Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was not a lie though as at the time the intelligence was that they had training camps in Iraq. Once again for the slow if on Monday I see you driving a new red car and someone I trust tells me you bought said car and I tell everyone you bought a new red car, then on Wednesday it turns out you did not even buy a car and were just driving a friends car.... I did not lie.
I know what democrats said and I know that I have repeated oftentimes that I will not forgive and fully support any democrat who voted for the war or who beat the drums for war until they repent.
So...was Cheney ASKED about Atta or did he offer the name up first in the interview?
Bush also never claimed the Taliban knew about, or were involved in planning or executing the 9/11 plot. They were merely harboring al qaeda. Which is why we took out the taliban.
Which is one the primary reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq: that Iraq was harboring, training, and providing assistance to al qaeda. That, like the taliban, he was an ally of al qaeda.
Which was flat out false.
no...I was not one....but if you suggest that respected polling organizations just boldly make shit up out of whole cloth with no basis in reality, I think that you are just in denial.
And who in their right mind would admit to being conned if they didn't have to?
It was not a lie though as at the time the intelligence was that they had training camps in Iraq. Once again for the slow if on Monday I see you driving a new red car and someone I trust tells me you bought said car and I tell everyone you bought a new red car, then on Wednesday it turns out you did not even buy a car and were just driving a friends car.... I did not lie.
Cheney did NOT say in regards to 9/11 Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. In fact he stipulated there WAS NO LINK to 9/11.
You claim a primary reason BUSH GAVE for attacking Iraq was Saddams link to AQ....?
Where do you get that....
CONDI RICE We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical-weapons development.
ARI FLEISHER: Clearly, Al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq. And the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late.
ARI FLEISHER: We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi officials going back a decade, and, as Condi said, of chemical and biological agent training.
ARI FLEISHER:. We know that Al Qaeda have found refuge in Iraq. There is credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq to acquire chemical and other weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
ARI FLEISHER: Well, as Condi said last night—I cite her words—"Iraq has provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development."
RUMSFELD: This is a man who continues to murder his own people; a man who has gassed—used gas on his own citizens; a man who has used chemical weapons on his neighbors; a man who has invaded two countries; a man which hates—who hates America; a man who loves to link up with Al Qaeda; a man who is a true threat to America, to Israel, to anybody in the neighborhood.
BUSH: We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy—the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
BUSH: This is a man that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace, for the sake of our children's peace.
BUSH: We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. And we know, clearly, that one of the dangers we face is him serving as a training ground and an arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks, which could come home, come home here. And so he's a danger.
BUSH: Saddam is a man who would likely team up with Al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind.
BUSH: And, not only that, he is—would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action.
BUSH: Saddam's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda. In my Cincinnati speech, I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.
Rice: Al Qaeda operatives gain training in CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear], or having meetings with—between Iraqis and Al Qaeda in various parts of the world, there's a relationship here.
BUSH: Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror. He is pressing forward with weapons of mass destruction—weapons he's already used in his war against Iran and against his own people. His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.
CHENEY: It's been pretty well confirmed that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx
*CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence, September 2006:
-Conclusion 1: "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."
-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi
-Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf[/quote] .
I, along with many other Americans, did not share those beliefs. But regardless, unfortunately, it was only Bush who chose to take those beliefs and use them as a justification for the invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq. And that decision was a bad one....in retrospect for some, and from the very outset with others - like me. And Bush, and his party, need to pay for that bad decision. We need to take the keys away from the republican party and make them go sit facing the corner for an extended "time out".
I seem to remember Congress voting to give him authorization to go to war. Shouldn't Democrats pay too then? You can say he misled Congress, but they get their own independent intelligence briefings. Bush didn't run the CIA.....
Bush pressed the red button so to speak. He ultimately made the call.
He made his decision based on intelligence reports that were flawed. Not his fault, as it wasn't the democrats in congress's fault either. Seems as though we could learn from the mistake made and reform the intelligence agencies further.
In my opinion, Bush acted way too soon. I doubt that he even though for a minutes that there might just not be WMD to any significant degree. Did he ask for second opinions? Did he ask for irrefutable proof before sending our soldiers into Iraq? Did he consider the possibility of there being a lack of Iraqi support? Did he consider the possibility of insurgents? Did he even bother to take a little time to make sure that the hospitals would be ready for our wounded soldiers?
Perhaps I expect too much from presidents when they send our soldiers off to war, but in my humble opinion, Bush acted like a reckless loose cannon. He is a cowboy who is so eager to shoot first and ask questions later. People say that hindsight is 20/20 but it doesnt take a fortunetelling genius to know ahead of time that Bush should have taken more time and been more careful.
I seem to remember Congress voting to give him authorization to go to war. Shouldn't Democrats pay too then? You can say he misled Congress, but they get their own independent intelligence briefings. Bush didn't run the CIA.....
You state in your post that it doesn't take a fortunetelling genius to know ahead of time that Bush should have taken more time and been more careful.
Isn't this where the authorization for War vote comes in? I believe if democrats that Bush should take more time back then, then they shouldn't have given him war authorization. I do believe Bush made mistakes in preparation for war, we agree on that point. But in my opinion, the reason to go to war was justified even if it was justified by bad intelligence.
I think that a case could be made that the Iraq war was illegal. If Iraq broke UN resolutions that it was up to the UN to make the call not the USA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm
Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal
Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."
Here is a neat video that really explains it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8
I suggest you ask the UN to prosecute us. Ohh wait, they can not. And other then grandstanding by Mr Corruption Koffi Annan the UN has made NO claim the US violated a single UN charter or Treaty the US has agreed to.
MOre BULLSHIT from idiots.
Silly name-calling aside, my point still stands. If Iraq broke UN resolutions then it was up to the UN to make the call to invade Iraq. Just because the UN did not charge us with violating anything is irrelevant.
Sure thing dimwit.
