ace, are you saying it is just a coincidence that Bush allowed himself to be humiliated in the video of him being asked, by Marth Raddatz on 9/15/06
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martha Raddatz 9-15-06
....Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?....
|
....when he was forced to admit that Saddam had no "relations with Zarqawi". made to look like a liar....and the fact that Bush has never made the claim again, a claim he had made again and again, for nearly 4 years?
If you're correct ace, what would your answer to Martha have been?
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
August 21, 2006
Q Quick follow-up. 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?
THE PRESIDENT: 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 would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. ....
|
(Read the quote in the box above again, ace, and then watch the video
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/ .....again...)
If the following answer was not a lie, ace...what was it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the President 09-15-06
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. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
|
Check it yourself, ace....search for a more recent instance
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ov&btnG=Search
....than 8/21/06, of Bush making the claim "Saddam.....who had relations with Zarqawi...."
Bush has never made the claim since....but you're still making it, and you posted an IBD editorial that made it:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IBD Editorial
2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.
|
I'm asking you to stop.....it's not a reasonable thing to do anymore. It's tantamount to posting that the WMD we all thought were there....were there..... Who do you see making that claim, who is interested in being taken seriously?
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/05/105281.htm
....QUESTION: Yes, Madame Secretary. Now it’s on. Okay, now it’s on. How can you lead a new international consensus on rebuilding Iraq when there are these new charges from Scott McClellan detailing that the Bush Administration misled the U.S. and the world into an unnecessary war in Iraq?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I’m not going to comment on a book that I haven’t read, but I will say that the concerns about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were the fundamental reason for tens – for dozens of resolutions within the Security Council from the time that Saddam Hussein was expelled from Kuwait in 1991 up until 2003. It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was hiding weapons of mass destruction that led him to throw inspectors out, effectively to so limit them that they left in 1998, leading the Clinton Administration to take military action against Iraq. It was not the United States alone that knew that Saddam Hussein had, of course, used weapons of mass destruction both against his own population and against Iranians. And it was not the United States alone that asked why Saddam Hussein would not answer the questions of weapons inspectors even under the threat of serious consequences after Resolution 1441 in 2002.
So the story is there for everyone to see. You can’t now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have known things that we, in fact, did not know in 2001, 2002, 2003. The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear. Now, if the world did not believe that at the time, then I would ask: Why was Iraq under some of the most severe sanctions that the international community has ever imposed? I think it is because the world knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat; he was a threat not just because of his appetite for weapons of mass destruction, but he was a threat also because he continued to flaunt the terms of the armistice which he had signed in 1991to end that war, he continued to threaten his neighbors, and of course, he didn’t just threaten but, in fact, tyrannized his own people, including 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves.
So the threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood. You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003. But I would really ask: Do people really believe that he was not a threat to the international community? And if you believe that he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of Oil-for-Food?.....
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
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.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."
|
Serial liars, ace....war criminals. I only had to post about 30 times, McClellan's Jan. 12, 2005 concession that the WMD "were not there", to stamp out assertions posted here that they WERE there.....I guess it's going to be the same way with your "Zarqawi had relations with Saddam" assertion. Sooner or later, ace....no WMD, no "relations" with Zarqawi, and no
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070502-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 2, 2007
President Bush Discusses War on Terror, Economy with Associated General Contractors of America
the President:.....For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11. I strongly believe it's in our national interest to stay in the fight. (Applause.).....
|
...and McClellan will be proven correct.....Bush led us into an "unneccesary war in Iraq"....how do we know? Because none of the principle reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, were true. How do we know they knew, beforehand? Because they set up PNAC's Doug Feith
to counter and to twist intelligence findings....to fix the facts around the policy, ace!