|
Banned
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006
President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom
.....Q Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.
Like you, I asked that very same question, where did we go wrong on intelligence. The truth of the matter is the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just my administration, it was the previous administration. It wasn't just the previous administration; you might remember, sir, there was a Security Council vote of 15 to nothing that said to Saddam Hussein, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. The basic premise was, you've got weapons. That's what we thought.
When he didn't disclose, and when he didn't disarm, and when he deceived inspectors, it sent a very disconcerting <b>message to me, whose job it is to protect the American people and to take threats before they fully materialize.</b> My view is, he was given the choice of whether or not he would face reprisal. It was his decision to make. And so he chose to not disclose, not disarm, as far as everybody was concerned. ......
|
Mr. Bush was talking about "take threats before they fully materialize"......and when the "Zarqawi was there" declaration is exposed as a lie what remans to justify the invasion of iraq aside from illegal aggressive war?
Quote:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/comjeffg.html
Preemptive War Criminals
by Jeff Gates
.......This war is being sold by the White House like so much breakfast cereal. The American public confronts a leadership of dubious legitimacy and doubtful competence who’ve announced their intent to use armed force in their pursuit of global corporatist goals. Treason may well be at work. As we’re between election cycles, the courts offer one of the few nonviolent means for opposing this lawless regime. What’s required is legitimate indictments issued by legitimate courts. As an American lawyer with experience abroad, I pray that our friends abroad quickly pursue war crime indictments of American political operatives who’ve assumed the reins of power in our country. The preservation of our democracy may well depend on that intervention.
President Bush implied just such a preemptive judicial strategy when, on February 25th, he warned Iraqi generals they should “clearly understand that if they take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held to account as war criminals.” He followed up on that strategy in mid-March by publishing a list of Iraqis who would be tried as war criminals. His words not only accurately reflect international law, they also confirm the grounds for his own indictment, and for the indictment of others in his cabinet who support this aggression. That well-settled legal point was clarified more than a half-century ago by Robert L. Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, speaking August 25, 1945:
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."
Former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Mr. Gates is author of The Ownership Solution and Democracy at Risk
|
Note how the Bush administration reacted to Sen. Levn's damning September 8, 2006 statement:
Quote:
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroo....cfm?id=262690
News from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 2006
Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Senate Floor Statement on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Phase II Report
Today the Senate Intelligence Committee is releasing two of the five parts of Phase II of the Committee’s inquiry into prewar intelligence. One of the two reports released today looks at what we have learned after the attack on Iraq about the accuracy of prewar intelligence regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qa’ida. The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al Qa’ida, the perpetrators of the 9-11 attack.
The President said just this week that “one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” That shouldn’t surprise anybody. The President’s decision to ignore Intelligence Community assessments prior to the Iraq war and to make repeated public statements that gave the misleading impression that Saddam Hussein’s regime was connected to the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 cost him any credibility he may have had on this issue.
President Bush said that Saddam and al Qa’ida were “allies” and that “[Y]ou can’t distinguish between al-Qa’ida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.” The bipartisan report released today directly contradicts that linkage which the President has consistently made in his effort to build public support for his Iraq policy.
The bipartisan Committee report finds that the prewar intelligence assessments were right when they said that Saddam and al Qa’ida were independent actors who were far from being natural partners. The report finds that prewar intelligence assessments were right when they expressed consistent doubts that a meeting occurred between 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague prior to September 11th; and the report finds that prewar intelligence assessments were right when they said that there was no credible reporting on al Qa’ida operatives being trained in Iraq. Those were the two principal arguments made by the Administration to support a linkage.
Those accurate prewar assessments didn’t stop the Administration from making many false and misleading statements trying to link Saddam Hussein and al Qa’ida.
In his February 5th presentation to the United Nations, Secretary Powell said that “Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associate in (sic) collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.”
After the war, in June 2004, the President said that al Zarqawi, the terrorist leader recently killed in Iraq, was “the best evidence” of a connection between Iraq and al Qa’ida.
And, to this day, these statements haven’t stopped. Just two weeks ago, the President said in a press conference that Saddam Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.” The Intelligence Committee’s report demonstrates that statement to be false. The Committee report discloses, for the first time, the CIA’s October 2005 assessment that Saddam’s regime “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.” The President’s statement, made just two weeks ago, is flat out false.
The drumbeat of misleading administration statements alleging Saddam’s links to al Qa’ida was unrelenting in the lead up to the Iraq war, which began in March 2003.
On September 25, 2002, the President said “Al-Qa'ida hides. Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qa'ida becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world...[Y]ou can't distinguish between al-Qa'ida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”
The next day, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al-Qa'ida leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of – weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
On October 14, 2002, the President said “This is a man [Saddam] that we know has had connection with al-Qa'ida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qa'ida as a forward army."
On January 30, 2003, Vice President Cheney said, "His [Saddam] regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us. And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have ever known."
On February 6, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "And, worst of all, his connections with terrorists, which go back decades, and which started some 10 years ago with al-Qa'ida, are growing every day."
What the President and other Administration officials did not say was what the Intelligence Community was saying about this crucial issue because it would have undermined their march to war and refuted their main argument for attacking Iraq – that Iraq was linked to the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11.
In June 2002, the CIA said that "our assessment of al-Qa'ida's ties to Iraq rests on a body of fragmented, conflicting reporting from sources of varying reliability." That same report said that “the ties between Saddam and bin Ladin appear much like those between rival intelligence services.” And the Defense Intelligence Agency stated in a July 2002 assessment that "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and al-Qa'ida has not been established.”
These two then-classified assessments preceded the President’s statements that “you can’t distinguish between Iraq and al Qa’ida” and that in his view Saddam would like to use al Qa’ida as “a forward army.”
CIA assessed in January 2003 that “Saddam Husayn and Usama bin Ladin are far from being natural partners” and that Saddam has “viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat.” The CIA also assessed in January 2003 that Saddam viewed al Qa’ida with “deep suspicion” and stated that “the relationship between Saddam and bin Ladin appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other.” This January 2003 classified report was issued just one day before the Vice President stated to the American public that Saddam’s regime “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.”
The misleading statements by administration officials did not stop there. The Intelligence Committee’s report recounts the story of the alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. In the fall of 2001, the Czech intelligence service provided the CIA with reporting based on a single source who stated that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001.......
.....The intelligence assessments contained in the Intelligence Committee’s unclassified report are an indictment of the Administration’s unrelenting and misleading attempts to link Saddam Hussein to 9-11. But portions of the report which Intelligence Community leaders have determined to keep from public view provide some of the most damaging evidence of this Administration’s falsehoods and distortions.
Among what remains classified, and therefore covered up, includes deeply disturbing information. Much of the information redacted from the public report does not jeopardize any intelligence sources or methods but serves effectively to cover up certain highly offensive activities. Even the partially released picture is plenty bleak about the Administration’s use of falsehoods and distortions to build public support for the war. But the public is entitled to the full picture. Unless this report is further declassified, they won’t. While the battle is waged to declassify those covered up portions of the report – unless those portions truly disclose intelligence sources and methods – every Senator should read the classified version of this report.
In addition to trying to create the impression that Iraq was connected to the 9-11 attackers, the administration also claimed that Iraq had provide al Qa’ida with training in poisons and gasses.
For instance, in a speech in October 2002, the President said "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qa'ida members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases."
In February 2003, the President said "Iraq has also provided al-Qa'ida with chemical and biological weapons training."
And in March 2003, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said there was “a very strong link to training al-Qa'ida in chemical and biological weapons techniques, we know from a detainee that – the head of training for al-Qaida, that they sought help in developing chemical and biological weapons because they weren't doing very well on their own. They sought it in Iraq. They received the help."
Those statements were based on statements from Ibn al Shaykh al-Libi, a detained senior al-Qa’ida operative. The Administration hid the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency didn’t believe al-Libi’s statements. In February 2002, a year before the President claimed that Iraq “provided al-Qa'ida with chemical and biological weapons training,” DIA assessed that al-Libi “is more likely... intentionally misleading the debriefers.”
Nor did the administration disclose a second DIA assessment of February 2002, that said “Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Ladin any useful CB knowledge or assistance” or DIA’s April 2002 assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training “anywhere” in Iraq.
The Administration statements also flew in the face of the CIA’s January 2003 assessment that al-Libi was not in position to know whether training had taken place.
So here’s what we’ve got.
<h3>The President says Saddam had a relationship with Zarqawi.</h3> The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA concluded in 2005 that “the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”
<h3>The President said Saddam and al Qa’ida were “allies.”</h3> The Intelligence Committee found that prewar intelligence shows that Saddam Hussein“viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime.” Indeed, the Committee found that postwar intelligence showed that he “refused all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support.”
The Vice President called the claim that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence officer “credible” and “pretty much confirmed.” The Intelligence Committee found the intelligence shows that “no such meeting occurred.”
<h3>The President said that Iraq provided training in poisons and gasses to al Qa’ida.</h3> The Intelligence Committee found that postwar intelligence supported the prewar intelligence assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at “anywhere” in Iraq and that the terrorist who made the claim of training was “likely intentionally misleading his debriefers” when he said Iraq had provided poisons and gasses training.
But the Administration’s efforts to create the false impression that Iraq and al Qa’ida were linked didn’t stop with just statements. One of the most significant disclosures in the Intelligence Committee’s report is the account of <h3>the Administration’s successful efforts to obtain the support of CIA Director George Tenet to help them make that false case.</h3>
These events were of major significance – going to the heart of the Administration’s case for war on the eve of a congressional vote on whether to authorize that war.
On October 7, 2002, at a speech in Cincinnati, the President represented that linkage existed between Saddam and terrorist groups. He said that “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorist.”
But that very day, October 7, 2002, <h3>in a letter to the Intelligence Committee the CIA declassified,</h3> at the request of the Committee, the CIA assessment that it would be an “extreme step” for Saddam Hussein to assist Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons of mass destruction attack against the United States and that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction, if he did not feel threatened by an attack, was “low.”
When made public, the CIA assessment would undercut the President’s case. Something had to be done. So, on October 8, 2002, the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, issued a statement that “There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in his speech.” The Tenet statement was aimed at damage control and undercut the CIA’s own crucial assessment at a critical time. The New York Times quoted Tenet prominently in a major story on October 9th.
<h3>We called Tenet before the Intelligence Committee on July 26, 2006.
In his testimony, quoted in the Intelligence Committee’s report, Mr. Tenet admitted that perhaps there was an inconsistency between the President's statement and the CIA's assessment.</h3>
Mr. Tenet said that he issued his statement denying an inconsistency after policymakers expressed concern about the CIA’s assessment as expressed in the declassified October 7th letter again, that it would be an extreme step for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack.<h3> Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to “say something about not being inconsistent with what the President had said.” Tenet complied.</h3>
Tenet acknowledged to the Committee in his July 26, 2006, testimony that issuing the statement was the “wrong thing to do.” Well, it was much more than that. It was a shocking abdication of a CIA Director’s duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policies. Director Tenet issued that statement at the behest of the Administration on the eve of the Congress’s debate on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The use of the Director of Central Intelligence by the Administration to contradict his own Agency’s assessment in order to support a policy goal of the Administration was reprehensible and seriously damaged the credibility of the CIA.
|
The following is a compilaton of their reaction to Levin and the senate committee report. it is more or less in chronological order. i detailed more of it in the OP of this thread......
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html
Transcript: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 'FOX News Sunday'
Sunday, September 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — The following is a partial transcript of the Sept. 10, 2006, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":
.....WALLACE: I don't have to tell you that one of the criticisms of the Bush administration — we heard it again today from Sen. Jay Rockefeller — is that all of you manipulated intelligence to push the country into war.
I want to discuss just one area, the issue of whether Iraq helped Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.
Here's what the president said in October of 2002.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: And in March 2003, just before the invasion, you said, talking about Iraq, "and a very strong link to training Al Qaeda in chemical and biological techniques."
But, Secretary Rice, a Senate committee has just revealed that in February of 2002, months before the president spoke, more than a year, 13 months, before you spoke, that the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded this — and let's put it up on the screen.
"Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB" — that's chemical or biological — "knowledge or assistance."
Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?
RICE: What the president and I and other administration officials relied on — and you simply rely on the central intelligence. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, gave that very testimony, that, in fact, there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back for a decade. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission talked about contacts between the two.
We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq. We know that Zarqawi ordered the killing of an American diplomat in Jordan from Iraq. There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Now, are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course we're going to learn more. But clearly ...
WALLACE: But, Secretary Rice, this report, if I may, this report wasn't now. This isn't after the fact. This was a Defense Intelligence Agency report in 2002.
Two questions: First of all, did you know about that report before you made your statement?
RICE: Chris, we relied on the reports of the National Intelligence Office, the NIO, and of the DCI. That's what the president and his central decision-makers rely on. There are ...
WALLACE: Did you know about this report?
RICE: ... intelligence reports and conflicting intelligence reports all the time. That's why we have an intelligence system that brings those together into a unified assessment by the intelligence community of what we're looking at.
That particular report I don't remember seeing. But there are often conflicting intelligence reports.
I just want to refer you, though, to the testimony of the DCI at the time about the activities. ...
WALLACE: That's the head of central intelligence.
RICE: Yes, head of central intelligence — that were going on between Al Qaeda and between Iraq.
But let me make a broader point. The notion, somehow — and I've heard this — the notion, somehow, that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power seems to me quite ludicrous.
Saddam Hussein had gone to war against his neighbors twice, causing more than a million deaths. He had dragged us into a war in 1991 because he invaded his neighbor Kuwait. We were still at war with him in 1998 when we used American forces to try and disable his weapons of mass destruction. We went to war again with him, day in and day out, as he shot at our aircraft trying to patrol no-fly zones. This was a mass murderer of more than 300,000 of his own people, using weapons of mass destruction.
The United States and a coalition of allies finally brought down one of the most brutal dictators in the Middle East and one of the most dangerous dictators in the Middle East, and we're better off for it.
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2006
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q There was a link --
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.
Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?
MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.
Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.
MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff; there's no evidence of that. ....
|
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/
Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements
During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.” Watch it:
In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030306-8.html
BUSH: [Zarqawi’s] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]
Transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. <b>I never said there was an operational relationship.</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091806.shtml
.....Raddatz asked Bush why he keeps alleging a tie between Saddam and al Qaeda. In response, Bush cited Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq, and said that Saddam had “harbored terrorists.” The Senate report had said that Saddam had actually been trying to capture Zarqawi. But so what? Bush’s response to Raddatz was simple. He seemed to restate the debunked facts once again!
In that answer, Bush shows himself as a weak and embarrassing public dissembler. <h3>But note what happened next. There was no follow-up from Raddatz. Nor was there any follow-up from any subsequent questioner.</h3> If your name is George W. Bush, you can say anything you want to this press corps. They will utter no protest.
What was the obvious follow-up question? Let’s try this:
OBVIOUS FOLLOW-UP: But Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence report specifically said that Zarqawi was in Iraq without Saddam’s permission. Indeed, the report said that Saddam was trying to capture Zarqawi during this period. Let me ask you again. Given that report, do you still allege that Saddam was harboring Zarqawi, or was in league with Zarqawi? Why do you keep saying this in the face of the Senate report?
There’s no real point in asking a question if a fake answer won’t be challenged. But Raddatz said nothing; no one else said a word; and no reporters have bothered reporting Bush’s apparently disingenuous answer. So let’s add Bush’s name to the list! In the wake of the Senate report, Cheney, Rice and Bond all went out and re-asserted or implied the debunked facts about Saddam, al Qaeda and Zarqawi. At his press conference, Bush made it four—and the press corps, to whom he can say any damn thing, just sat there and took it again.
WHAT BUSH SAID: Here’s the August statement to which Raddatz referred. Bush responds to a question by Ken Herman at his August 21 press conference:
HERMAN (8/21/06): A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
BUSH: I square it because—imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
As of August 21, Bush was still flatly asserting that Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi.” Raddatz asked him why he said it—and Bush engaged in standard blather. This has gone on, for year after year, because the press corps sits there and takes it—as they did last Friday, when Bush dissembled in their faces without challenge again.
|
....and Cheney was "at it" again a month later:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006
Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola
........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......
|
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/21/...-report-video/
....<p>Transcript:</p>
<p>Fact 1: Saddam Hussein “attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-<b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b>” and Hussein’s “regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b>.” [<a href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf">Page 109</a>]</p>
<blockquote><p>MR. <b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">SNOW</b>: Well, and there was a relationship — there was a relationship in this sense: <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b> was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. [<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060912-2.html">9/12/06</a>]</p>
<p>RICE: So he was a state sponsor of terror. He had terrorists operating in his country, including <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b>, who had a poisons network in the country. [<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_091006.pdf">9/10/06</a>]</p>
<p><b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">SNOW</b>: What we have been unable to demonstrate or discover is whether they’re sitting around in the map room, spreading out the map, saying, okay, you bomb there. We just don’t have that kind of granularity in terms of the relationship, and therefore, we’re not going to go — we’re going to — not going to out-run the facts. [<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060913-3.html">9/13/06</a>]</p>
<p>CHENEY: You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b> in Baghdad, etc. Then the third…<br />
RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact…<br />
CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. [<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/3/">9/10/06</a>]</p></blockquote>
<p>Fact 2: “The [Iraqi Intelligence Service] … actively attempted to locate and capture al-<b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b> without success.” [<a href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf">Page 109</a>]</p>
<blockquote><p>BLITZER: But <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b> and Saddam Hussein were in a battle.<br />
RICE: I don’t think - well, first of all, let’s take with a grain of salt the notion that somehow <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b> and Saddam were in some kind of pitched battle.<br />
BLITZER: That’s what the report concludes.<br />
RICE: No, what the report concludes is that some have testified that Saddam Hussein did not trust <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Zarqawi</b> and that he was trying to find him. [<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/10/le.01.html">9/10/06</a>]</p></blockquote>
<p>Fact 3: Postwar findings, the report concluded, “confirm that no such meeting occurred” between 9/11 hijacker and Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.” [<a href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf">Page 110</a>]</p>
<blockquote><p>RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?<br />
CHENEY: We don’t know. [<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/3/">9/10/06</a>]</p></blockquote>
<p>Fact 4: Saddam Hussein “was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to this regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.” [<a href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf">Page 105</a>]</p>
<blockquote><p>RICE: And we know that in testimony of the director of central intelligence at the time and as a matter of fact even in the 9-11 report that contacts between Al Qaida and Iraq had been going on, going back for more than a decade. So was Iraq involved with terror? Absolutely, Iraq was involved with terror. [<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/10/le.01.html">9/10/06</a>]</p>
<p>RICE: There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaida. [<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html">9/10/06</a>]</p>
<p>CHENEY: There’s a separate–apart from that’s the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet’s testimony before the Senate Intel Commission, an open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al-Qaeda. [<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/3/">9/10/06</a>]</p></blockquote>
</div>
|
thank you for your responses..... look for more lies on the sunday talk shows......
considering that this scam has been tolerated by the press nearly unchallengeed compared to the aggrssve challenges that it should be countered with..... why does anyone thInk that the press is "liberal" and why does ANYONE eNLIST IN THE MILITARY AND WHY IS LT. wATADA ALL ALONE IN HIS REFUSAL TO GO TO IRAQ? WHERE ARE HIS FELLOW oFFICERS?
Last edited by host; 04-08-2007 at 04:10 AM..
|