had "financed" al Qaeda. The Senate intelligence report notes clearly that the prewar intelligence on this critical issue said no such thing. The report quotes a CIA review of the prewar intelligence: "The data reveal few indications of an established relationship between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime." The lead Defense Intelligence Analyst on this issue told the Senate intelligence committee that "there was no partnership between the two organizations." And post-invasion debriefings of former Iraqi regime officials indicated that Saddam had no interest in working with al Qaeda and had refused to meet with an al Qaeda emissary in 1998. The report also augments the section in our book on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured al Qaeda commander who was taken by the CIA to Egypt where he was roughly--perhaps brutally--interrogated and claimed that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to al Qaeda. Though there were questions about al-Libi's veracity from the start, Secretary of State Colin Powell used al-Libi's claims in his famous UN speech to argue that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were partners in evil--that there was a "sinister nexus" between the two. Al-Libi later recanted, and the CIA withdrew all the intelligence based on his claims. In other words, the Bush administration had hyped flimsy intelligence to depict Saddam and bin Laden as WMD-sharing allies. The Senate intelligence report concluded that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, "had a relationship with al Qaeda." When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee "said that there was no relationship," Cheney interrupted and commented, "I haven't had a chance to read it." Perhaps he should before he talks about 9/11 and Iraq again. It's all in knowing how to read. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #46 September 11, 2006 It's all so much clearer without all those picky details! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #47 September 11, 2006 I haven't read it. Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #48 September 11, 2006 >Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? Nope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. Which makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #49 September 11, 2006 Quote>Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? QuoteNope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. QuoteWhich makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Except I wasn't debating it, I was just asking a question. Is that OK with you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #50 September 11, 2006 Quote Amazing, but not surprising how you fail to see, or simply ignore the reality of the importance of the US issues with Iran within the context of the History lesson he posted, which by the way begins in 1980. Right - obviously it should begin in 1953. However, not relevant to the administration's lies with respect to the 2003 invasion, now carefully documented by the Republican controlled Senate. Sometimes cynicism is warranted: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415792#415792 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415872#415872 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382511#382511 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 23 #31 September 11, 2006 Typical genrealizations. That is OK as I am used to that from libs. As for your assurtions watch Cheney's interview on the link and learn.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 September 11, 2006 QuoteDid you watch Cheney with Russert Sunday? Counters and answerer all of your mis-leading/incorrect assesments/statement/lies. Same song second vers and your position is still wrong. Hatred blinds you like that you know!! A) What were lies? B) How did Cheney counter them successfully? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... Gee, let me see. A republican endorsed senate report detailing the non-connection and AQ. With sources. But when Cheney comes on and says it is wrong, who do you believe? Yes, blind love and blind hatred work in much the same fashion. It IS okay to admit you were incorrect in doing something. In fact, that is the first step to fixing a problem. It does not make you weaker in the slightest. What DOES make you weaker is refusing to back down and look at other methods of problem solving because of incalculable hubris. You show your total lack of knowelge of what is happening here. But that is OK. Watch the interview from the link if you dare but your assurtions above are false regardless"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 September 11, 2006 Bush was the custodian of those reports, so he just ommitted the ones that shed light on the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Quote Interesting accusation. Proof?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #35 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... I think you must be the last remaining person on Earth who still believes the Bush administration's pre-invasion lies. Even the administration itself now admits (in its lucid moments) that they were wrong about WMDs and about the AQ-Iraq link. You clearly have a different view of reality from everyone else. Oh no, there are some of those out here too. And there are more in the closet. Many Repub voters who know this admin and repub Congress is a trainwreck, but when it comes to actually voting them out they'll clinch and say, "Uhhh, maybe next time of these guys don;t get it together." This is a battle of antiquated ideology, not logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #36 September 11, 2006 QuoteTypical genrealizations. That is OK as I am used to that from libs. As for your assurtions watch Cheney's interview on the link and learn.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ Do you see the hillarious contradiction? - Typical genrealizations - That is OK as I am used to that from libs The second one is a generalization Show me the supposed lies and how Cheney countered them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 September 11, 2006 QuoteBush was the custodian of those reports, so he just ommitted the ones that shed light on the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Quote Interesting accusation. Proof? He was the link between the intel and COngress. I'll tell ya what, I will research and find the Meet the Press when Ken Mehlman was on and said the 3 statements as I asserted above and you find where Cheney countered some lies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #38 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... Gee, let me see. A republican endorsed senate report detailing the non-connection and AQ. With sources. But when Cheney comes on and says it is wrong, who do you believe? Yes, blind love and blind hatred work in much the same fashion. It IS okay to admit you were incorrect in doing something. In fact, that is the first step to fixing a problem. It does not make you weaker in the slightest. What DOES make you weaker is refusing to back down and look at other methods of problem solving because of incalculable hubris. You show your total lack of knowelge of what is happening here. But that is OK. What the interview from the link if you dare but your assurtions above are false regardless If Teddy Kennedy posing as a right wing conservative posted drivel on DZ.COM to give the right a bad name, it would come out much the same as your posts. You seem willing to swallow anything this administration says, regardless of any evidence. Cheney is a proven liar too, yet you believe him over the Senate report which is packed with source information.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #39 September 11, 2006 kallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #40 September 11, 2006 Quotekallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you. MEA CULPA!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #41 September 11, 2006 The Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #42 September 11, 2006 QuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #43 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060911/cm_thenation/3120112 Cheney even lies about the lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #44 September 11, 2006 QuoteI think the article you link to is missing the best bit. It's being widely reported in the news on this side of the pond that the committee report indicates once and for all that the CIA believed there was NO link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the invasion. You gotta wonder who in the hell Bush was listening to when he put it about before the war that the two were linked because we now know for sure that his actual military advisers were telling him there was absolpositively no link. They knew what they were doing when they put Saddam and al Qaeda together in all those speeches. It was a deliberate association sales tactic. They were selling us a bill of goods and the sad part is that they even told us they were doing it. Remember "you never introduce a new product in August"? The Iraq war was inevitable after Bush took office. It was lobbied by the PNAC, then those folks got into office and used 9/11 to implement it. Anyone who has read any of the PNAC letters and who can also recall administration quotes immediately after 9/11 should be able to recognize that. On 9/11 Rummy called for Iraq invasion plans. Later that week Wolfowitz was quoted as saying that the debate was whether to make the Iraq invasion as part of the initial response in Afghanistan or to launch it as a second offense. Cheney was quoted at a luncheon as saying that regarding the Iraq war "it's not a matter of if but when", and of course there's always Bush's quote, "#$*% Saddam, we're taking him out". By the way, if you want to see PNAC's Kristol squirm a little, watch Colbert go to work on him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgYZ11pIGU4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #45 September 11, 2006 QuoteCheney even lies about the lies You just have to know how to quote... Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Cheney encountered a decent grilling from host Tim Russert, who pressed him on how Cheney and George W. Bush had justified the war in Iraq. "Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?" Russert asked. Yes, indeed, Cheney said, hewing to the company line. And he pointed to what appeared to be evidence that supported that no-regrets stance: Look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts. Well, let's look at the report of Charles Duelfer who headed up the Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for searching for WMDs after the invasion. (Duelfer took the job following David Kay's resignation in late 2003.) It just so happens that in our new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, Michael Isikoff and I quote from that report, and it noted that Saddam's WMD capability was essentially destroyed in 1991. That is the opposite of what Cheney told Russert the report said. Cheney went on to remark, Think where we'd be if [Saddam] was still there...We also would have a situation where he would have resumed his WMD programs. Yet Duelfer reported that at the time of the invasion, Saddam had no plan for the revival of WMD. Cheney even justified the invasion of Iraq by citing an allegation that was just debunked in a Senate intelligence committee report released on Friday. Claiming there was a significant relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, he cited the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who was recently killed in Iraq). After the US attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Cheney said, Zarqawi fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq. The implication here is that Baghdad sanctioned the terrorist activity of Zarqawi, a supposed al Qaeda associate. But the Senate intelligence committee report--released by a Republican-run panel--noted that prior to the invasion of Iraq Zarqawi and his network were not part of al Qaeda. (That merging came after the invasion.) More important, the report cites CIA reports (based on captured documents and interrogations) that say that Baghdad was not protecting or assisting Zarqawi when he was in Iraq. In fact, Iraqi intelligence in the spring of 2002 had formed a "special committee" to locate and capture him--but failed to find the terrorist. A 2005 CIA report concluded that prior to the Iraq war, the [Saddam] regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates. So why is Cheney still holding up Zarqawi as evidence that Baghdad was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden? If he knows something the CIA does not, perhaps he should inform the agency. During the Meet the Press interview, Cheney blamed the CIA for his and Bush's prewar assertions that Iraq posed a WMD threat. That's what the intelligence said, Cheney insisted. Our book shows that this explanation (or, defense) is a dodge. There were dissents within the intelligence community on key aspects of the WMD argument for war--especially the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Cheney dwelled on that frightening possibility before the war, repeatedly declaring that the US government knew for sure that Iraq had revved up its nuclear program. Yet there was only one strong piece of evidence for this claim--that Iraq had purchased tens of thousands of aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge that would produce enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. And that piece of evidence was hotly contested within the intelligence community. One CIA analyst (whom we name for the first time in Hubris) was fiercely pushing the tube case. Yet practically every other top nuclear expert in the US government (including the centrifuge specialists at the Department of Energy) disagreed. This dispute was even mentioned in The Washington Post in September 2002. But neither Cheney nor Bush (nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rce) took an interest in this important argument. Instead, they kept insisting the tube purchases were proof Saddam was building a bomb. They were wrong. And the nuclear scientists at the Department of Energy (again, as our book notes) were ordered not to say anything publicly about the tubes. This is but one example of how the Bush White House rigged the case for war by selectively embracing (without reviewing) convenient pieces of iffy intelligence and then presenting them to the public as hard-and-fast proof. But Cheney is right--to a limited extent. The CIA did provide the White House with intelligence that was wrong (which the White House then used irresponsibly). The new Senate intelligence report, though, shows that this was not what happened regarding one crucial part of the Bush-Cheney argument for war: that al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots. Before the war, Bush said that Saddam "was dealing" with al Qaeda. He even charged that Saddam had "financed" al Qaeda. The Senate intelligence report notes clearly that the prewar intelligence on this critical issue said no such thing. The report quotes a CIA review of the prewar intelligence: "The data reveal few indications of an established relationship between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime." The lead Defense Intelligence Analyst on this issue told the Senate intelligence committee that "there was no partnership between the two organizations." And post-invasion debriefings of former Iraqi regime officials indicated that Saddam had no interest in working with al Qaeda and had refused to meet with an al Qaeda emissary in 1998. The report also augments the section in our book on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured al Qaeda commander who was taken by the CIA to Egypt where he was roughly--perhaps brutally--interrogated and claimed that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to al Qaeda. Though there were questions about al-Libi's veracity from the start, Secretary of State Colin Powell used al-Libi's claims in his famous UN speech to argue that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were partners in evil--that there was a "sinister nexus" between the two. Al-Libi later recanted, and the CIA withdrew all the intelligence based on his claims. In other words, the Bush administration had hyped flimsy intelligence to depict Saddam and bin Laden as WMD-sharing allies. The Senate intelligence report concluded that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, "had a relationship with al Qaeda." When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee "said that there was no relationship," Cheney interrupted and commented, "I haven't had a chance to read it." Perhaps he should before he talks about 9/11 and Iraq again. It's all in knowing how to read. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #46 September 11, 2006 It's all so much clearer without all those picky details! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #47 September 11, 2006 I haven't read it. Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #48 September 11, 2006 >Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? Nope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. Which makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #49 September 11, 2006 Quote>Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? QuoteNope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. QuoteWhich makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Except I wasn't debating it, I was just asking a question. Is that OK with you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #50 September 11, 2006 Quote Amazing, but not surprising how you fail to see, or simply ignore the reality of the importance of the US issues with Iran within the context of the History lesson he posted, which by the way begins in 1980. Right - obviously it should begin in 1953. However, not relevant to the administration's lies with respect to the 2003 invasion, now carefully documented by the Republican controlled Senate. Sometimes cynicism is warranted: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415792#415792 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415872#415872 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382511#382511 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #35 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... I think you must be the last remaining person on Earth who still believes the Bush administration's pre-invasion lies. Even the administration itself now admits (in its lucid moments) that they were wrong about WMDs and about the AQ-Iraq link. You clearly have a different view of reality from everyone else. Oh no, there are some of those out here too. And there are more in the closet. Many Repub voters who know this admin and repub Congress is a trainwreck, but when it comes to actually voting them out they'll clinch and say, "Uhhh, maybe next time of these guys don;t get it together." This is a battle of antiquated ideology, not logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 September 11, 2006 QuoteTypical genrealizations. That is OK as I am used to that from libs. As for your assurtions watch Cheney's interview on the link and learn.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ Do you see the hillarious contradiction? - Typical genrealizations - That is OK as I am used to that from libs The second one is a generalization Show me the supposed lies and how Cheney countered them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 September 11, 2006 QuoteBush was the custodian of those reports, so he just ommitted the ones that shed light on the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Quote Interesting accusation. Proof? He was the link between the intel and COngress. I'll tell ya what, I will research and find the Meet the Press when Ken Mehlman was on and said the 3 statements as I asserted above and you find where Cheney countered some lies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #38 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... Gee, let me see. A republican endorsed senate report detailing the non-connection and AQ. With sources. But when Cheney comes on and says it is wrong, who do you believe? Yes, blind love and blind hatred work in much the same fashion. It IS okay to admit you were incorrect in doing something. In fact, that is the first step to fixing a problem. It does not make you weaker in the slightest. What DOES make you weaker is refusing to back down and look at other methods of problem solving because of incalculable hubris. You show your total lack of knowelge of what is happening here. But that is OK. What the interview from the link if you dare but your assurtions above are false regardless If Teddy Kennedy posing as a right wing conservative posted drivel on DZ.COM to give the right a bad name, it would come out much the same as your posts. You seem willing to swallow anything this administration says, regardless of any evidence. Cheney is a proven liar too, yet you believe him over the Senate report which is packed with source information.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #39 September 11, 2006 kallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #40 September 11, 2006 Quotekallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you. MEA CULPA!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #41 September 11, 2006 The Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #42 September 11, 2006 QuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #43 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060911/cm_thenation/3120112 Cheney even lies about the lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #44 September 11, 2006 QuoteI think the article you link to is missing the best bit. It's being widely reported in the news on this side of the pond that the committee report indicates once and for all that the CIA believed there was NO link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the invasion. You gotta wonder who in the hell Bush was listening to when he put it about before the war that the two were linked because we now know for sure that his actual military advisers were telling him there was absolpositively no link. They knew what they were doing when they put Saddam and al Qaeda together in all those speeches. It was a deliberate association sales tactic. They were selling us a bill of goods and the sad part is that they even told us they were doing it. Remember "you never introduce a new product in August"? The Iraq war was inevitable after Bush took office. It was lobbied by the PNAC, then those folks got into office and used 9/11 to implement it. Anyone who has read any of the PNAC letters and who can also recall administration quotes immediately after 9/11 should be able to recognize that. On 9/11 Rummy called for Iraq invasion plans. Later that week Wolfowitz was quoted as saying that the debate was whether to make the Iraq invasion as part of the initial response in Afghanistan or to launch it as a second offense. Cheney was quoted at a luncheon as saying that regarding the Iraq war "it's not a matter of if but when", and of course there's always Bush's quote, "#$*% Saddam, we're taking him out". By the way, if you want to see PNAC's Kristol squirm a little, watch Colbert go to work on him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgYZ11pIGU4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,602 #45 September 11, 2006 QuoteCheney even lies about the lies You just have to know how to quote... Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Cheney encountered a decent grilling from host Tim Russert, who pressed him on how Cheney and George W. Bush had justified the war in Iraq. "Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?" Russert asked. Yes, indeed, Cheney said, hewing to the company line. And he pointed to what appeared to be evidence that supported that no-regrets stance: Look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts. Well, let's look at the report of Charles Duelfer who headed up the Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for searching for WMDs after the invasion. (Duelfer took the job following David Kay's resignation in late 2003.) It just so happens that in our new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, Michael Isikoff and I quote from that report, and it noted that Saddam's WMD capability was essentially destroyed in 1991. That is the opposite of what Cheney told Russert the report said. Cheney went on to remark, Think where we'd be if [Saddam] was still there...We also would have a situation where he would have resumed his WMD programs. Yet Duelfer reported that at the time of the invasion, Saddam had no plan for the revival of WMD. Cheney even justified the invasion of Iraq by citing an allegation that was just debunked in a Senate intelligence committee report released on Friday. Claiming there was a significant relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, he cited the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who was recently killed in Iraq). After the US attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Cheney said, Zarqawi fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq. The implication here is that Baghdad sanctioned the terrorist activity of Zarqawi, a supposed al Qaeda associate. But the Senate intelligence committee report--released by a Republican-run panel--noted that prior to the invasion of Iraq Zarqawi and his network were not part of al Qaeda. (That merging came after the invasion.) More important, the report cites CIA reports (based on captured documents and interrogations) that say that Baghdad was not protecting or assisting Zarqawi when he was in Iraq. In fact, Iraqi intelligence in the spring of 2002 had formed a "special committee" to locate and capture him--but failed to find the terrorist. A 2005 CIA report concluded that prior to the Iraq war, the [Saddam] regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates. So why is Cheney still holding up Zarqawi as evidence that Baghdad was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden? If he knows something the CIA does not, perhaps he should inform the agency. During the Meet the Press interview, Cheney blamed the CIA for his and Bush's prewar assertions that Iraq posed a WMD threat. That's what the intelligence said, Cheney insisted. Our book shows that this explanation (or, defense) is a dodge. There were dissents within the intelligence community on key aspects of the WMD argument for war--especially the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Cheney dwelled on that frightening possibility before the war, repeatedly declaring that the US government knew for sure that Iraq had revved up its nuclear program. Yet there was only one strong piece of evidence for this claim--that Iraq had purchased tens of thousands of aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge that would produce enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. And that piece of evidence was hotly contested within the intelligence community. One CIA analyst (whom we name for the first time in Hubris) was fiercely pushing the tube case. Yet practically every other top nuclear expert in the US government (including the centrifuge specialists at the Department of Energy) disagreed. This dispute was even mentioned in The Washington Post in September 2002. But neither Cheney nor Bush (nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rce) took an interest in this important argument. Instead, they kept insisting the tube purchases were proof Saddam was building a bomb. They were wrong. And the nuclear scientists at the Department of Energy (again, as our book notes) were ordered not to say anything publicly about the tubes. This is but one example of how the Bush White House rigged the case for war by selectively embracing (without reviewing) convenient pieces of iffy intelligence and then presenting them to the public as hard-and-fast proof. But Cheney is right--to a limited extent. The CIA did provide the White House with intelligence that was wrong (which the White House then used irresponsibly). The new Senate intelligence report, though, shows that this was not what happened regarding one crucial part of the Bush-Cheney argument for war: that al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots. Before the war, Bush said that Saddam "was dealing" with al Qaeda. He even charged that Saddam had "financed" al Qaeda. The Senate intelligence report notes clearly that the prewar intelligence on this critical issue said no such thing. The report quotes a CIA review of the prewar intelligence: "The data reveal few indications of an established relationship between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime." The lead Defense Intelligence Analyst on this issue told the Senate intelligence committee that "there was no partnership between the two organizations." And post-invasion debriefings of former Iraqi regime officials indicated that Saddam had no interest in working with al Qaeda and had refused to meet with an al Qaeda emissary in 1998. The report also augments the section in our book on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured al Qaeda commander who was taken by the CIA to Egypt where he was roughly--perhaps brutally--interrogated and claimed that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to al Qaeda. Though there were questions about al-Libi's veracity from the start, Secretary of State Colin Powell used al-Libi's claims in his famous UN speech to argue that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were partners in evil--that there was a "sinister nexus" between the two. Al-Libi later recanted, and the CIA withdrew all the intelligence based on his claims. In other words, the Bush administration had hyped flimsy intelligence to depict Saddam and bin Laden as WMD-sharing allies. The Senate intelligence report concluded that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, "had a relationship with al Qaeda." When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee "said that there was no relationship," Cheney interrupted and commented, "I haven't had a chance to read it." Perhaps he should before he talks about 9/11 and Iraq again. It's all in knowing how to read. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #46 September 11, 2006 It's all so much clearer without all those picky details! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #47 September 11, 2006 I haven't read it. Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #48 September 11, 2006 >Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? Nope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. Which makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #49 September 11, 2006 Quote>Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? QuoteNope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. QuoteWhich makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Except I wasn't debating it, I was just asking a question. Is that OK with you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #50 September 11, 2006 Quote Amazing, but not surprising how you fail to see, or simply ignore the reality of the importance of the US issues with Iran within the context of the History lesson he posted, which by the way begins in 1980. Right - obviously it should begin in 1953. However, not relevant to the administration's lies with respect to the 2003 invasion, now carefully documented by the Republican controlled Senate. Sometimes cynicism is warranted: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415792#415792 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415872#415872 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382511#382511 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,182 #38 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am glad for you....... Gee, let me see. A republican endorsed senate report detailing the non-connection and AQ. With sources. But when Cheney comes on and says it is wrong, who do you believe? Yes, blind love and blind hatred work in much the same fashion. It IS okay to admit you were incorrect in doing something. In fact, that is the first step to fixing a problem. It does not make you weaker in the slightest. What DOES make you weaker is refusing to back down and look at other methods of problem solving because of incalculable hubris. You show your total lack of knowelge of what is happening here. But that is OK. What the interview from the link if you dare but your assurtions above are false regardless If Teddy Kennedy posing as a right wing conservative posted drivel on DZ.COM to give the right a bad name, it would come out much the same as your posts. You seem willing to swallow anything this administration says, regardless of any evidence. Cheney is a proven liar too, yet you believe him over the Senate report which is packed with source information.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #39 September 11, 2006 kallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #40 September 11, 2006 Quotekallend, you OBVIOUSLY show your total lack of knowledge of the situation. Stop reading Senate reports and listen to what Cheney tells you. MEA CULPA!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #41 September 11, 2006 The Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 September 11, 2006 QuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #43 September 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Senate Report says a lot of things.The Dems spinning of what is says is normal. what is is even more normal is you choose to believe the spin instead of the facts. Time lines of info and intel have a big imact on the "lier" accusations you like to make. But I know you do not care...... What lies by the dems, how countered by Cheney? news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060911/cm_thenation/3120112 Cheney even lies about the lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #44 September 11, 2006 QuoteI think the article you link to is missing the best bit. It's being widely reported in the news on this side of the pond that the committee report indicates once and for all that the CIA believed there was NO link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the invasion. You gotta wonder who in the hell Bush was listening to when he put it about before the war that the two were linked because we now know for sure that his actual military advisers were telling him there was absolpositively no link. They knew what they were doing when they put Saddam and al Qaeda together in all those speeches. It was a deliberate association sales tactic. They were selling us a bill of goods and the sad part is that they even told us they were doing it. Remember "you never introduce a new product in August"? The Iraq war was inevitable after Bush took office. It was lobbied by the PNAC, then those folks got into office and used 9/11 to implement it. Anyone who has read any of the PNAC letters and who can also recall administration quotes immediately after 9/11 should be able to recognize that. On 9/11 Rummy called for Iraq invasion plans. Later that week Wolfowitz was quoted as saying that the debate was whether to make the Iraq invasion as part of the initial response in Afghanistan or to launch it as a second offense. Cheney was quoted at a luncheon as saying that regarding the Iraq war "it's not a matter of if but when", and of course there's always Bush's quote, "#$*% Saddam, we're taking him out". By the way, if you want to see PNAC's Kristol squirm a little, watch Colbert go to work on him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgYZ11pIGU4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #45 September 11, 2006 QuoteCheney even lies about the lies You just have to know how to quote... Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Cheney encountered a decent grilling from host Tim Russert, who pressed him on how Cheney and George W. Bush had justified the war in Iraq. "Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that were described, would you still have gone into Iraq?" Russert asked. Yes, indeed, Cheney said, hewing to the company line. And he pointed to what appeared to be evidence that supported that no-regrets stance: Look at the Duelfer Report and what it said. No stockpiles, but they also said he has the capability. He'd done it before. He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91. All of this is true, said by Duelfer, facts. Well, let's look at the report of Charles Duelfer who headed up the Iraq Survey Group, which was responsible for searching for WMDs after the invasion. (Duelfer took the job following David Kay's resignation in late 2003.) It just so happens that in our new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, Michael Isikoff and I quote from that report, and it noted that Saddam's WMD capability was essentially destroyed in 1991. That is the opposite of what Cheney told Russert the report said. Cheney went on to remark, Think where we'd be if [Saddam] was still there...We also would have a situation where he would have resumed his WMD programs. Yet Duelfer reported that at the time of the invasion, Saddam had no plan for the revival of WMD. Cheney even justified the invasion of Iraq by citing an allegation that was just debunked in a Senate intelligence committee report released on Friday. Claiming there was a significant relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda, he cited the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who was recently killed in Iraq). After the US attacked the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Cheney said, Zarqawi fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we launched into Iraq. The implication here is that Baghdad sanctioned the terrorist activity of Zarqawi, a supposed al Qaeda associate. But the Senate intelligence committee report--released by a Republican-run panel--noted that prior to the invasion of Iraq Zarqawi and his network were not part of al Qaeda. (That merging came after the invasion.) More important, the report cites CIA reports (based on captured documents and interrogations) that say that Baghdad was not protecting or assisting Zarqawi when he was in Iraq. In fact, Iraqi intelligence in the spring of 2002 had formed a "special committee" to locate and capture him--but failed to find the terrorist. A 2005 CIA report concluded that prior to the Iraq war, the [Saddam] regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates. So why is Cheney still holding up Zarqawi as evidence that Baghdad was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden? If he knows something the CIA does not, perhaps he should inform the agency. During the Meet the Press interview, Cheney blamed the CIA for his and Bush's prewar assertions that Iraq posed a WMD threat. That's what the intelligence said, Cheney insisted. Our book shows that this explanation (or, defense) is a dodge. There were dissents within the intelligence community on key aspects of the WMD argument for war--especially the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Cheney dwelled on that frightening possibility before the war, repeatedly declaring that the US government knew for sure that Iraq had revved up its nuclear program. Yet there was only one strong piece of evidence for this claim--that Iraq had purchased tens of thousands of aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge that would produce enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. And that piece of evidence was hotly contested within the intelligence community. One CIA analyst (whom we name for the first time in Hubris) was fiercely pushing the tube case. Yet practically every other top nuclear expert in the US government (including the centrifuge specialists at the Department of Energy) disagreed. This dispute was even mentioned in The Washington Post in September 2002. But neither Cheney nor Bush (nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rce) took an interest in this important argument. Instead, they kept insisting the tube purchases were proof Saddam was building a bomb. They were wrong. And the nuclear scientists at the Department of Energy (again, as our book notes) were ordered not to say anything publicly about the tubes. This is but one example of how the Bush White House rigged the case for war by selectively embracing (without reviewing) convenient pieces of iffy intelligence and then presenting them to the public as hard-and-fast proof. But Cheney is right--to a limited extent. The CIA did provide the White House with intelligence that was wrong (which the White House then used irresponsibly). The new Senate intelligence report, though, shows that this was not what happened regarding one crucial part of the Bush-Cheney argument for war: that al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots. Before the war, Bush said that Saddam "was dealing" with al Qaeda. He even charged that Saddam had "financed" al Qaeda. The Senate intelligence report notes clearly that the prewar intelligence on this critical issue said no such thing. The report quotes a CIA review of the prewar intelligence: "The data reveal few indications of an established relationship between al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime." The lead Defense Intelligence Analyst on this issue told the Senate intelligence committee that "there was no partnership between the two organizations." And post-invasion debriefings of former Iraqi regime officials indicated that Saddam had no interest in working with al Qaeda and had refused to meet with an al Qaeda emissary in 1998. The report also augments the section in our book on Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured al Qaeda commander who was taken by the CIA to Egypt where he was roughly--perhaps brutally--interrogated and claimed that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to al Qaeda. Though there were questions about al-Libi's veracity from the start, Secretary of State Colin Powell used al-Libi's claims in his famous UN speech to argue that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were partners in evil--that there was a "sinister nexus" between the two. Al-Libi later recanted, and the CIA withdrew all the intelligence based on his claims. In other words, the Bush administration had hyped flimsy intelligence to depict Saddam and bin Laden as WMD-sharing allies. The Senate intelligence report concluded that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support." What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, "had a relationship with al Qaeda." When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee "said that there was no relationship," Cheney interrupted and commented, "I haven't had a chance to read it." Perhaps he should before he talks about 9/11 and Iraq again. It's all in knowing how to read. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #46 September 11, 2006 It's all so much clearer without all those picky details! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #47 September 11, 2006 I haven't read it. Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #48 September 11, 2006 >Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? Nope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. Which makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #49 September 11, 2006 Quote>Does it mention anywhere that if the Clinton Admin. had killed or > captured OBL before 9/11 that we wouldn't be debating all this right > now? QuoteNope, nor does it mention that Nixon was a crook, or that Reagan armed the Mujahideen. Not suprising, since none of those points has anything to do with the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war. >I haven't read it. QuoteWhich makes you the perfect Speaker's Corner debater on it! Except I wasn't debating it, I was just asking a question. Is that OK with you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,182 #50 September 11, 2006 Quote Amazing, but not surprising how you fail to see, or simply ignore the reality of the importance of the US issues with Iran within the context of the History lesson he posted, which by the way begins in 1980. Right - obviously it should begin in 1953. However, not relevant to the administration's lies with respect to the 2003 invasion, now carefully documented by the Republican controlled Senate. Sometimes cynicism is warranted: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415792#415792 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415872#415872 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382511#382511 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,182 #50 September 11, 2006 Quote Amazing, but not surprising how you fail to see, or simply ignore the reality of the importance of the US issues with Iran within the context of the History lesson he posted, which by the way begins in 1980. Right - obviously it should begin in 1953. However, not relevant to the administration's lies with respect to the 2003 invasion, now carefully documented by the Republican controlled Senate. Sometimes cynicism is warranted: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415792#415792 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=415872#415872 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=382511#382511 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
