They're Still Doing it.....Still Lying while US Troops are Dying in Iraq for??? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 04-06-2007, 11:42 PM

Can the president and his VP tell lies for nearly 5 years, to jusitfy the invasion and continued sacrifices of US troops in Iraq, and <b>continue to tell these lies</b>, and simply get away with it? Why? How do you tolerate that? I know what I know, and I'm having trouble just accepting it....aren't you?

How do you "support the troops", if you accept or minimize the consequences of allowing them to be commanded by this president, and sent on a "mission" defined and justified by lies? I've tried to counter the extreme nature of their lies, with an abundance of evidence to support the idea that they have/are telling lies about Iraq's official complicity with al Qaeda.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

I am reacting to Cheney's new lies as if they were the first ones. I think that it is important to identify them and object to them. each and every time that they happen. Our troops are continuing to die because of these liars and their lies.......

In the lower part of this post, I've provided more than ample support for the premise that only an incompetent or a liar would link al Zarqawi to Saddam, this way, with what was known eight months ago:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......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 -- <h3>who had relations with Zarqawi.</h3>
(Watch him deliver the "Zarqawi" lie in a 2 minute video, here:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bus...-08-21-062.wmv )

Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. .......

3 weeks later, last September, when some of the the determinations about Iraq of the Senate intel. committee were finally released, Mr. Cheney spoke to Tim Russert and said the opposite of what the Senate intel. report and the CIA had concluded. Cheney did the same thing this week, on April 5.....telling the same long disproved falsehoods that he told last September, and many times before that:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970427/
Saddam’s pre-war ties to al-Qaeda discounted
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Updated: 10:56 a.m. ET April 6, 2007

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040601116.html

Cheney Sticks to His Delusions

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, April 6, 2007; 1:20 PM

Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even President Bush has backed off his earlier inflammatory assertions about links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

But Vice President Cheney yesterday, in an interview with right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, continued to stick to

his delusional guns. click to show

Cheney told Limbaugh that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading al-Qaeda operations in Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

"[A]fter we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney said. "And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq." (Think Progress has the audio clip.)

But Cheney's narrative is wrong from beginning to end. For instance, Zarqawi was not an al-Qaeda member until after the war. Rather, intelligence sources now agree, he was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents. And although he worked hard to inflame sectarian violence after the invasion, he certainly didn't start it.

As it happens, just in case anyone needed more evidence of the spuriousness of Cheney's views, yesterday also marked the release of yet another report confirming that that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government were not working together before the invasion.

The report also further documents how Cheney willfully ignored reliable intelligence in favor of broadcasting invented assertions emerging from a rogue Defense Department office -- a habit he apparently has yet to break.

The Latest Report

R. Jeffrey Smith writes in The Washington Post: "Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides 'all confirmed' that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

"The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."

According to the report, "a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

"The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was 'mature' and 'symbiotic,' marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics."

Those conclusions, running so contrary to traditional intelligence findings, were "leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war" and then "were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic." <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/06/BL2007040601116_2.html">page 2</a>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
April 5, 2007

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- <b>just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene,</b> and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ......

That was Cheney, this week, and this was Bush, himself, in 2002 and 2003:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address

......... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ........

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"

.......One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London. The danger Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world.

This is the situation as we find it. Twelve years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime; he has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance; he is throwing that chance away. ......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01

...... Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."

Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." .......

....and Bush again, here:

Quote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html -

Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html
June 22, 2004

......What Bush and Cheney Said

Less open to interpretation is what Bush and Cheney said in the past. They both described a strong, dangerous connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

In his State of the Union address shortly before the war began, Bush said "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda," and suggested that Saddam might provide terrorists with nuclear or biological weapons:

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

And earlier, Cheney described Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists" and "the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States." Cheney spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, <b>now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . .

So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States</b>, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home........

My "evidence" that these statements are false:

From my Sept. 12, 2006 post:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...24&postcount=3
We offer here, mostly what Bozell branded as, reporting of the "Liberal Media".
With a member of our family in the military, and now about to be deployed to the M.E., we wanted to know who to believe.

The "news" is, that it is not Mr. Cheney:
On sunday, he was saying this, during a prominent news program, telecast:
(From my last post, at the bottom)

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is 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 committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......

........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......

.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......

<b>Cheney was saying it, even though this was reported, just two days before:</b>

Quote:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2410591
By JIM ABRAMS, AP Writer Fri Sep 8, 12:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts
President Bush's justification for going to war.....

.....It discloses for the first time an October 2005
CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."......

<b>The rest of this post consists of 17 news article excerpts that refute Mr. Cheney's assertions to Tim Russert last September, and to Rush Limbaugh, this week....</b>

Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63
Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64
Posted June 26, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=22
Posted Sept. 9, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...93&postcount=7
Posted Sept. 15, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=47
.....and this article:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/po...tel.ready.html
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.’’

click to read the rest... click to show

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place...

Ch'i · 04-07-2007, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Can the president and his VP tell lies for nearly 5 years, to jusitfy the invasion and continued sacrifices of US troops in Iraq, and continue to tell these lies, and simply get away with it? Why? How do you tolerate that? I know what I know, and I'm having trouble just accepting it....aren't you?

I'm afraid I have to answer your question with a question. How do you teach our fellow citizens how they should be reacting to the situation without engaging in some form of codependence? The evidence is there, lying plainly for everyone to see. Yes, we could do all we are able to enlighten the populous of the situation. Yet, if they cannot see what is happening, evaluate it, and take action, what is there to stop something similar from happenening again?

Astrocloud · 04-07-2007, 02:03 PM

"Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth." -Goebbels

Keep in mind who he is lying to. Normal people who are paying attention really have stopped believing them. Cheney went on the Rush Limbaugh show and repeated this lie. So basically he is lying to people who don't mind if he lies to them.

This is in fact a plea for the die hard republican stalwarts to take up this lie and repeat it as if it were fact. If you get enough liars to say the same thing then somehow it is supposed to sway public opinion. It worked for Goebbels, but then again he had a wildly popular fuhrer.

Elphaba · 04-07-2007, 03:13 PM

Cheney continued to insist on the Iraq/al'Q connection during the same week that the investigation into the use of intelligence following 9/11 was declassified.

Link

Quote:

Pentagon Officer Created Phony Intel on Iraq/al-Qaeda Link
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 06 April 2007

Newly released documents confirm that a Pentagon unit knowingly cooked up intelligence claiming a direct link between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to win support for a preemptive strike against the country.

A report prepared by the Defense Department's Inspector General for Carl Levin, the Democratic Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, explicitly shows how former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith used his Defense Department position to cook intelligence claiming a connection between the terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein's regime.

The Inspector General's report, "Review of the Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy," focuses specifically on Feith's intelligence gathering operations in the months prior to the March 2003 invasion. An executive summary of the report was declassified in February. The full report was declassified and released Thursday at Levin's request.

"It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon's inspector general concluded that Secretary Feith's office 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,' which included 'conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community,' and why the Inspector General concluded that these actions were 'inappropriate,'" Levin said. "Until today, those details were classified and outside the public's view."

For those who may be unfamiliar with Douglas Feith, he is a major player with the neocons and supporter of PNAC. Cheney was crazy like a fox to continue his Iraq/al'Q soundbite because that appears to be the attention span of a large number of Americans.

'Inappropriate' is when I let slip a swear word in from of my granddaughter. I would think creating false intelligence to build support for a preemptive war to be far more serious. I wonder what consequences will follow; a five-minute timeout, perhaps?

dksuddeth · 04-07-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

"Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth." -Goebbels

Keep in mind who he is lying to. Normal people who are paying attention really have stopped believing them. Cheney went on the Rush Limbaugh show and repeated this lie. So basically he is lying to people who don't mind if he lies to them.

This is in fact a plea for the die hard republican stalwarts to take up this lie and repeat it as if it were fact. If you get enough liars to say the same thing then somehow it is supposed to sway public opinion. It worked for Goebbels, but then again he had a wildly popular fuhrer.

This is not entirely accurate. While there are a few die hards who stalwartly believe the statements from the administration, there are a whole lot more people who don't even bother to vote, not listening anyway. The problem isn't the faithful democrats or republicans who are voters, the fault lies with the majority who can't even tear themselves away from american idol long enough to pay attention to issues and/or vote.

ratbastid · 04-07-2007, 03:59 PM

What really surprises me is the degree to which Cheney seems to be out of step with the rest of the administration. He's parroting six-month-old talking points, and has been for at least that long. He's repeating things that Bush contradicted earlier that week, and this isn't the first instance of that by a long shot.

It's odd because if Cheney really has been that distanced from the heart of the administration--enough so that he's operating in a talking-point vacuum--then why doesn't the administration bring him to heel and stop him going on talk shows blabbing nonsense?

Unless it's really true that the administration is finally collapsing in on itself. Could they just have given up the PR game? This administration?

The_Jazz · 04-07-2007, 04:10 PM

Personally, I think that this administration is actually more accomplished at some things than any other previous one - and I mean that as a compliment. In this instance, I think that they're absolute masters of misdirection. By that, I mean that they use certain people and/or statements to pull attention away from what they're really trying to accomplish. Cheney in the last few months has been one of those "red herrings", at least in my opinion. Powell was during the first term, although he may not have been a willing participant. Personally, I think the Pelosi trip to Syria was just another example. While Pelosi herself may not have been the vehicle that transported the administration's message, there were no doubt "fellow travelers" who are at least trying to bridge some of the gaps.

Elphaba · 04-07-2007, 04:59 PM

I agree with you, Jazz. You can almost see the scripting for the current misdirection assignments. And we can always count on our commercial press to perpetuate the lies. Check out this headline:

Link

Quote:

Cheney: Al Qaeda was in Iraq before war

Associated Press
Published April 7, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

That is the only article from our msp that I have found so far. Truthout was the source of my first link that emphasized the declassified Pentagon report. It seems clear to me that we must go to the foreign and alternative press sources to counter the misdirection by this administration.

host · 04-07-2007, 10:39 PM

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://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/

...Cheney’s statement is a lie. Here’s precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee found: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

<i>Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.</i> [p. 109]....

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?

Deltona Couple · 04-09-2007, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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?

Maybe his fellow officers don't agree with him? I have spent time serving in the military, and I have some good friends that are still serving. Some in Iraq, and some stateside. Some of them don't agree with the SPECIFIC reason cited in the current administration, but do feel that this allows them to do some good things in a country that can use some help. I don't always agree with everything said in the current administration myself, but would sign back up in a second if given the oportunity. Not everything that is going on over there is bad, there is some good in what is being done. remember that even though the leaders of our country make the initial orders, doesn't mean that those IN country can't use us being there to help those in need. Many Iraqi people get much needed help in getting better farming equipment, helping to develop good irrigation practices, and help in drilling new wells for fresh, clean water. They are recieving medical attention that they wouldn't have had under the prior controling body.

Should we work on an exit strategy? Possibly. Depending on what is going on with Iraq being able to control their own country against the insurgents who want to take over. They need help ....It's not exactly peaches and cream over there!

Seaver · 04-09-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

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?

The military is HIGHLY conservative. In '04 they voted something like 87% Republican.

People still enlist, or try to as I had just a few months ago (back problems), because they probably feel like I did the desire to serve our country in need.

As for the coward? In my opinion he joined with the expressed desire to become a posterboy for the left. Considering his father's Vietnam experience (of draft dodging), considering he comes from a very liberal area, and considering he joined AFTER the war started... in my opinion he had it planned out long in advance.

aceventura3 · 04-09-2007, 11:09 AM

Host,

I think the problem lies (pardon the pun) in the fact that "relations", "ties", "connections", "links", etc. are all vague terms that are subjective. Given those terms I can present a pro and a con case on the question of lies very easily. It is clear that both Sadaam and Al Qeada had a common hatred for the US and at the very least they are like kindred spirits or soon to be along with their virgins in heaven or hell.

host · 04-09-2007, 11:10 AM

No, ace...."the problem" clearly is that the lies are neccessary, because when they are all stripped out....exposed as lies...and I've tried mightily, here, to limit my presentation to examining and debunking just one of the major lies....I've avoided the WMD lie, and the "Atta was in Prague" lie, and the "Saddam was an imminent threat...we have to stop him before we see mushroom clouds, etc....", because, wihout the lies, all that remains as justification is pre-emptive war, which is war of aggression, which is a war crime...along with all of the associated destruction that it results in.

THEY OWN IT, ace....and if they were comfortable it was not a war crime to invade and to occupy Iraq, they would not cling so stubbornly to such obvious lies, as "al Zarqawi was in Baghdad, he received medical treatment, he ran a "poison camp" in Iraq.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The military is HIGHLY conservative. In '04 they voted something like 87% Republican.

People still enlist, or try to as I had just a few months ago (back problems), because they probably feel like I did the desire to serve our country in need.

As for the coward? In my opinion he joined with the expressed desire to become a posterboy for the left. Considering his father's Vietnam experience (of draft dodging), considering he comes from a very liberal area, and considering he joined AFTER the war started... in my opinion he had it planned out long in advance.

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...884409,00.html
Bush: new al-Qaida link to Iraq

US to rally support by releasing secret files

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday January 29, 2003

.....Mr Bush said America's course did not depend on the decisions of others: "Whatever action is required , whatever action is necessary. It will defend the freedom and security of the American people."

Mr Bush revealed that the US had fresh evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida, as Washington prepared to release its secret files on Saddam Hussein in a bid to gain global support for a war.

"This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other congresses, other presidents and other generations," Mr Bush said, in an emotive appeal to American patriotism. "We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage."

President Bush announced the creation of an office under the CIA director, George Tenet, that would analyse foreign and domestic intelligence, dissolving the formal barrier that had until now separated the work of the CIA and the FBI. Both agencies have been criticised in the wake of September 11 for failing to share information.

He argued that this new doctrine and the US's consequent intervention around the world, did not represent a new form of imperialism. "America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers."

Mr Bush did not go into detail about the allegation of a connection between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden but, according the White House, it was built largely on the questioning of al-Qaida detainees.

Mr Powell, is expected to reveal further intelligence on the link at a climactic meeting of the security council......

Also from Jan. 2003...just days before Powell's UN presentation:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/30/in...st/30QAED.html
U.S. Focuses on Iraqi Links to Group Allied to Al Qaeda
By DAVID JOHNSTON and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — After months of scouring for hard evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the Bush administration is focusing on possible links between Saddam Hussein and Islamic extremists who may have produced poisons in northern Iraq and a Qaeda terrorist leader who spent time in Baghdad last year.

Those suspected ties are at the heart of the administration's latest attempt to demonstrate an Iraqi-Qaeda connection as it tries to persuade the American public and the world that Mr. Hussein's government must be ousted. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is expected to present the evidence of the connection to the United Nations Security Council next Wednesday.

Administration officials, relying on largely dated and previously disclosed information, have said they believe there may be a link between Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic extremist group operating in a remote section of northern Iraq, and the Baghdad government. The organization has been fighting Kurdish groups that oppose the Iraqi regime.

Members of the group, once led by Mullah Krekar, were trained in Qaeda camps in Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, and American officials believe the organization can be described as affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Some administration officials have described Mullah Krekar as a link between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda. Mullah Krekar, who was detained by Dutch officials last year, has dismissed the assertions as lies.

The Bush administration's most compelling evidence may center on possible ties between Baghdad and terrorist figures like Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a leading Qaeda chemical weapons expert. Mr. Zarqawi has come under increased scrutiny in recent months by British and American intelligence officials.

British investigators are said to be trying to determine whether Mr. Zarqawi had any connection to the deadly poison ricin that was found in a London apartment on Jan. 5.

Mr. Powell, in interviews with European television reporters, repeated President Bush's contention that the United States has information showing links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But Mr. Powell said the administration had no evidence of a link with the Sept. 11 attacks — though he would not rule out that there was such a connection.

Recently, there have been possible signs of links between Ansar al-Islam and attempts by extremists in Europe to use poisons in terrorist attacks. Officials said the United States has received reports that Ansar al-Islam may have tried to produce poisons in its sanctuary in northern Iraq.

There has been a long-running debate within the intelligence community about group's links to the Iraqi government, and officials said there is still no consensus. Some intelligence officials say that they believe the Iraqi government has tolerated the existence of the extremist group, which has fought Mr. Hussein's opponents, the ethnic Kurds, in northern Iraq.

American analysts also suspect that the Iraqi government may have provided some support for Ansar al-Islam over the years. <b>But officials say there is no agreement over whether the Baghdad regime controls the group or whether it uses it as a channel to Al Qaeda.

Most of the evidence is ambiguous, like the information in the case of the Mr. Zarqawi, a Jordanian who received medical treatment in Baghdad last year after he lost a leg fighting in Afghanistan.</b>

American officials said they believe the Iraqi government found out Mr. Zarqawi was in their country. Jordanian officials told the Iraqis that they knew that the Qaeda leader was in a Baghdad hospital and asked that he be turned over to them. Mr. Zarqawi left Baghdad and disappeared. American officials say they do not know his whereabouts but believe he has played a role in several recent terrorist strikes in the

Middle East and Europe. click to show

American intelligence officials said they were not aware of any new information from Qaeda operatives in custody. The officials said that that the most compelling information from detainees concerning Iraq came early last year, when one or more Qaeda operatives in custody talked about a possible effort by Iraq to train Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons.

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...885115,00.html
Al-Qaida and Iraq: how strong is the evidence?

Sources say case pushed by Bush and Blair linking Saddam and Bin Laden is not based on hard facts

Julian Borger in Washington, Richard Norton-Taylor and Michael Howard
Thursday January 30, 2003
The Guardian

President Bush used his state of the union address to paint a terrifying picture for the American people of another attack like September 11 - but this time with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Tony Blair reinforced the message yesterday by telling the Commons: "We do know of links between al-Qaida and Iraq. We cannot be sure of the exact extent of those links."

However, a number of well-placed sources in Whitehall insisted there was no intelligence suggesting such a link. "While we have said there may possibly be individuals in the country [Iraq] we have never said anything to suggest specific links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein," said one.

Establishing the link is essential to persuading the public that Iraq represents an imminent threat, and President Bush insisted that hard evidence in the shape of "intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody" proved the connection was real.

But the intelligence analysts in the US and Britain on whose work the president's claim was supposedly based say the connections are tangential at best, and the available evidence falls far short of proving a secret relationship between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. One intelligence source in Washington, who has seen CIA material on the link, described the case as "soft" and "squishy".

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

That case relies heavily on a man called Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian member of the al-Qaida leadership who was wounded in the leg in the US-led bombing of Afghanistan. In late 2001, according to US intelligence sources, he sought medical treatment in Iran but was deported and fled to Baghdad, where his leg was amputated. Telephone calls he made to his family in Jordan were intercepted. <b>The question is whether Saddam Hussein's regime knew who he was and whether it offered him any assistance. "Yes, we have him telling his family I'm here in Baghdad in hospital, but he's not saying: 'And by the way, I'm getting all this help from Saddam,'</b> " said a well-informed source in Washington.

Ansar al-Islam

According to Jordanian intelligence, Zarqawi left Baghdad after his surgery and travelled to northern Iraq, possibly through Iran, where he joined up with Ansar al-Islam, a militant Islamist group comprising some 700 Kurdish members controlling a string of villages on the Iranian border of the Kurdish self-rule area. The group harbours up to 120 al-Qaida members including Lebanese, Jordanians, Moroccans, Syrians, Palestinians and Afghans, and is fighting a turf war with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

The group is thought to be the creature of Osama bin Laden's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Its leader, Mullah Krekar, was detained by Dutch police last September after arriving on a flight from Iran because Jordan had asked for his extradition, accusing him of drugs trafficking. He now enjoys refugee status in Norway.

While evidence of Ansar al-Islam's links to al-Qaida are comparatively strong, its links with President Saddam remain largely circumstantial. Villages in the area around Ansar territory have reported seeing Iraqi Mukhabarat agents making contact with Ansar operatives. There are also reports that TNT seized from Ansar during one of their assassination attempts on Kurdish officials was produced by the Iraqi military and that arms are sent to the group from areas controlled by President Saddam.

About a dozen senior members of Ansar trained at a camp in Afghanistan which specialised in chemical and biological weapons, such as ricin.

The Ansar-Baghdad debate in US intelligence circles reflects a rift between the CIA and a special intelligence office set up in the Pentagon by the under-secretary for defence, Douglas Feith. The CIA tends to be sceptical and hostile to the Iraqi National Congress which has produced many of the recent defectors. The Pentagon is readier to listen to the INC's defectors, and has established a separate channel of information to the White House, outside the control of the CIA director, George Tenet......

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and <b>the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.</b>

....The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, >but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

<b>so who is lying in these two contradictory pieces? Gen. Delong in 2006 when he said that Saddam had to have approved the "poison camp" BECAUSE "nothing happens in Iraq without Saddam knowing about it, so we knew that was true. ...." and in his statement that "We almost took them out three months before the Iraq war started. We almost took that thing, but we were so concerned that the chemical cloud from there could devastate the region that we chose to take them by land rather than by smart weapons. "</b>....or was MSNBC lying to us in Aprl 2003 when they reported: "The territory of northern Iraq where the traces of ricin were detected is not under the control of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein." .....and:

"MSNBC.com’s samples of ricin and botulinum, two deadly biological agents, were taken from the soles of a boot and a shoe recovered from the Sargat camp. The facility has been flattened by several Tomahawk cruise missiles, fired as part of the U.S. campaign against Ansar al-Islam.

The thick rubber boot twice tested positive for ricin, a toxin derived from castor beans. Ingesting a pinch of ricin, which causes shock and respiratory failure, can kill a human being within 72 hours. There is no cure.

A black running shoe, shredded by the U.S. bombing, tested positive for botulinum."

SO DELONG CONTRADiCTS MSNBC 3 YEARS AFTER iT'S REPORTiNG. WHO LIED ?

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/delong.html
From 2000-2003 Michael DeLong was deputy commander to Gen. Tommy Franks at Central Command (CENTCOM), where they oversaw U.S. operations in the war in Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq. In this interview, DeLong offers inside stories about those campaigns and CIA-Pentagon relations during the Afghan war, and explains why the invasion of Iraq was necessary. He also talks about why the DoD worked with Ahmad Chalabi and his own experience dealing with Doug Feith. This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on Feb. 14, 2006.

......When are you first aware that Iraq and Saddam Hussein are on somebody's gun sights somewhere and that it may be job two?

Well, it wasn't lost on us when the secretary on Sept. 12 mentioned Iraq, Iran, Syria, so we knew it could come up at any time. We also knew we had thoroughly good intelligence that there was an Al Qaeda base on the Iraq-Iran border, that the Al Qaeda were coming through Iran into Iraq. We'll call it a dual-use base; in other words, chemicals that could be used for putting on your crops or chemicals that you could mix together and make a chemical weapon out of. We had on the ground intelligence that they were coming through there, and then some of them were meeting with some of the senior people in the Saddam administration, not with Saddam himself. We knew there was a tie to Saddam, to Iraq. And nothing happens in Iraq without Saddam knowing about it, so we knew that was true. ....

....Were you aware that by the 21st of September, say, Tenet and the CIA had already delivered to the president and to others that there was no Al Qaeda-Saddam connection?

Yeah, we didn't agree. Now, the only place we saw it was this one compound on the Iraq-Iran border, which was so troubling to us. We almost took them out three months before the Iraq war started. We almost took that thing, but we were so concerned that the chemical cloud from there could devastate the region that we chose to take them by land rather than by smart weapons. .......

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/
Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp
By EXCLUSIVE By Preston Mendenhall
MSNBC

SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 - Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum were present on two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. The field tests used by MSNBC.com are only a first step in the evidentiary process and are typically followed by more precise laboratory testing that MSNBC.com has not conducted. U.S. intelligence agents were conducting their own tests in the same area and had not yet released their results, according to officials in northern Iraq.

MSNBC.COM CONDUCTED the tests over a two-day period at Sargat, an alleged terrorist training camp a mile from the Iraq-Iran border. MSNBC.com purchased the test kits commercially. The field tests, developed by Osborn Scientific Group in Lakeside, Ariz., are regarded by some experts as very effective and have been used by U.N. weapons inspectors and federal government agents around the Sept. 11, 2001, attack site in New York City.

The Sargat camp, set back in an isolated valley and surrounded by snow-capped peaks, was home to the radical Islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam, which counts among its some 700 followers scores of al-Qaida fighters.

In a Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a satellite photo of the Sargat camp and described Ansar al-Islam as “teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons.” U.S. officials have repeated the allegations in recent weeks.

In an operation timed to coincide with the war on Iraq, U.S. special operations forces have targeted Ansar al-Islam’s militants in northern Iraq. Hundreds of Islamists, including al-Qaida fighters who took refuge in northern Iraq after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, have been killed.

Although U.S. officials for months have leveled charges that the Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaida militants were producing poisons in northern Iraq, it wasn’t until this week that specialist U.S. teams were able to gain access to the Sargat camp to test for traces of biological and chemical weapons.

Experts believe the Islamic group was producing the substances in the camp. Both toxins can be created from everyday products and simple procedures.

TERRORISTS TEMPTED BY TOXINS

MSNBC.com’s samples of ricin and botulinum, two deadly biological agents, were taken from the soles of a boot and a shoe recovered from the Sargat camp. The facility has been flattened by several Tomahawk cruise missiles, fired as part of the U.S. campaign against Ansar al-Islam.

The thick rubber boot twice tested positive for ricin, a toxin derived from castor beans. Ingesting a pinch of ricin, which causes shock and respiratory failure, can kill a human being within 72 hours. There is no cure.

A black running shoe, shredded by the U.S. bombing, tested positive for botulinum. U.S. officials say terrorists have a particular interest in botulinum and ricin toxins, which may be delivered through release in food and water. Botulism, the illness resulting from botulinum ingestion, is a muscle-paralyzing disease that can cause a person to stop breathing and die, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control....

<h3>.....The territory of northern Iraq where the traces of ricin were detected is not under the control of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.</h3>

Baghdad admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors in the 1990s that it had successfully weaponized ricin, botulinum and anthrax. There is no immediate evidence that suggests Saddam’s regime provided the easily produced toxins to Ansar al-Islam or al-Qaida.

A test for anthrax at the Sargat camp gave a negative result.....

In recent days, specialist chemical-biological survey teams have collected samples from camps used by Islamic militants in northern Iraq. At least two teams visited the Sargat camp, taking similar rapid field tests and collecting samples to be sent to the United States for further analysis, according to U.S. special operations forces officers speaking on condition of anonymity in northern Iraq.

U.S. special operations forces officials said this week they had found recipes for ricin and other toxins at camps in northern Iraq.

In several visits to the Sargat camp, MSNBC.com uncovered material that could be used for terrorist purposes, including a list of chemical elements frequently found in explosives.

The list, written in Arabic, also includes notations on where chemicals such as nitric acid, which can be used to make components of the explosive Semtex, can commonly be found.

<b>Seaver</b>, I've presented devastating evidence on this thread that support my argument that Bush, Cheney, and Rice publicly stated lies....statements that they knew to be false or not confirmed as reliable, from 2002 to 2006, concerning the cooperation and complicity of Saddam and his government's relations with al Qaeda, and specifically, with al Zarqawi.

I've shown you in this post, examples of lies that Gen. Delong told on a PBS video tape in 2006.....concerning the "poison camp" that Cheney lied about on Rush's show, just the other day.....in Delong's case, he contradicted the April 3, 2003 news reporting that said that the "camp" was bombed with cruise missles, and that it was located in an area in Northern Iraq that Saddam's government did not control....either via air or ground access.

Delong said that the camp could not be bombed, and that Saddam was responsible for the camp...three full years after the news reporting to the contrary.....

Seaver....you're calling Lt. Watada a coward, and your posting that the military is "very conservative", scares the sh*t out of me. "Conservatives" do not unquestioningly.....every other officer in the military, besides Watada, participate in illegal, aggressive war, and they do not lie like Gen. Delong, and Bush, Rice, and Cheney have lied. Conservatives think for themselves, they tell the truth, they question illegal orders, and they refues to follow the commands of a president when he decides to commit the military to an illegal war of aggression....or....as in Watada's case....they refuse as soon as they study the situation and come to a conclusion that the orders they are given may be illegal.

dc_dux · 04-09-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Cheney continued to insist on the Iraq/al'Q connection during the same week that the investigation into the use of intelligence following 9/11 was declassified.

Link

For those who may be unfamiliar with Douglas Feith, he is a major player with the neocons and supporter of PNAC. Cheney was crazy like a fox to continue his Iraq/al'Q soundbite because that appears to be the attention span of a large number of Americans.

'Inappropriate' is when I let slip a swear word in from of my granddaughter. I would think creating false intelligence to build support for a preemptive war to be far more serious. I wonder what consequences will follow; a five-minute timeout, perhaps?

IMO, the recently released DOD Inspector General report did not go far enough in condemning Feith, including possible criminal sanctions.

As I noted several months ago: (link)

Quote:

Feith led the controversial Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon from September 2002 to June of 2003. This now defunct intelligence gathering unit has been accused of manipulating intelligence to bolster support for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. According to the British newspaper, The Guardian, "This rightwing intelligence network [was] set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force." According to Feith's former deputy, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, the Office of Special Plans was "a propaganda shop" and she personally "witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

Seaver · 04-09-2007, 02:22 PM

There is nothing illegal about this war, so yes everyone IS thinking for themselves. Bush went to Congress, they approved it. Say what you want about the UN's rules, but the UN has no authority over the US which we don't grant them.

Yes, we DO think for ourselves. You'll notice that my reasoning for trying to enlist had nothing to do for the cause of the war. My reasoning is that my country (and our interests) will be embarrassed, damaged, and severely weakened if we do not win this war.

Did we go in with unreliable evidence? Absolutely, but I do not believe they lied. We only have to look at what Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, et al said prior to the war, and even afterwards when it became clear there were no WMD's. Don't forget Bill and Hillary had access to the best data LONG before Bush concerning the WMD's, and we did militarily attack Saddam because of it... LONG before Bush.

Yes, Saddam and Al Quaeda are two opposite poles in the region and hate each other greatly. War, however, makes strange bedfellows. We courted Russia during WWII, you don't think SOMEONE might have talked to each other on their side? I'm not saying it did or did not happen... but it IS likely.

host · 04-09-2007, 02:23 PM

Seaver, only George W. Bush ordered an invasion, and occupation of Iraq on these grounds:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html

........(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

....and the dissolution of the internationally recognized Iraqi government. Only George W. Bush and his cohorts have told this lie to justify that invasion and occupation, over and over, from 2002 to 2007.....

dc_dux.....how do you figure that they are still, getting away with this? Where are the members of the political opposition? Isn't this record of lies, grounds for impeachment....or at least more dissent in the republican ranks, and in the military hierarchy?

Seaver....if there is "nothing illegal about this war", why is the first justification, the first thing to come out of the mouths of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Tony Snow, always the lie about Iraq's complicity with al Zarqawi, and the "poison camp". Wouldn't a legitimate justification, if there was one that was not already condemned vehemently by US Nuremberg prosecutors, be a better "lead off" answer to press inquiries? Read the quotes....they are all, except for Rice's 09-10-06 interview with Chris Wallace, right from linked whitehouse.gov pages....and they are all the same lie.....Why the lie, if there was a legal reason to invade Iraq? Pre-emption is not a legal reason, so they cannot, and do not lead with it, as an answer.......

This isn't new material.....I'm just outraged and continue to be amazed that Bush, Rice, and Tony Snow were still pushing this BS as late as last fall, and Cheney as late as last week, I posted the entire article that I've excerpted from this link,

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64
....nearaly a year ago:

Quote:

Questions Mount
Over Failure to Hit
Zarqawi's Camp
By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 25, 2004

.....by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.

But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, who was in the White House as the National Security Council's director for combatting terrorism at the time, said an NSC working group, led by the Defense Department, had been in charge of reviewing the plans to target the camp. She said the camp was "definitely a stronghold, and we knew that certain individuals were there including Zarqawi." Ms. Gordon-Hagerty said she wasn't part of the working group and never learned the reason why the camp wasn't hit. But she said that much later, when reports surfaced that Mr. Zarqawi was behind a series of bloody attacks in Iraq, she said "I remember my response," adding, "I said why didn't we get that ['son of a b-'] when we could."

Administration officials say the attack was set aside for a variety of reasons, including uncertain intelligence reports on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts and the difficulties of hitting him within a large complex.

"Because there was never any real-time, actionable intelligence that placed Zarqawi at Khurmal, action taken against the facility would have been ineffective," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the NSC. "It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war."

Another factor, though, was fear that a strike on the camp could stir up opposition while the administration was trying to build an international coalition to launch an invasion of Iraq. Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in an interview that the reasons for not striking included "the president's decision to engage the international community on Iraq." Mr. Di Rita said the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons. He also cited several potential logistical problems in planning a strike, such as getting enough ground troops into the area, and the camp's large size.....

and....in that same thread, nearly a year ago:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63

Quote:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...61575#continue
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, February, 2003 by GREG MILLER
SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?

Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the U.S. has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the al-Qaida terror network.

The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration on Thursday to explain its decision to leave the facility unharmed.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. <b>"Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"</b>

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

<b>"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."..................</b>

......A White House spokesman said Thursday he had no immediate comment on the matter.

The administration's handling of the issue has emerged as one of the more curious recent elements of the war on terrorism. Failing to intervene appears to be at odds with President Bush's stated policy of pre-empting terrorist threats, and the facility is in an area where the U.S. already has a considerable presence.

U.S. intelligence agents are said to be operating among the Kurdish population nearby, and U.S. and British warplanes already patrol much of northern Iraq as part of their enforcement of a "no- fly" zone.

....and this is posted just below the preceding article:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/
Rewriting History
In his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004

...........<b>The claim that Saddam's agents had instructed Al Qaeda terrorists in making "poisons and gasses" had in fact been a prominent feature of the administration's prewar assertions, highlighted by Powell in his Security Council speech and Cheney repeatedly in his TV appearances and speeches. <b>But the allegation was almost entirely based on the claims of one high-level Al Qaeda detainee—first identified by NEWSWEEK as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi—who, according to the 9/11 commission, has since recanted</b> his story.</b> Asked if Duelfer's team had found any evidence that Iraq had provided such training for terrorists, the U.S. official familiar with Duelfer's report shook his head and said simply: "No."

<b>The administration has done enough, on it's own, from what I've read that has been exposed about their activities to twist the truth, and to manipulate an already compliant press into helping them do it, to diminish any semblance of credibility....how could anyone trust what they've said?</b>

....and Watada is 'the coward" ?....and you, Seaver....wanted to enlist in the military, last year ?

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>August 21, 2006</h3>

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......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.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
<b>Sept. 10, 2006</b>

.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is 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 committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......

........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......

.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......

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.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>September 12, 2006</h3>

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......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
<h3>Sept. 15, 2006</h3>

......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. I never said there was an operational relationship.....

Quote:

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]

Seaver, you wanted to be commanded by THESE people.....these liars, lying about a matter as serious as the justification for invading another country ????????? Why ?????????

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://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
<h3>April 5, 2007</h3>

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ....

Seaver, you say that you are a "conservative"....how could you put your trust in THEM...to command you ?

For a long time, once the WMD justification "vaporized", this has always been...in chorus, their first answer, their primary justification, "if you will".....I WON'T...these are lies:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>March 20, 2006</h3>

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.....

....ace, Seaver....it's just too much...too much for any REASONABLE person...to overlook. You can "explain it away"....or "give them the benefit of the doubt"....but I can't. They were asked the questions, and then their lips moved....the quotes above were the answers that came from their mouths, and then they allowed them to be posted on their taxpayer financed, official executive branch website....and it is t-o-o m-u-c-h.

These are lies...about the justification for the mission that our troops fought, died, fight, and die in....and it's okay by you? You two.....you both can explain it, minimize it....?

How? Why? Where do you get the urge...the inclination?

American · 04-09-2007, 05:01 PM

MOD EDIT: PERSONAL ATTACKS REMOVED
The troops over there are begging us to let them complete the work of setting up the govt and army. You're nothing more than an anti-American malcontent. Troops are dying over there, man! Where is your courage? You don't care about them; they believe in their mission, but the only thing that matters to you is your tinfoil hat conspiracies. On 20 Sep 01 President Bush told you what he was going to do, and he hasn't swayed one inch from that mission. Why don't you reread his speech, and see

analog · 04-09-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

...You're nothing more than an anti-American malcontent. Troops are dying over there, man! Where is your courage? You don't care about them; they believe in their mission, but the only thing that matters to you is your tinfoil hat conspiracies. ...

Amazing what passes for right-wing rhetoric these days. Anti-American malcontent? Nationalist, please.

Seaver · 04-09-2007, 08:32 PM

Yes, I wanted.. and still want to fight. Unfortunately because of my back injury it's never going to happen with anything short of war with China. Why? it has nothing to do with who is president, it has nothing to do with who is in congress. It has everything to do with a need our country currently has for people who will answer the call. Our military is not over-stretched, but it hurting.

I'm not going to explain it to you, as I've explained it countless times in my tenure here on the TFP. My support of the war from the onset was not based around WMD's or the claim they were tied to 9/11. I consider myself a utilitarian, and I believe that success in this war and the opportunity it grants the region will grossly outweigh the cost. You say it's too much for a reasonable man to overlook, I believe that it's too much for a reasonable man to allow anti-human rights, anti-woman's rights, militaristic theocratic forces to win in this war.

Astrocloud · 04-09-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

The troops over there are begging us to let them complete the work of setting up the govt and army. You're nothing more than an anti-American malcontent. Troops are dying over there, man! Where is your courage? You don't care about them; they believe in their mission, but the only thing that matters to you is your tinfoil hat conspiracies. On 20 Sep 01 President Bush told you what he was going to do, and he hasn't swayed one inch from that mission. Why don't you reread his speech, and see

Weak ass argument. If we righteously want to invade another country then why lie about it? I mean Bush is just and correct no matter what he does -right???

This thread is about LIES not "THE WAR".

American · 04-10-2007, 02:03 PM

If Bush lied, then everyone before him lied, and the UN lied and all the Security Council members lied including the Russians who had their own intelligence. I guess all the UN resolutions regarding Iraq were lies too. You focus on WMD's because it turned out to be wrong, but that wasn't the only reason given. How about the No-Fly Zone, 13 previous UN resolutions ignored, financial support for terrorist families, purchase of weapons from France, Germany and Russia, and the Oil for Food scandal? President Clinton and everyone below him made statements that support the belief that WMDs existed or were in development. How much more do you need? Let's face it, you would not support a war under any circumstances. Bush nor any other president could ever be right enough. Liberal let Slick Willy slide on everything he ever did in office, but he was their guy right? I hope you give some thought to what the troops over there think, and not what you want. Right, wrong or indifferent.....no war should ever be lost purposely. The troops say they can win, the general says the surge is working and we need to support this until we win. 3500 dead soldiers and 30,000 wounded compared to all other wars is less then a battle, it is insignificant as a statistic of war. Is it unfortunate when someone (anyone) is killed whether innocent or doing their duty.....of course! The only "weak ass arguments", as someone stated, are the excuses given for not winning this war. My apologies for any personal attacks earlier.

dc_dux · 04-10-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

The troops say they can win, the general says the surge is working and we need to support this until we win. 3500 dead soldiers and 30,000 wounded compared to all other wars is less then a battle, it is insignificant as a statistic of war. Is it unfortunate when someone (anyone) is killed whether innocent or doing their duty.....of course! The only "weak ass arguments", as someone stated, are the excuses given for not winning this war. My apologies for any personal attacks

Here is what the military men and women said 5 months ago (not necessarily those currently serving in Iraq, but half served in Iraq at some point):

Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?
Yes 41%
No 37%
statistically insignificant

Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?
Very likely to succeed 13%
Somewhat likely to succeed 37%
Not very likely to succeed 31%
Not at all likely to succeed 10%
Only half think we can win (succeed)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve 35%
Disapprove 42%
about the same approval rating as the general public

Do you consider the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism that began Sept. 11, 2001, or do you consider it to be an entirely separate military action?
Part of the war on terrorism 47%
Separate military action 47%

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php

By nearly any measure, the situation is not progressing in Iraq..
The Iraq government is dysfunctional, rarely meets, and still not achieved the basic benchmarks that Bush/Riice demanded last year:

approval of an oil law regulating distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the oil industry;

reversal of the de-Baathification laws that are widely blamed for alienating Sunnis by driving them out of government ministries;

and the holding of local elections;

and reform of Iraq’s Constitution,

and the American military has been strecthed to or beyond its capacity.

Until the Iraqi goverment is forced to get its shit together with hard deadlines and benchmarks that are clear and with meaningful consequences, they will continue to suck off the US tit.

Bush had it right when he said in 2005:

"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever..."

Regardless of whether Bush lied or not (although the Sen Intel report and the DoD IG report suggest that intelligence was manipulated to justity the invasion)....most experts outside of the Bush circle or within DoD with careers and reputations at stake now acknowledge that the US cant "win" what is now a defacto civil war (as a result of our invasion). The question is how long should we let our men and women die in the crossfire without a serious course correction that begins a phased withdrawal?

Charlatan · 04-10-2007, 03:04 PM

Post 21... Shakran's Law has been invoked.

roachboy · 04-10-2007, 03:12 PM

all the claims that justified the war in iraq are demonstrably false. the question then of whether one can accept this or not is then a psychological matter having to do withdissonance and how much of it one can accept if you supported the iraq debacle because of these claims in the first place.

these arguments were obviously false in 2003 and they have been proven to be false repeatedly since. on this score, host is right, like it or not.

the question of the legality of the war itself is more problematic because, as has been pointed out above, the procedures were followed and it is apparently not a crime to advance patently false arguments if those arguments are accepted as true by a weak, reactionary-controlled congress.

arguments from the "support our boys" position in the abstract are in the end simple tautologies, not worth the time to respond to.

however--and this is the reason i am posting here (this because i see no possible arguments to be made against the above at this point, and so there is really no point in debate as far as i am concerned)--- i have to say that i respect seaver's reasons for wanting to enlist----because they are not wholly shaped by disinformation or fantasy and the arguments are internally coherent. i do not share his motivations and might argue with some of the reasoning because of that, but that's fine. the arguments cut through the administration's ludicrous campaign to maintain its own credibility by treating the military as effectively sacrificial victims--they are based on an acceptance of the fact of the conflict itself and a set of correlates based on his assessment of the implications of a continued spiral into at best ambiguity, at worst defeat.

the only surprise in all this is that this willingness to sacrifice himself for the reasons that he adduced above is conflated with a continued support for this administration: i cannot understand how it is that these people are confused with supporters of the military when they are willing to allow for the individuals to be killed--american and iraqi--without anything like a coherent strategy SOLELY in order to prop up such political credibility as they imagine they have left.

so in a perverse way, while i sympathise with your disappointment, seaver, i have to say that while we disagree and no doubt will disagree, i am glad that you are around and think it a better thing for this community at least that things worked out as they did.

Elphaba · 04-10-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Post 21... Shakran's Law has been invoked.

And I appreciate the long lapse of time since the last one.

Seaver · 04-10-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

so in a perverse way, while i sympathise with your disappointment, seaver, i have to say that while we disagree and no doubt will disagree, i am glad that you are around and think it a better thing for this community at least that things worked out as they did.

Thank you. I won't justify my thinking, because I've had plenty of friends (and ex-girlfriends) who could never understand regardless of how well I tried to explain it.

student · 04-17-2007, 02:46 PM

host, great job on the citations. bravo. understand that what you are asking people to do is accept that they were more than likely lied to by the highest ranking officials in american government and this is undoubtedly a very hard thing to do for some individuals.

04-07-2007, 04:10 PM	#7 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Personally, I think that this administration is actually more accomplished at some things than any other previous one - and I mean that as a compliment. In this instance, I think that they're absolute masters of misdirection. By that, I mean that they use certain people and/or statements to pull attention away from what they're really trying to accomplish. Cheney in the last few months has been one of those "red herrings", at least in my opinion. Powell was during the first term, although he may not have been a willing participant. Personally, I think the Pelosi trip to Syria was just another example. While Pelosi herself may not have been the vehicle that transported the administration's message, there were no doubt "fellow travelers" who are at least trying to bridge some of the gaps. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-09-2007, 11:09 AM	#12 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Host, I think the problem lies (pardon the pun) in the fact that "relations", "ties", "connections", "links", etc. are all vague terms that are subjective. Given those terms I can present a pro and a con case on the question of lies very easily. It is clear that both Sadaam and Al Qeada had a common hatred for the US and at the very least they are like kindred spirits or soon to be along with their virgins in heaven or hell. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

04-09-2007, 02:22 PM	#15 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	There is nothing illegal about this war, so yes everyone IS thinking for themselves. Bush went to Congress, they approved it. Say what you want about the UN's rules, but the UN has no authority over the US which we don't grant them. Yes, we DO think for ourselves. You'll notice that my reasoning for trying to enlist had nothing to do for the cause of the war. My reasoning is that my country (and our interests) will be embarrassed, damaged, and severely weakened if we do not win this war. Did we go in with unreliable evidence? Absolutely, but I do not believe they lied. We only have to look at what Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, et al said prior to the war, and even afterwards when it became clear there were no WMD's. Don't forget Bill and Hillary had access to the best data LONG before Bush concerning the WMD's, and we did militarily attack Saddam because of it... LONG before Bush. Yes, Saddam and Al Quaeda are two opposite poles in the region and hate each other greatly. War, however, makes strange bedfellows. We courted Russia during WWII, you don't think SOMEONE might have talked to each other on their side? I'm not saying it did or did not happen... but it IS likely. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

04-09-2007, 05:01 PM	#17 (permalink)
American Upright Location: Hampton Roads, VA	MOD EDIT: PERSONAL ATTACKS REMOVED The troops over there are begging us to let them complete the work of setting up the govt and army. You're nothing more than an anti-American malcontent. Troops are dying over there, man! Where is your courage? You don't care about them; they believe in their mission, but the only thing that matters to you is your tinfoil hat conspiracies. On 20 Sep 01 President Bush told you what he was going to do, and he hasn't swayed one inch from that mission. Why don't you reread his speech, and see __________________ American A Conservative in your face Last edited by ubertuber; 04-09-2007 at 06:04 PM..

04-09-2007, 08:32 PM	#19 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Yes, I wanted.. and still want to fight. Unfortunately because of my back injury it's never going to happen with anything short of war with China. Why? it has nothing to do with who is president, it has nothing to do with who is in congress. It has everything to do with a need our country currently has for people who will answer the call. Our military is not over-stretched, but it hurting. I'm not going to explain it to you, as I've explained it countless times in my tenure here on the TFP. My support of the war from the onset was not based around WMD's or the claim they were tied to 9/11. I consider myself a utilitarian, and I believe that success in this war and the opportunity it grants the region will grossly outweigh the cost. You say it's too much for a reasonable man to overlook, I believe that it's too much for a reasonable man to allow anti-human rights, anti-woman's rights, militaristic theocratic forces to win in this war. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

04-07-2007, 02:03 PM	#3 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	"Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth." -Goebbels Keep in mind who he is lying to. Normal people who are paying attention really have stopped believing them. Cheney went on the Rush Limbaugh show and repeated this lie. So basically he is lying to people who don't mind if he lies to them. This is in fact a plea for the die hard republican stalwarts to take up this lie and repeat it as if it were fact. If you get enough liars to say the same thing then somehow it is supposed to sway public opinion. It worked for Goebbels, but then again he had a wildly popular fuhrer.

04-07-2007, 03:59 PM	#6 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	What really surprises me is the degree to which Cheney seems to be out of step with the rest of the administration. He's parroting six-month-old talking points, and has been for at least that long. He's repeating things that Bush contradicted earlier that week, and this isn't the first instance of that by a long shot. It's odd because if Cheney really has been that distanced from the heart of the administration--enough so that he's operating in a talking-point vacuum--then why doesn't the administration bring him to heel and stop him going on talk shows blabbing nonsense? Unless it's really true that the administration is finally collapsing in on itself. Could they just have given up the PR game? This administration?

04-10-2007, 02:03 PM	#21 (permalink)
American Upright Location: Hampton Roads, VA	If Bush lied, then everyone before him lied, and the UN lied and all the Security Council members lied including the Russians who had their own intelligence. I guess all the UN resolutions regarding Iraq were lies too. You focus on WMD's because it turned out to be wrong, but that wasn't the only reason given. How about the No-Fly Zone, 13 previous UN resolutions ignored, financial support for terrorist families, purchase of weapons from France, Germany and Russia, and the Oil for Food scandal? President Clinton and everyone below him made statements that support the belief that WMDs existed or were in development. How much more do you need? Let's face it, you would not support a war under any circumstances. Bush nor any other president could ever be right enough. Liberal let Slick Willy slide on everything he ever did in office, but he was their guy right? I hope you give some thought to what the troops over there think, and not what you want. Right, wrong or indifferent.....no war should ever be lost purposely. The troops say they can win, the general says the surge is working and we need to support this until we win. 3500 dead soldiers and 30,000 wounded compared to all other wars is less then a battle, it is insignificant as a statistic of war. Is it unfortunate when someone (anyone) is killed whether innocent or doing their duty.....of course! The only "weak ass arguments", as someone stated, are the excuses given for not winning this war. My apologies for any personal attacks earlier. __________________ American A Conservative in your face

04-10-2007, 03:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Post 21... Shakran's Law has been invoked. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-10-2007, 03:12 PM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	all the claims that justified the war in iraq are demonstrably false. the question then of whether one can accept this or not is then a psychological matter having to do withdissonance and how much of it one can accept if you supported the iraq debacle because of these claims in the first place. these arguments were obviously false in 2003 and they have been proven to be false repeatedly since. on this score, host is right, like it or not. the question of the legality of the war itself is more problematic because, as has been pointed out above, the procedures were followed and it is apparently not a crime to advance patently false arguments if those arguments are accepted as true by a weak, reactionary-controlled congress. arguments from the "support our boys" position in the abstract are in the end simple tautologies, not worth the time to respond to. however--and this is the reason i am posting here (this because i see no possible arguments to be made against the above at this point, and so there is really no point in debate as far as i am concerned)--- i have to say that i respect seaver's reasons for wanting to enlist----because they are not wholly shaped by disinformation or fantasy and the arguments are internally coherent. i do not share his motivations and might argue with some of the reasoning because of that, but that's fine. the arguments cut through the administration's ludicrous campaign to maintain its own credibility by treating the military as effectively sacrificial victims--they are based on an acceptance of the fact of the conflict itself and a set of correlates based on his assessment of the implications of a continued spiral into at best ambiguity, at worst defeat. the only surprise in all this is that this willingness to sacrifice himself for the reasons that he adduced above is conflated with a continued support for this administration: i cannot understand how it is that these people are confused with supporters of the military when they are willing to allow for the individuals to be killed--american and iraqi--without anything like a coherent strategy SOLELY in order to prop up such political credibility as they imagine they have left. so in a perverse way, while i sympathise with your disappointment, seaver, i have to say that while we disagree and no doubt will disagree, i am glad that you are around and think it a better thing for this community at least that things worked out as they did. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-17-2007, 02:46 PM	#27 (permalink)
student Crazy	host, great job on the citations. bravo. understand that what you are asking people to do is accept that they were more than likely lied to by the highest ranking officials in american government and this is undoubtedly a very hard thing to do for some individuals.