Author Topic: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq  (Read 17376 times)

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2007, 09:14:12 PM »
It may be true that a lot of dems would have voted for war anyway, but it doesn't change the fact that they are given an easy out explanation due to the falsified intelligence provided to them... Kind of hard to nail a guy for a flip flop when there is a valid reason for it.  The valid reason exists, watch the frontline report.  The drive to fix intelligence around the policy is the error here... Without it, we could all hold the politicians accountable for voting yes on a bullshit war.  So who was the enabler here...  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby... In this regard, you can draw political lines.  Neocons vs. Everybody else...

kh300

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4360
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2007, 09:49:37 PM »
i cant believe that frontline report,, if this was true bush and cheny would have been executed a long time ago.

sean hannity sucks. someone stuck that far in the right is just as bad as the bush haters on the left.. alan combs sucks too,, he's your typical nerd looking liberal

bill o'reilly and glenn beck are the only people i can watch



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2007, 12:16:42 AM »
What amazes me is that people are still making this a rep/dem issue.

I agree, but you've done it too Ozmo.  You've said Bush lied.  Most of the liberals say he lied.  But the fact is he relied on information and formed opinions right along with the rest of the world.  What these comments show is if you're being intellectually honest the start of the war was not a partisan issue.  That's what the numerous statements by Democrat leaders show (including statements made BEFORE Bush took office).  That's what the multiple, near unanimous resolutions supporting the war show.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2007, 09:18:16 AM »
I agree, but you've done it too Ozmo.  You've said Bush lied.  Most of the liberals say he lied.  But the fact is he relied on information and formed opinions right along with the rest of the world.  What these comments show is if you're being intellectually honest the start of the war was not a partisan issue.  That's what the numerous statements by Democrat leaders show (including statements made BEFORE Bush took office).  That's what the multiple, near unanimous resolutions supporting the war show.


I believe bush lied.  I believe it becuase of statements made by Rice and Powell prior to the invasion.  I believe the BUSH administration waged a PR campaign in the post histeria of 9/11 and made the WMD things much more than it was.  They sold it to everyone including the Dems on the threat and the dems voted for it. 

You are right it's not a partisan issue. 

But who pushed the war?  the BUSH administration. 
Who said Saddam was a threat worhty of going to war over?  The BUSH administration. 
Who made a case before the American public justifying or intent to go to war?  The bush admiistration.

If the American Public is in a friendzy over terrorist and the Bush administration had successfully waged a PR campaign whipping up support for the war..........  what choice does any politician have but to back it if they want to stay in office?  (understand these politicians were sold on the same intell the republicans were sold on)


Was Saddam more of a threat in 1996 or 2006?  Exactly what was saddam going ot do with WMD's even if he had them?  He wasn;t going to strike the US.  That would have been suicide. 

It's no different than N. Korea having nukes.  Even though they have them what are they going to do?  Nothing.  Anyhting they do will mean their country will become a McDonalds Parking lot.....(do you think they'll spam and eggs on the menu?  ;D)

Saddam was predictable to the extent he would have chose courses of action that kept him in power.  But by the time Bush started his campaign it was too late.  Saddma was an unfortunate target of an opportunistic Bushy Administration.


Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2007, 09:25:55 AM »
i cant believe that frontline report,, if this was true bush and cheny would have been executed a long time ago.

sean hannity sucks. someone stuck that far in the right is just as bad as the bush haters on the left.. alan combs sucks too,, he's your typical nerd looking liberal

bill o'reilly and glenn beck are the only people i can watch



That frontline report is not even close to the first to reveal this stuff.  Frontline very well known for it's meticulous investigations and attention to details.  You'll have an extremely hard time just writing off Frontline as some left wing spin. 

Glenn Beck... ahahahaha... At least we have a perspective on you.  That you like Glen Beck puts everything into context... ::)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2007, 09:28:52 AM »
The entire world believed Saddam was a threat.  Bush simply repeated what legislators and world leaders were saying for years, both before and after he took office, leading right up to the invasion.  Here is what Bill Clinton said before he left office about this threat:

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.  
 
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."  
 
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/  

Here is what Clinton said years after he left office about this threat:

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."  
 
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/  

There are a plethora of other similar comments by Republican and Democrat members of Congress, world leaders, and the UN.  This is what the world believed about Saddam.    

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2007, 09:32:53 AM »
I agree, but you've done it too Ozmo.  You've said Bush lied.  Most of the liberals say he lied.  But the fact is he relied on information and formed opinions right along with the rest of the world.  What these comments show is if you're being intellectually honest the start of the war was not a partisan issue.  That's what the numerous statements by Democrat leaders show (including statements made BEFORE Bush took office).  That's what the multiple, near unanimous resolutions supporting the war show.

That's not the facts, you're ignoring the facts.  You're going off statement made by Bush and spewed by Fox and company as truth... ::) How about you go by facts and not exuses calling them facts... Watch the frontline special... Then listen to all the testimony from our officials that suggest we fixed the intelligence around the policy, then look at the AUTHENTICATED DOWNING STREET MEMOS that prove we were intent on fixing the intelligence around the policy... The neocons have systematically attempted to discredit all these sources, but come on, at some point you have to look at the mountain of testimonies and documents and say, oh, shit.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2007, 09:39:43 AM »
That's not the facts, you're ignoring the facts.  You're going off statement made by Bush and spewed by Fox and company as truth... ::) How about you go by facts and not exuses calling them facts... Watch the frontline special... Then listen to all the testimony from our officials that suggest we fixed the intelligence around the policy, then look at the AUTHENTICATED DOWNING STREET MEMOS that prove we were intent on fixing the intelligence around the policy... The neocons have systematically attempted to discredit all these sources, but come on, at some point you have to look at the mountain of testimonies and documents and say, oh, shit.

I'm not ignoring the facts.  I'm repeating the facts.  "Facts" being the numerous statements made by Democrats before and after Bush took office.  Like these facts from 1998:

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983." 
 
Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

Bush had nothing to do with those comments. 

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2007, 09:44:07 AM »
The entire world believed Saddam was a threat.  Bush simply repeated what legislators and world leaders were saying for years, both before and after he took office, leading right up to the invasion.  Here is what Bill Clinton said before he left office about this threat:



Fuck Clinton... The bottom line is if this were true, if Saddam posed a valid threat, we wouldn't have needed to actively fix the intelligence to show him as a threat.  It is not good enough to say he may pose a serious thread sometime down the road so take him out now.  That kind of preemptive policy will start completely unnecessary wars around the world and that policy has a better chance of starting a nuclear war than any other policy.  If we have that policy, we can hardly complain when others adobt it.  The fact was that Saddam was not a threat.  Collin Powell and Condi Rice both noted this in 2001 before 9/11.

Feb. 24, 2001
, while meeting at Cairo's Ittihadiya Palace with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa.

Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."--Colin Powell

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him.
 His military forces have not been rebuilt."--
Condoleezza Rice
CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, July 29, 2001 

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2007, 09:49:01 AM »
I'm not ignoring the facts.  I'm repeating the facts.  "Facts" being the numerous statements made by Democrats before and after Bush took office.  Like these facts from 1998:

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983." 
 
Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

Bush had nothing to do with those comments. 

You're ignoring the fact that the intellegence was fixed around the policy.  What dems said does not green light this administration's lies.  And again, stop with the 1998 shit... we was dealt with him then, bombed his ass back to the stone age again.  According to Powell and Rice, he wasn't shit in 2001. ;) According to the CIA in 2001 he wasn't shit ;) That's a fact ;)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2007, 10:00:17 AM »
I see.  So he wasn't a threat in 1998, even though numerous Democrats said he was.  And he wasn't a threat after Bush took office, even though numerous Democrats said he was.  He wasn't a threat in 2002, when Gore made these comments:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. 
 
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." 
 
Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002 
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm 
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,797999,00.html 
 
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/24/1032734161501.html

I find these comments amazing.  I'll start another thread about the war resolutions.   :) 

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2007, 10:49:59 AM »
I see.  So he wasn't a threat in 1998, even though numerous Democrats said he was. 

You're obvioulsy not reading anything I say ::)  This is so not even close to what I said I don't know where to correct you. please read my posts again. slowly.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2007, 10:58:04 AM »
SO funny when people will blame CLinton 98 for Bush's continued inability to adjust when he learned the intel was bad.

It's like my friend tells me to check out a new nightclub.  I walk in the door and find out it's a gay bar.  I can blame him for that.  But if I stay, get drunk, and hook up with a tranny, that's my own damn fault.

Iraq is that tranny.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2007, 11:05:26 AM »
You're obvioulsy not reading anything I say ::)  This is so not even close to what I said I don't know where to correct you. please read my posts again. slowly.

O.K.  I read it again.  Slowly.  Except for the profanity, which I skimmed.   :)  You said "the intellegence was fixed around the policy.  What dems said does not green light this administration's lie . . . ."  How could the intelligence be fixed around the policy, when the intelligence said the same thing for over a decade, including before Bush took office and set his "policy"?  Doesn't make sense Berserker.  If the intelligence was being fixed around the policy and Bush was "lying" it would make more sense if everyone believed Saddam was NOT a threat before Bush took office.  Instead, you have an unbroken chain of comments from Republicans and Democrats uniformly saying Saddam was a threat.  Cannot logically separate what the world was saying about Saddam before and after Bush took office from Bush's "policy."     

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2007, 11:58:34 AM »
For the last time 240 and others, Bush didn't learn the intel was bad... Watch Frontline's The Dark Side, read the downing street memos.  look at the many officials that have come forward with confirmation of this... There is a mountain of information suggesting the admin fixed the intelligence.  There is Bush's word that he was fooled by bad intel ::)

Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html

The former CIA official, Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 and coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17601

As the downing street memos show, the Brits were aware the intelligence was being fixed around the policy and they had to get on board with that.  The result is seen in powell’s 19 page dossier presented to the UN… It turns out 11 pages of the dossier was plagiarized from a student paper with information obtained during the first gulf war
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/

In the months following the September 11th attacks, officials at the Czech Interior Ministry asserted that Atta made a trip to Prague on 8 April 2001 to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. This piece of information was passed on to the FBI as "unevaluated raw intelligence".[14] The Bush Administration frequently cited these allegations as evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Intelligence officials have concluded that such a meeting did not occur. (as is revealed in the frontline documentary, Libby told Clarke to get on board with this even though Clarke believed beyond any doubt that no such meeting took place.  Intelligence actually showed that he was in a different place when the meeting was said to have happend.  This meeting was one of the little intelligence items that came from the Rummy Pentagon made up intelligence agency.  This is the crap that shows they didn't learn of bad intelligence later, they fargin made the bad intellignece) In the Czech Republic, some intelligence officials say the source of the purported meeting was an Arab informant who approached the Czech intelligence service with his sighting of Atta only after Atta's photograph had appeared in newspapers all over the world. It is possible that the informant mistook another man for Atta, and the consensus of investigators has concluded that Atta never attended a meeting in Prague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta_al_Sayed

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2007, 12:06:27 PM »
O.K.  I read it again.  Slowly.  Except for the profanity, which I skimmed.   :)  You said "the intellegence was fixed around the policy.  What dems said does not green light this administration's lie . . . ."  How could the intelligence be fixed around the policy, when the intelligence said the same thing for over a decade, including before Bush took office and set his "policy"?  Doesn't make sense Berserker.  If the intelligence was being fixed around the policy and Bush was "lying" it would make more sense if everyone believed Saddam was NOT a threat before Bush took office.  Instead, you have an unbroken chain of comments from Republicans and Democrats uniformly saying Saddam was a threat.  Cannot logically separate what the world was saying about Saddam before and after Bush took office from Bush's "policy."     
gimme a break ::) I said f**k clinton once which is blocked and the only other things I said was friggin and fargin... Don't come at me like the post was filled with unreadable obscenities ::) Get off my balls, you act like an 1885 prairie school teacher who also serves as the town's sunday minister ::) I'm not even close to the worst profainer on getbig.  See my latest post before this post for your answer.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2007, 12:29:19 PM »
gimme a break ::) I said f**k clinton once which is blocked and the only other things I said was friggin and fargin... Don't come at me like the post was filled with unreadable obscenities ::) Get off my balls, you act like an 1885 prairie school teacher who also serves as the town's sunday minister ::) I'm not even close to the worst profainer on getbig.  See my latest post before this post for your answer.

"You're ignoring the fact that the intellegence was fixed around the policy.  What dems said does not green light this administration's lies.  And again, stop with the 1998 shit... we was dealt with him then, bombed his ass back to the stone age again.  According to Powell and Rice, he wasn't shit in 2001.  According to the CIA in 2001 he wasn't shit   That's a fact"

 :-\

Calm down dude.  Good grief.  You cuss in probably 90 percent of what I read on this board, which is the primary reason I have trouble reading much of what you post.  You sound like an angry man.  That isn't a criticism.  I know people like you.  I've learned to ignore it.  No need to get worked up over.  Don't start the diatribe stuff.   :)

And my kids call me a "goody two shoes."  I consider it a compliment.   :)   

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2007, 12:35:58 PM »
You're offended by ass and shit ::) Oh Brother ::) I missed that but should have known you would be sensitive to such extreme obscenity ::)

Beach is happy to be a goodie two shoes :-\


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2007, 12:55:53 PM »
You're offended by ass and shit ::) Oh Brother ::) I missed that but should have known you would be sensitive to such extreme obscenity ::)

Beach is happy to be a goodie two shoes :-\


I didn't say I was offended.  I'm not.  You're being just a little sensitive.  Anyone who is offended by profanity would have a difficult time surviving in our society.  What I've found is most people I encounter use it strategically.  Some use it ALL the time.  Some have difficulty communicating without using it.  I deal with all kinds.  But when I have the opportunity to ignore it, I do.  Not a big deal.

One of my former supervisors (back when I had a boss) used to cuss ALL the time.  I bought him a Lee Ermey action figure (the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket).  He LOVED it.  You should buy one.   :)  http://www.palleyd.com/sgtermey.html

And yes I am happy to be a "goodie two shoes."  I sleep well.   :) 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2007, 01:05:22 PM »
I love that show "mail call"


You guys were doing great with your debate.  I was learning a bunch but some how we've sunk to Ad-Homonin or w/e.

Can we get back on track?

 :)

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2007, 01:18:07 PM »
I love that show "mail call"


You guys were doing great with your debate.  I was learning a bunch but some how we've sunk to Ad-Homonin or w/e.

Can we get back on track?

 :)

For the last time 240 and others, Bush didn't learn the intel was bad... Watch Frontline's The Dark Side, read the downing street memos.  look at the many officials that have come forward with confirmation of this... There is a mountain of information suggesting the admin fixed the intelligence.  There is Bush's word that he was fooled by bad intel ::)

Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html

The former CIA official, Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 and coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17601

As the downing street memos show, the Brits were aware the intelligence was being fixed around the policy and they had to get on board with that.  The result is seen in powell’s 19 page dossier presented to the UN… It turns out 11 pages of the dossier was plagiarized from a student paper with information obtained during the first gulf war
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/

In the months following the September 11th attacks, officials at the Czech Interior Ministry asserted that Atta made a trip to Prague on 8 April 2001 to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. This piece of information was passed on to the FBI as "unevaluated raw intelligence".[14] The Bush Administration frequently cited these allegations as evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Intelligence officials have concluded that such a meeting did not occur. (as is revealed in the frontline documentary, Libby told Clarke to get on board with this even though Clarke believed beyond any doubt that no such meeting took place.  Intelligence actually showed that he was in a different place when the meeting was said to have happend.  This meeting was one of the little intelligence items that came from the Rummy Pentagon made up intelligence agency.  This is the crap that shows they didn't learn of bad intelligence later, they fargin made the bad intellignece) In the Czech Republic, some intelligence officials say the source of the purported meeting was an Arab informant who approached the Czech intelligence service with his sighting of Atta only after Atta's photograph had appeared in newspapers all over the world. It is possible that the informant mistook another man for Atta, and the consensus of investigators has concluded that Atta never attended a meeting in Prague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta_al_Sayed

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2007, 01:22:02 PM »
Beach, you mind???  There's hardly any shock and awe obscenity in this post... A response maybe?  ::)









For the last time 240 and others, Bush didn't learn the intel was bad... Watch Frontline's The Dark Side, read the downing street memos.  look at the many officials that have come forward with confirmation of this... There is a mountain of information suggesting the admin fixed the intelligence.  There is Bush's word that he was fooled by bad intel ::)

Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) ensured there was no serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html

The former CIA official, Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 and coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17601

As the downing street memos show, the Brits were aware the intelligence was being fixed around the policy and they had to get on board with that.  The result is seen in powell’s 19 page dossier presented to the UN… It turns out 11 pages of the dossier was plagiarized from a student paper with information obtained during the first gulf war
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/

In the months following the September 11th attacks, officials at the Czech Interior Ministry asserted that Atta made a trip to Prague on 8 April 2001 to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. This piece of information was passed on to the FBI as "unevaluated raw intelligence".[14] The Bush Administration frequently cited these allegations as evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Intelligence officials have concluded that such a meeting did not occur. (as is revealed in the frontline documentary, Libby told Clarke to get on board with this even though Clarke believed beyond any doubt that no such meeting took place.  Intelligence actually showed that he was in a different place when the meeting was said to have happend.  This meeting was one of the little intelligence items that came from the Rummy Pentagon made up intelligence agency.  This is the crap that shows they didn't learn of bad intelligence later, they fargin made the bad intellignece) In the Czech Republic, some intelligence officials say the source of the purported meeting was an Arab informant who approached the Czech intelligence service with his sighting of Atta only after Atta's photograph had appeared in newspapers all over the world. It is possible that the informant mistook another man for Atta, and the consensus of investigators has concluded that Atta never attended a meeting in Prague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta_al_Sayed

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2007, 01:24:06 PM »
Beach = teh pussy. HTH.

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2007, 01:26:03 PM »
I didn't say I was offended.  I'm not.  You're being just a little sensitive.  Anyone who is offended by profanity would have a difficult time surviving in our society.  What I've found is most people I encounter use it strategically.  Some use it ALL the time.  Some have difficulty communicating without using it.  I deal with all kinds.  But when I have the opportunity to ignore it, I do.  Not a big deal.

One of my former supervisors (back when I had a boss) used to cuss ALL the time.  I bought him a Lee Ermey action figure (the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket).  He LOVED it.  You should buy one.   :)  http://www.palleyd.com/sgtermey.html

And yes I am happy to be a "goodie two shoes."  I sleep well.   :) 

And BS... You have come across offended over and over and over...  You have stated in the past you won't read anything I write... If you're that hung up on words like ass and shit... Oh brother ::)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: What Democrats Said About The War In Iraq
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2007, 01:27:26 PM »
Beach, you mind???  There's hardly any shock and awe obscenity in this post... A response maybe?  ::)


What.  No cussing?  Now you went and confused me.  :)  I'll let Rep. Gephardt respond:

Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:  
 
BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:  
 
And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?  
 
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:  
 
I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.  
 
SCHIEFFER:  
 
Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?  
 
GEPHARDT:  
 
I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.    

Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml