WH responds to Cheney

[Alvin]

the obama WH are fools....terrorism is now just a "tactic"....

obama is completely out of touch....

Terrorism is a tactic. Or do you have a different deffinition of the word?

 

[Alvin]

Pres. Bush kept us safe for 7 years. Obama has brought us three terrorist attacks in 1 year.

7 years in 8 years of presidency?

Oh yea! That first year was a doozy!

Yeah, if you don't count the whole 9-11 thing, Bush, for the most part, kept us safe from terrorists.

Or Anthrax. The odd shoe bomb, that kind of thing.

 

[Alvin]

That the Europen socialists and haters of america gave obama the nobel peace prize simply because he is a socialist/communist who has continuously apologized for america is the biggest condemnation of him I can think of.

Post of the week.
One rarely sees so many fucktard talking points and lables in so few sentences. - Tell me, do you use some sort of random generator? No?
Well that makes this post almost a work of art.

Congratulations sir.
Huzzah!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The kind of reactionary wingnut logic we see here is why they cost us the last election. But that was a good thing: who would want that crowd in power anymore?

 

[Alvin]

I defy YOU or anyone of the leftards here to FIND ONE SINGLE STATEMENT EVER SAID BY BUSH OR CHENEY WHERE THEY SAID IRAQ WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.
Put your money where your mouth is.

He never referred to Saddam's responcibility directly. He alluded to it constantly in just about every speech he gave.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq - 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.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

 

[Alvin]

I got a question.

Since you said that Cheney should go to prison because of this so called lie about WMD, should Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Pelosi, and the rest of the democrat leadership go to prison as well because they said the same thing?

I got an answer.

When did they invade Iraq?

 

[CMike]

Not at all. The best evidence you ever had was something from 1993, which is a bit outdated, and General Sada, where you sourced the 2004 report but not the 2005, which basically is his unsupported word. In other words, your evidence is out of date, suspect, and not comprehensive.

You have clearly not held up your part of the discussion, cmike.

Compared to your evidence which is non existent.

What lie?

No one has to post any counter evidence. Your point falls because you have nothing credible that supports that WMDs existed in Iraq immediately before or during the invasion, or that any WMDs were moved to Syria.

You sound as silly as Cheney.

Let's go over what we learned

1) Your entire democrat leadership said WMD existed and were a threat from Saddam

2) CIA Director Tenet said that Hussein had WMD and was pursuing nukes

3) Hussein's 2nd in command of the air force reported that they were transfered to Syria

4) Israel's chief of intelligence said that they were transfered to Syria

5) Hussein had ties with Al Qaida that went back a decade

6) Hussein also had ties with other terrorist groups

7) Hussein tried to assassinate a US president

Do you have any evidence that ALL of Hussein's WMD were destroyed?

 

[CMike]

I defy YOU or anyone of the leftards here to FIND ONE SINGLE STATEMENT EVER SAID BY BUSH OR CHENEY WHERE THEY SAID IRAQ WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.
Put your money where your mouth is.

He never referred to Saddam's responcibility directly. He alluded to it constantly in just about every speech he gave.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq - 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.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

Once again, both Pres. Bush and Cheney, said clearly and distinctly, several times that they didn't have evidence that Hussein did 911.

Now what you liberals allude or assume from that is your own problem.

They said it in English.

 

[CMike]

The kind of reactionary wingnut logic we see here is why they cost us the last election. But that was a good thing: who would want that crowd in power anymore?

Reactionary logic?

I have backed up everything that I said.

You have provided ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO to back up anything that you said.

Once again, what lie?

 

[CMike]

I got a question.

Since you said that Cheney should go to prison because of this so called lie about WMD, should Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Pelosi, and the rest of the democrat leadership go to prison as well because they said the same thing?

I got an answer.

When did they invade Iraq?

What's the difference? The democrat leadeship quotes were up to 2003. The first troops landed March 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[CMike]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dnrosVyamY[/ame]

 

[CMike]

7 years in 8 years of presidency?

Oh yea! That first year was a doozy!

Yeah, if you don't count the whole 9-11 thing, Bush, for the most part, kept us safe from terrorists.

Or Anthrax. The odd shoe bomb, that kind of thing.

That all occurred within 2 to 3 months of 911.

Pres. Bush had not had a chance to implement the war against terrorism.

What I said still holds true. Pres. Bush kept the US safe for 7 years.

Under Obama we have had three terrroist attacks, within America, in one year, because he has been dismantelling what Pres. Bush has done.

 

[Alvin]

I got a question.

Since you said that Cheney should go to prison because of this so called lie about WMD, should Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Pelosi, and the rest of the democrat leadership go to prison as well because they said the same thing?

I got an answer.

When did they invade Iraq?

What's the difference? The democrat leadeship quotes were up to 2003. The first troops landed March 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Again, they did not invade Iraq. The President at the time did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Compared to your evidence which is non existent.

What lie?

No one has to post any counter evidence. Your point falls because you have nothing credible that supports that WMDs existed in Iraq immediately before or during the invasion, or that any WMDs were moved to Syria.

You sound as silly as Cheney.

Let's go over what we learned

1) Your entire democrat leadership said WMD existed and were a threat from Saddam

2) CIA Director Tenet said that Hussein had WMD and was pursuing nukes

3) Hussein's 2nd in command of the air force reported that they were transfered to Syria

4) Israel's chief of intelligence said that they were transfered to Syria

5) Hussein had ties with Al Qaida that went back a decade

6) Hussein also had ties with other terrorist groups

7) Hussein tried to assassinate a US president

Do you have any evidence that ALL of Hussein's WMD were destroyed?

You have to prove they were not all destroyed, and you have failed on that point.

 

[Alvin]

Once again, both Pres. Bush and Cheney, said clearly and distinctly, several times that they didn't have evidence that Hussein did 911.

Now what you liberals allude or assume from that is your own problem.

They said it in English.

That was AFTER it was shown to be false. However the damage was done, and everyone knows that they knew exactly what the fuck they were doing in mentioning 9/11 and Iraq again and again, and again.....and - fuck it, you get the idea. And the results were plain to see. 45% of Americans thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I got an answer.

When did they invade Iraq?

What's the difference? The democrat leadeship quotes were up to 2003. The first troops landed March 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Again, they did not invade Iraq. The President at the time did.

Again...the CONGRESS PASSED THE LAW AUTHORIZING IT!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The kind of reactionary wingnut logic we see here is why they cost us the last election. But that was a good thing: who would want that crowd in power anymore?

Reactionary logic?

I have backed up everything that I said.

You have provided ZERO, NADA, ZIPPO to back up anything that you said.

Once again, what lie?

I don't have to post counter evidence to an affirmative point of yours. I only have to show why you are wrong. Point made, and you can move along.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Once again, both Pres. Bush and Cheney, said clearly and distinctly, several times that they didn't have evidence that Hussein did 911.

Now what you liberals allude or assume from that is your own problem.

They said it in English.

That was AFTER it was shown to be false. However the damage was done, and everyone knows that they knew exactly what the fuck they were doing in mentioning 9/11 and Iraq again and again, and again.....and - fuck it, you get the idea. And the results were plain to see. 45% of Americans thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

If you really are stupid enough to believe that by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech means they are saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 then I've got some land in New Orleans you may be interested in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Patek, what an idiotic comment: of course the lack of integrity in such propaganda spinning was clearly wrong. And listening to Cheney whine for years now . . . oh, my. America is so much better off without folks in office who think like you or those you supported.

 

[Alvin]

If you really are stupid enough to believe that by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech means they are saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 then I've got some land in New Orleans you may be interested in.

And apparently 45% of your countrymen would buy it. But then again they did, didn't they....