US just launched missiles into Libya.......

[elvis]

and how many time did olberfuckwad edit/crop that video?

 

[WillowTree]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

Except it can be argued that the Bush Administration either willfully or ignorantly lied to Congress about the intelligence that was the justification to go to war. Those trying to defend the Iraq War while bashing President Obama are being hypocritical.

obie wan started a war and then went off to Brazil, he's so damn stupid.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

Except it can be argued that the Bush Administration either willfully or ignorantly lied to Congress about the intelligence that was the justification to go to war. Those trying to defend the Iraq War while bashing President Obama are being hypocritical.

obie wan started a war and then went off to Brazil, he's so damn stupid.

Yea i have to agree. His Vacation-timing seems pretty bizarre.

 

[Modbert]

as I was saying...

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

Yes, I'm not denying that he denied the link after the attack began.

However, there must be some reason as the link says:

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say.

As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

They had no problem promoting a link between Saddam and 9/11 prior to the Invasion of Iraq.

The point still stands that I made earlier. Either the Bush Administration ignorantly bungled or willfully lied. I lean towards willfully lied since they were still promoting the link between 9/11 and Saddam despite the intelligence saying otherwise.

Rummy was ready to attack Saddam on 9/11. That alone speaks volumes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?_r=1

From the mouth of Rummy himself:

WASHINGTON — Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush invited his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to meet with him alone in the Oval Office. According to Mr. Rumsfeld’s new memoir, the president leaned back in his leather chair and ordered a review and revision of war plans — but not for Afghanistan, where the Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington had been planned and where American retaliation was imminent.

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.

“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”

When the option of attacking Iraq in post-9/11 military action was raised first during a Camp David meeting on Sept. 15, 2001, Mr. Bush said Afghanistan would be the target. But Mr. Rumsfeld’s recollection in the memoir, “Known and Unknown,” to be published Tuesday, shows that even then Mr. Bush was focused as well on Iraq. A copy was obtained Wednesday by The New York Times.

Of course:

Curveball (informant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (Arabic: رافد أحمد علوان*, Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān; born 1968), known by the Central Intelligence Agency cryptonym "Curveball", is an Iraqi citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program.[1] Alwan's allegations were subsequently shown to be false by the Iraq Survey Group's final report published in 2004.[2][3]

Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory.[1][4] On November 4, 2007, 60 Minutes revealed Curveball's real identity.[5] Former CIA official Tyler Drumheller summed up Curveball as "a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth."[1]

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector heavily criticized the Bush administration and Media outlets for using the testimony of an alleged former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994 as a rationale for invading Iraq;

We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [Which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, an if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all. Because in 1990, he didn't work for the Iraqi Nuclear Program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace.

He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, i'm Saddam's "Bombmaker". So they call the CIA and they say, "we know who you are, you're not Saddam's "Bombmaker", go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud.

And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as a expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and iv'e told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about. [84]

On May 27, 2003, a secret Defense Intelligence Agency fact-finding mission in Iraq reported unanimously to intelligence officials in Washington that two trailers captured in Iraq by Kurdish troops "had nothing to do with biological weapons." The trailers had been a key part of the argument for the 2003 invasion;

Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man - Americas, World - The Independent

The Central Intelligence Agency tried to warn the Bush administration on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not appear to have weapons of mass destruction but the warning was dismissed because the US political leadership was not interested in what the intelligence showed, according to a retired senior CIA operative.

The revelation, by the CIA's former European chief Tyler Drumheller, was broadcast on CBS's news magazine Sixty Minutes last night and added to the body of evidence that US and British leaders saw the weapons of mass destruction issue only as a selling point for a war they had already decided to wage for other reasons.

Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD' - Times Online

TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today.

John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.

His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a real and present danger" to Britain.

 

[elvis]

blair, rummy and cheney are not bush, last I checked. and the German intelligence does not constitute all international intelligence. nice try, though. A former-CIA man says Bush was told. I'm supposed to be convinced by that? and Scott Ritter's a child-molesting dipshit.

 

[Trajan]

You can't ignorantly lie. So I'm assuming you have proof that Bush willfully lied.

That is true. I suppose the word would be ignorantly bungle.

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

Of course, in reality:



Report: 9/11-Iraq link refuted immediately - U.S. news - Security - msnbc.com





And from 2004:
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)



Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





9/11 was even included in the Authorization for the Iraq War.

Bill Summary & Status - 107th Congress (2001 - 2002) - H.J.RES.114 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)



At least on the issue of the 9/11-Iraq link alone, there is a great deal of evidence that the Bush Administration lied to the American people.

Of course, the worst Secretary of Defense in history was gearing up for War with Iraq from 9/11:

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 - CBS News

At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

I am trying to see the relevance to the topic here?

 

[Trajan]

blair, rummy and cheney are not bush, last I checked. and the German intelligence does not constitute all international intelligence. nice try, though. A former-CIA man says Bush was told. I'm supposed to be convinced by that? and Scott Ritter's a child-molesting dipshit.

none of this means anything, we don't get to link what we know now, to what was then being said ala anti- iraq invasion in that a lack of sppt. now for obama equates to hypcrasy....


I think thats the topic Modbert?..

 

[Samson]

And didn't DA BOOOOOOSH at least go to Congress for some kind of authorization? The Left/Democrat spin on these bombings is pretty ludicrous.

Except it can be argued that the Bush Administration either willfully or ignorantly lied to Congress about the intelligence that was the justification to go to war. Those trying to defend the Iraq War while bashing President Obama are being hypocritical.

obie wan started a war and then went off to Brazil, he's so damn stupid.

Didn't Clinton go off to Brazil after he launched cruise missles into Afganistan in 1998?

That worked so well that it took three years until OBL was able to bring down the World Trade Center!



Nothing like half-assed CINC ideas.

 

[Modbert]

blair, rummy and cheney are not bush, last I checked. and the German intelligence does not constitute all international intelligence. nice try, though. A former-CIA man says Bush was told. I'm supposed to be convinced by that? and Scott Ritter's a child-molesting dipshit.

I had edited that comment about all of the international intelligence community while you were posting a response. Well if Germany intelligence, US intelligence, and UK intelligence is not enough.

There's also Italy:

Italy: We Warned U.S. On WMD Docs - CBS News

(CBS/AP) Italian secret services warned the United States in January 2003 that a dossier about a purported Iraq-Niger uranium deal were fake, an Italian lawmaker said Thursday after a briefing by an Italian intelligence chief.

"At about the same time as the State of the Union address, they (Italy's SISMI secret services) said that the dossier didn't correspond to the truth," Sen. Massimo Brutti told journalists after the parliamentary commission was briefed. He was referring to U.S. President George W. Bush's speech in the weeks before the start of the Iraq war.

Rummy himself said President Bush was looking at to attack Iraq ten days after 9/11. We had not even invaded Afghanistan yet.

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found

Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks.

Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.

In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror."

Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down.

But retired NATO commander Wesley Clark, in a little noticed appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on June 15, charged that "a concerted effort ... to pin 9/11" on Saddam began in the fall of 2001, and "it came from people around the White House." Clark, who declared his campaign for president yesterday, did not identify anyone by name.

 

[elvis]

he thinks using olbermann's chop-job, scott ritter, the comments of Bush's cabinet, and a former CIA man is enough to convince us that Bush said 9/11 and saddam were connected and that Bush lied to Congress as opposed to being misled by Saddam and manipulated by Cheney, wolfowitz, and others.

 

[Modbert]

I am trying to see the relevance to the topic here?

He asked for evidence, I gave it. The thread isn't going to die because of a simple side conversation.

 

[elvis]

blair, rummy and cheney are not bush, last I checked. and the German intelligence does not constitute all international intelligence. nice try, though. A former-CIA man says Bush was told. I'm supposed to be convinced by that? and Scott Ritter's a child-molesting dipshit.

none of this means anything, we don't get to link what we know now, to what was then being said ala anti- iraq invasion in that a lack of sppt. now for obama equates to hypcrasy....


I think thats the topic Modbert?..

We had France's permission this time. so it's ok.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea his Vacation-timing does seem a bit bizarre too. I would think he should have sent Clinton to South America while he stayed here at home during his bombing campaign. He probably shouldn't be in South America right now. Just my opinion anyway.

 

[Modbert]

he thinks using olbermann's chop-job, scott ritter, the comments of Bush's cabinet, and a former CIA man is enough to convince us that Bush said 9/11 and saddam were connected and that Bush lied to Congress as opposed to being misled by Saddam and manipulated by Cheney, wolfowitz, and others.

One last thing on the topic. I said I was leaning toward they willfully lied, however I left the door open to ignorantly bungled. My point was that the Iraq War was terribly mismanaged one way or another. Ignore the Olbermann video, Scott Ritter's comments and you still have some pretty damning evidence. Also, be sure to not ignore the intelligence from the CIA, UK, Germany, and Italy who all said there were no WMDs.

If he was manipulated by Cheney and others, then it's still pretty terrible. And that makes Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others even worse than Bush who in that case was just manipulated.

However, point being is that the evidence was there before the invasion of Iraq that there were no WMDs, no Saddam-9/11 link, and no evidence for justification for the War in Iraq. Members of the Administration either lied or spoke out in ignorance, and the so-called "Liberal" media bought it hook, line, and sinker without even bothering to question a damn thing.

Gonna have to agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[Modbert]

We had France's permission this time. so it's ok.

Dunno about you Elvis but I'm not for U.S intervention into Libya.

 

[Samson]

he thinks using olbermann's chop-job, scott ritter, the comments of Bush's cabinet, and a former CIA man is enough to convince us that Bush said 9/11 and saddam were connected and that Bush lied to Congress as opposed to being misled by Saddam and manipulated by Cheney, wolfowitz, and others.

Its also a straw-man.

Comparing Clinton's impotent attacks on A-stan and Sudan with Obama's effort to remove Gaddafi is much more logical than the full blown invasion of Iraq that effectively removed Saddam.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

 

[Samson]

I was leaning toward willfully lied, however I left the door open to ignorantly bungled. .

Can we use that as a siggy?

 

[Douger]

Murkas main exports. Death and Destruction.

 

[Trajan]

he thinks using olbermann's chop-job, scott ritter, the comments of Bush's cabinet, and a former CIA man is enough to convince us that Bush said 9/11 and saddam were connected and that Bush lied to Congress as opposed to being misled by Saddam and manipulated by Cheney, wolfowitz, and others.

One last thing on the topic. I said I was leaning toward willfully lied, however I left the door open to ignorantly bungled. My point was that the Iraq War was terribly mismanaged one way or another. Ignore the Olbermann video, Scott Ritter's comments and you still have some pretty damning evidence. Also, be sure to not ignore the intelligence from the CIA, UK, Germany, and Italy who all said there were no WMDs.

If he was manipulated by Cheney and others, then it's still pretty terrible. And that makes Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others even worse than Bush who in that case was just manipulated.

However, point being is that the evidence was there before the invasion of Iraq that there were no WMDs, no Saddam-9/11 link, and no evidence for justification for the War in Iraq. Members of the Administration either lied or spoke out in ignorance, and the so-called "Liberal" media bought it hook, line, and sinker without even bothering to question a damn thing.

yes the media did, as they had bill revving them up ala regime change since when? 96, 97? You know we voted, we went.

we did think that wmds etc. would be found and that would suffice along with tenuous links to AQ etc. to suffuse the event with the proper justification.


thats what we thought THEN.......ante-bellum iraq.

As i said, if I don't sppt. this venture how does this make me a hypocrite, I beleive, hats what you said as a general statement?