More Wingnut Self-Contradictions

I’m wondering why Cheney’s fighting to have more CIA docs released. Suredly he wants you all to find that Iraq al-queda nexis.

John – You can’t even spell Al Qaida or Nexus.And what does Cheney think he has? A link between Iraq and 9/11 which never actually existed?

John,No, it’s because Cheney TRULY believes that what he did protected America. He is in full belief that if his motives were right, anything he did was right by association.Look, Bush wanted to invade Iraq. His reasons are simple to understand. He wanted a democracy in the region that would become our instant ally. He wanted to build a quick example, a blueprint, if you will, for the rest of the Middle East. He believed that “if you build it, they will come”. In essence, his plan was to start a domino effect. He believed that only democracy could change the underlying elements, the CAUSES of terrorism.He needed an excuse to invade Iraq, because he knew he’d never receive approval using oppression as an excuse, and he didn’t trust the American people (with good reason) to explain why democracy was his only hope for winning the war on terror.He told his advisors (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) his plan. They made the case for it. “Even if it means we have to make the evidence up”.In those days, Bush did not believe he could win the war on terror with CIA intelligence. He didn’t believe we could ever win that war with the political realities in the Mideast. This is evident in every one of his speeches right before we went into Afghanistan. He constantly reminded us that this would not be a short war, that it would test our resolve, but that we needed to stay the course for as long as it took to win it. Those kinds of words are everywhere in his language, in those days.Plain and simple, Bush and staff devised a plan and believed Iraq would not only fall quickly, but be SUBDUED quickly, as well.I can’t recall which State of the union address it was, but there was one statement he made which instantly made me believe that after Iraq, Iran was next. Bush’ plan was in full flower then, and he never wanted to believe that insurgency in Iraq could become significant enough to derail his plans.The long and short of it all is this: An administration was handed an impossible task, and tried to make it possible by cheating and lying. This much is obvious. Say what you will about Bush, but you know what I am telling you is true by the words Cheney still uses to defend their actions.And if you don’t believe that, look up the things Cheney said back in the early nineties when asked why we didn’t roll into Baghdad during Desert Storm. He predicted, ten years before it actually happened, exactly the type of insurgency that would arise if we removed Hussein from power.It is the disconnect between then (and what he said) and the war in Iraq that will have so many historians scratching their heads.I think we have an administration that did this not out of evil intentions, but out of a sense of duty, “for the greater good”, if you will.Their intentions do not change the facts of what they did. But later judges may well be inclined to be more sympathetic with their intntions than we are today.

My guess is they were looking for one, it was common knowledge, and reported widely, that they couldn’t find a direct connection. Only that Saddam was paying suicide bombers families. And torturing his own people. Especially husbands of pretty women… with slightly more veracity than a snowboard.I may have spelling issues Ashby, but my memory’s quite a bit sharper than many here.

Hey John,If you had even rudimentary knowledge of the situation, you would know that Iraq and al-Qaida are fundamentally enemies. Or I guess you could take the word of the most deceptive vice president in our history. That’s probably easier for you than actually thinking for yourself.

Yes those details were reported CitizenJ. Over 5 years ago….

Look, Bush wanted to invade Iraq. His reasons are simple to understand. He wanted a democracy in the region that would become our instant allySeriously, PPP? You believe that? I’ve disagreed with you in the past, but I never before thought you a fool.Bush was picked by the hard-right neocons because he could be manipulated to invade Iraq. They were talking about it within days of his 2001 inauguration. And they did it for one reason – money. Who has benefited the most for the invasion & occupation? Halliburton & Blackwater. And who was the Chairman & CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000? And who’s running his mouth on the teevee machine, trying to justify breaking the law repeatedly? right, the same guy who ordered people tortured to come up with non-existent ties between Saddam & al Qaeda.Lose the spreading democracy argument. It’s total nonsense.

So apparently you think the democratic attempts to allow Iraqi’s to vote was just a charade, i take it…Wasn’t it there first time to vote in quite awhile?BTW, all of Cheney’s Haliburton holdings were released and dividends on any stock optons went and may still go to 3 different hospitals and/or medical teaching universities. Look it up. Prove me otherwise, unless you can’t live without the haze of a good juicy conspiracy.

Please explain what this sentence means:

Especially husbands of pretty women…with slightly more veracity than a snowboard.

I’ve got to partly agree with PPP on this one. The Bush administration certainly pulled out the “ends justify the means” card, which is the quickest way to foster public distrust. I don’t buy the “pure evil” or “fascist” rationale for war. However, I don’t think they’ll be shown, nor should they, future sympathy for this fustercluck. Otherwise, it’s right back to square one of the argument that their intentions were good, thereby mitigating the severity of the implementation of torture.

Saddam was the #3 worst dictator in the world.It’s comforting to know you all would choose todo nothing about it.

Oh so its not about Iraq and 9/11, now its about bringing democracy to the Iraqis?What a load of bullshit.What will be your next justification be for an illegal war or profiteering?You are dense.

Well, not all of his Halliburton holdings. This article came out more than 2 years after Cheney claimed, falsely, that he’d had no financial ties to it. And having a deferred salary averaging a quarter of a million dollars a year isn’t MY definition of cutting financial ties, but then, I don’t live in the rose-colored world where BushCo never lies…

PPP,There are too many assumptions in your logic that just don’t make sense. If Bush really wanted to fight the war on terror by spreading democracy, why didn’t he do all he could to spread it in Afghanistan, where the real and most recent terrorist threat was located? If what you’re saying made any sense, one would think that Bush would utilize his CURRENT allies against the war on terror (especially since they were being victimized as well), instead of trying to waste resources to create new ones. The very fact that BushCo was actively lobbying AGAINST the UN says it all. Do they not share America’s dreams of democracy all over the world? History tells us that they do. The altruistic intentions you allude to, from the Bush administration, cannot be verified when you look at the actions that took place before and after Iraq was invaded. So the only true part of your second paragraph is: Bush wanted to invade Iraq.He didn’t trust the American people, with good reason? No. He actively lied to the American people and tried to convince them that he was right and that every other civilized country in the world was wrong about the reasoning for attacking Iraq. And using all of our resources to do so, while actively diverting them from the real, smaller source of Afghanistan. Why else did we have a freaking media blitz at that time? To also backup the unprecedented use of torture to justify the invasion of a sovereign country.”The long and short of it all is this: An administration was handed an impossible task, and tried to make it possible by cheating and lying. This much is obvious. Say what you will about Bush, but you know what I am telling you is true by the words Cheney still uses to defend their actions.”There were warnings about 9/11 that they could have heeded to, but since they didn’t, they had to react and counteract. They did not, however have to create a War on Terror, a la a War on Drugs. This one event (9/11 itself) did not suddenly create a huge epidemic. Their Iraqi actions did. They fed the fire. And Cheney’s choice of words does not imply how genuine he is, it simply points out the consistency he has in his message, the strength of his intent to occupy Iraq, and the depth of his conflict interest.The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Like I said, those monies go to charity.Prove otherwise.

Saddam was the number 3 dictator? according to to? And if he was number 3, why didn’t we go after number1? or number2? how about number4? how about all of them? where does it end?Regardless of if he was a dictator, Iraq was a sovereign nation and our evidence to justify the war was completely fabricated. You cant invade countries just because you don’t like them.You are so brainwashed.

Very dissapointing that our elected officials, especially within the Democratic Party, has now taken such a different approach in the discussions of Torture and the previous administrations corruption and illegal activities.I am glad to see Cheney (and Pelosi for that matter) in the media (especially places other than foxnews) and is helping keeping the torture debate front and center.We need to continue to keep the pressure on the President and Congress to do as we voted for. Change.

Ashby, perhaps you forget that Saddam’s operatives were playing shell games with the inspectors?What were they trying to hide? his porn stash?And those caravans to Syria? Just humanitarian aid, right?

And the still missing 40g of Vx gas? Fiction, right?

40Kg of Vx.

Saddam was the #3 worst dictator in the world.3rd worst? Worse than Pol Pot? Worse than Idi Amin? Worse than Robert Mugabe? (say, what are YOU doing about Mugabe??) Worse than Augusto Pinochet? or Papa Doc Duvalier? Beware hyperbole.And yet, the US was the one selling the bioweapons & poisons to Saddam, even after he “used them on his own people!” Yeah, the GOP cared so much about human rights then that we friggin’ replenished Saddam’s supply after he used up his stash on the Kurds.Call me crazy, but I’m thinking there were ways to deal with him that DIDN’T involve invading & occupying the country, displacing & causing to be killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, or the deaths & wounding of thousands of US servicemen & women, and which wouldn’t have enriched the war profiteers while emptying the national treasury.

Yes it is complete fiction. Where did it all go? If there were any such evidence, we would have found it in 6 years don’t you think?It doesn’t matter that his operatives were playing games with inspectors. What do you think Korea does? Iran? Every nation we try to inspect. If someone tried to inspect the U.S. we would play games with them too.Again, you cant invade nations simply because you don’t like them.Give it up, you have no accountable reason for what we did.

Hey ceu, AQ did move in to fight in Iraq, is that fact over your head too?Who’s our enemy? Obviously they were very close by.Peace man, I’m not saying there weren’t mistakes, and that it’s not ugly, but they way you all are carrying, actually makes me sick sometimes.

“Yes it is complete fiction”Apparently you know it all…..

What should make you sick is the perps who cooked the whole mess up. Maybe someday you’ll take off your blinders.

No what makes me sick is your hate and distortion.Talk about the ends justify the means, you all do exactly what you claim they did, RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES, along with THE TROOPS.My daughter did 2 tours in Iraq, and 1 in Haiti.

“Hey ceu, AQ did move in to fight in Iraq, is that fact over your head too?Who’s our enemy? Obviously they were very close by.”Al Qaeda was started around 1988. Funny how they weren’t able to get a foothold in Iraq until around 2004….

John,After ALL of the evidence that has come out against the contrary to what you are talking about regarding UN inspectors in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the several times Bush contradicted himself regarding the reasons for going to Iraq, you STILL use these excuses as plausible reasons for invading that country?

John:

My little brother has done a tour in Iraq. That fact doesn’t make my opinion worth more or less than yours, or anyone else’s. What makes your opinion worthless to me is its content, as you still wholeheartedly buy into the phony WMD-oops-oh-no-we-meant-for-freedom-oh-wait-national-security-again reasoning. You are willing to buy into whatever rationale was cooked up afterward, which does not speak well of your character.

Hate and distortion?Wake up and smell the coffee.Your daughter, who volunteered to protect the country, is brave for doing so, but she along with every other soldier sent over there was used as a tool to carry out and agenda of profiteering and corporatism.Your frusteration is entirely misdirected. Your frusteration should be directed at the former administration who sold the country into a false illegal war and sent brave young people, like your daughter, into harms way just to make money.Everyone in the country, including everyone here, is thankful for your daughters service. But unfortunately, that service was treated as a comodity by our former leaders.You should rethink your views.

I should rethink my views? Really? On all of your speculation? And political partisan hate?No. I followed what was happening each and every day.It is your twisted lies, deceptive reasoning, and pure reveisionism which makes me ill.Seriously. It’s sick.

Incidently, the reasons we went there were all laid out to begin with, they weren’t changed midstream like many would have you believe.

“I am glad to see Cheney (and Pelosi for that matter) in the media (especially places other than foxnews) and is helping keeping the torture debate front and center.”Oh for fucksake….TORTURE IS NOT DEBATABLE! IT’S ILLEGAL, END OF STORY.

Its not speculation when the evidence is right in front of you. There is nothing politically partisan about the truth. How can you not understand that?Im sure you did follow what happened every day. So did the rest of the country. You have to understand though that the corporate media simply repeats what is fed to it by the government when the government is the only one with the access to the information.Twisted lies, deceptive reasoning, and revisionism is exactly what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and all the other PNACers specialize in.If I somehow make you ill, then they should give you a heartattack.

“Incidently, the reasons we went there were all laid out to begin with, they weren’t changed midstream like many would have you believe.”I’m sorry, I call bullshit right there. W himself, along with Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and Colon Powell have all made various differing claims and reasons for why we are there/went there. I know the news (televised, written) is tricky like that.

Ceu,

Bush was picked by the hard-right neocons because he could be manipulated to invade Iraq. They were talking about it within days of his 2001 inauguration. And they did it for one reason – money.

And you call me a fool?I suppose 9/11 played right into their hands? Or 9/11 never happened? Or the twin towers were brought down by Bush and Co.?Ceu, there are just too many coincidences for your theory to work. Unless you are implying that the “Neocons” were in cahoots with bin Laden?

Careful partypooper, you might find out something with that line of questioning that you dont really want to know.

PPP,Tin foil hat conspiracy theorists will say that 9/11 was an inside job. I’m not saying that and I don’t think ceu is either. But there is no doubt that within days of taking office, plans were drawn for invasion of Iraq. There is also no doubt that immediately following 9/11, there was a push to connect Iraq to the attacks.Ceu says money, but they did admit after years that the oil reserves were a major concern.It’s hard to argue that once the plan to invade was in motion, that there were factions who were and still are war profiteers. No bid contracts and a massive influx of private contractors for jobs normaly done by the military bare that out.If you don’t believe that, I wouldn’t call you a fool, but I’d call you naive.

Carl – “But there is no doubt that within days of taking office, plans were drawn for invasion of Iraq.”The plans for that were drafted way before Bush even took office.And I don’t think you should use the derogatory tinfoil hat association since the evidence is unfolding every day.

And the still missing 40g of Vx gas? Fiction, right?

If they’re still missing , then yes, they are fiction.

My daughter did 2 tours in Iraq, and 1 in Haiti.

What does this have to do with anything? I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say we thank your daughter for her service, but that doesn’t make a differnece in what we are arguing here. It does however, shed some light on your end of the argument. I’d like to think that if my daughter put her life in harm’s way for the government, that it wasn’t based on a lie as well.

Ashby – I’m not completely dimissing it, I’m just saying that I doubt it was “an inside job.” Whether top officials decided to ignore the warning signs for duplicitous reasons or because of stupidity is another story.Incidently, the reasons we went there were all laid out to begin with, they weren’t changed midstream like many would have you believe.

John -Reasons we invaded Iraq:WMD which were never found.Yellowcake from Niger which never happened.Saddam was a threat.Because of 9/11.Osama bin Laden.al-Qaeda.Because of terrorism in general.To liberate Iraq.To spread freedom.To spread democracy.To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states.Would you like to rethink your position, John?

And hop on the hate wagon? No thanks.

It’s not about hate, John. It’s about facts. You can’t say that the administration NEVER changed it’s reasons for invading Iraq when they had a new reason practically every month.

Hate speech to a conservative means disagreeing with him or her. Meanwhile, actual hate speech isn’t something most conservatives have a big problem with.

It would be nice if you all would at least be honest.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others � again as required by Security Council resolutions.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issuesas required by the Security Council resolutions.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis � a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/12/national/main521781.shtml

More honesty:2002 Iraq resolution wording passed by congressWhereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

And please, John, tell us what America has to encourage Iraq to signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. This is interesting when you seem to discourage openness and accountability for our past administration, regardless of any new evidence to support it.

So now the reason we went in is because they violated UN resolutions?”If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction”How can they disclose something which they did not have?You need to step out of denial. Im sure its a very emotional issue for you because of your daughter, and your daughter is brave for volunteering to join the army, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was a wholesale of disinformation leading to the invasion of Iraq.

John, you cite a Bush speech? That’s your proof?

UN weapons inspectors in Iraq fear their work – which has failed to turn up any evidence thus far of weapons of mass destruction – will still be used as an excuse to trigger a US-led invasion of Iraq.Leaks from the inspections teams – and the two agencies in charge of them, UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency – have fueled an increasingly frenetic diplomatic effort among opponents of the war.The weapons inspection teams in Iraq have visited breweries and former nuclear plants, and raided missile factories and pharmaceutical production lines. They have examined former weapons factories and interviewed scientists and university technicians. As of yesterday they had checked 230 sites in all. If one is to believe the few inspectors who have been prepared to be interviewed anonymously, they have found absolutely nothing.

UK Observer – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/05/iraq

Those following two paragraphs should also be blockquoted.

It is your twisted lies, deceptive reasoning, and pure reveisionism which makes me ill.Ah, at last a point on which we agree. Back at ya! Hey ceu, AQ did move in to fight in Iraq, is that fact over your head too?Did they? Or did a group that calls itself al Qaeda in Iraq form? A group that is only very tangetially related to bin Laden’s group….I’m short, not stupid.As for the original reasons why the US invaded Iraq, I direct you to the speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct 6, 2002. It lays out pretty clearly why it was imperative tht the US invade Iraq. Read it – it’s pretty enlightening.Adding for PPP – note how long the speech was before Bush ever mentioned the Iraqi people. “Democracy” was not used at all & “liberty” was said twice. Still want to argue that Bush’s plan was to spread democracy?

and also – I find it amusing as hell that the person referring to the liberals as being full of hate makes cracks like “is that fact over your head too?” as part of a discussion.Spread that love, john…

and it’s spelled “revisionism”. Just the one e

Hey, watch out for those non-facts flying over your head ceu.

sorry ceu, I’ll be nicer. Have you ever read Silly Git?

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material. (snipped)It did. Dec. 2002. It said it didn’t have any. Provided huge numbers of documents as well as CDs. Before it was even examined, BushCo was in the teevee machine saying it was all lies & calling for invasion.Turned out, Saddam was telling the truth! Who knew?? Oh right….we know NOW who knew…

Yes, but we didn’t know, for sure.One thing Bush did say, they most everyone discounts. He said that he would rather error on the side of national security, than later find out that we were wrong.Oh well. At least he was honest.And who knows what Iraq would be today had Saddam’s bribing of with millions would have lifted sanctions. Another Iran, Pakistan, Iraq.

What would Iraq be today if they weren’t invaded?A major economic and political opponent of Israel.Gee… we couldn’t have had that. Just like Iran.Good thing they were told No on Iran.

What would Iraq be today if they weren’t invaded?A major economic and political opponent of Israel.

You’re joking, right? Iraq, a major economic anything? No, the only people who earned money in Iraq was Saddam, his family, his generals, and his upper admin.Everyone else was oppressed. It was like that long before we got there, in 1991.

ceu Did Bush only give one speech?

Major economic anything? Yes, dont compare to the economy of a western nation. Compared to Israel, yes. Did you know that there is a pipeline for oil running to Israel from Iraq which the Israelis turn around and sell to our own armed forces which went in there to capture it in the first place?

Maybe this point has been raised already and I missed it, but doesn’t attacking Pelosi for all this mean that the Republicans are admitting that they broke the law? Why isn’t that pesky “liberal” media bringing that up?

Did Bush only give one speech?

Ooh, you got us there, John. No, he gave plenty of speeches, and in each one changed the reasons for invading Iraq.

I have to say, this idea of super-neocons is a long stretch to me. The thought that there is a quiet, rich, almost all-powerful cabal of Republicans running things behind the scenes is too much.There is a reason conspiracies are so hard to fulfill. The chances of exposure increase exponentially with each person brought into the loop. You guys are talking about five to ten people at least, and in the end, probably a hundred, who know of this secret society, none of whom has ever blabbed a thing?Not likely. Conspiracies are nearly impossible to pull off even for the smallest of goals, and you guys are espousing a multi-national, multi-faceted conspiracy that directed world events for ten years, all the while it began when none of them were in power?This is what you want us to believe? Scarier yet is that you believe it?It’s no wonder we’ll keep going in circles for years over this.You guys know the cure to what ails us politically.LOSE THE POLITICAL PARTIES. LOSE THE BRIBERY IN LOBBYING. LOSE THE PRIVATE MONEY IN ELECTIONS.Or, you can continue to vote for the same two parties, and get what we’ve always gotten.But if what we’ve always had isn’t good enough, why do you continue to vote for it?

ceu Did Bush only give one speech?Sadly, no.But the Cincinnati speech, given just days before the Congressional vote giving BushCo basically a blank check to invade Iraq, is considered the definitive speech laying out why Iraq need to be invaded.It matters not what reasons he gave in subsequent speeches. You posted:

Incidently, the reasons we went there were all laid out to begin with, they weren’t changed midstream like many would have you believe.

Posted by: john at May 15, 2009 2:42 PMI linked you to the Cincinnati speech as a response. Think of all the other reasons we were given for invading – Carl posted a pretty good list above – then read the speech. Then state again, with a straight face, that the reasons “weren’t changed midstream like many would have you believe”.

Partypooper – Is not a secret society, its not hidden, its not some shadow government. Its all right out there in the open, well documented. Real people, real names. All you have to do is connect the dots which are damn nearly connected for you already.Lose the parties, bribery, and private money?Yeah you’re absolutely right, and I think the country is heading that direction, but it wont happen overnight.

@John:When judges make decisions on a verdict, they take every piece of evidence into account. I am positive the Bush administration had all the information that the United Nations had from their inspections. How is it that the UN (multiple countries) and the Bush admin can draw two completely different conclusions from the same information? But that’s only half the equation. It’s the choices and actions made after WMD’s were not found that makes this an egregious situation. A conscious choice was made to torture, ignoring the laws set in place. A conscious choice was made to bring the concern to the UN. When the UN did not support what was being advocated, a conscious choice was made to act anyway. We are still in Iraq to this day. Where is the accountability and openness, in the face of these facts and actions, that you encourage from Iraq?@PPP:Do not always write off drawing logical conclusions as feeding conspiracy theorists. Most of America, when presented with facts can draw the same conclusions (whether they want to publicly acknowledge it or actively write it off), no matter how terrifying.The idea that you present to lose political parties and lobbyists, is not logical or realistic. The positives outweigh the negatives. We shouldn’t lose plains, trains, and automobiles because the increased amount of deaths they had when compared to the horse and wagon.

planes

And right out of the gate, Tweety starts off with the Pelosi issue, and misses the entire f-ing point! The media totally disgusts me these days.

Rep.Jim Clyburn just reminded Tweety that Nancy Pelosi put forth legislation in 2007 to ensure that torture would never be used and it passed the House and the Senate, but was vetoed by President Bush.The Republican on the show thinks that a special committee needs to look into the briefings that Pelosi and others received by the CIA and nothing else.Anybody surprised by that?

John -I love you to.I don’t have much patience with people that simply repeat the propaganda they have been fed by the ministry of propaganda.You should compare and contrast stories as told in the U.S. with the same stories as told in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K.Most Scandanavian and Dutch Newspapers publish in English as well as their native languages.Until you do this comparison, as I did in the 90s, you will not realize just how controlled the news media here is.The U.S. media can not be trusted as a sole source news source.This has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with recognizing reality. It is very clear that you are reality impared by virtue of faulty news sources.

Hi Silly, How do know what sources I read?

Just for you Silly:”There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002″What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002″The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998″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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002″I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

again, I ask – so what?

Yeah, so what ceu, apparently the only things meaningful to you is information that may lead to the punishment of your political enemies.

None of those people ordered the invasion or occupation of a sovereign country. so what’s the point of quoting them – repeatedly? It serves no purpose.

@John:Glance at each one of those dates. What do any of those quotes do to negate the fact that UN inspectors found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program in January 2003? Disagreement is fine, and happens all the time…but invading a sovereign country with evidence that clearly goes against your own (soft) evidence implies that there was never any intention to weigh the pros and cons of such military action. That report came out in Jan. 2003 and two months later the US invaded Iraq. I remember it well and had the unique perspective of being in Paris at that moment. I was incredulous at the fact that it had happened at all, but so soon after the report.

adding – I’d like to see people punished for shredding the Constitution of this country, including the part about treaties being binding. I’d like to see people punished who were so immoral, unethical, and downright greedy that they did unspeakable things in my name.I want those who engineered the deaths of thousands of US service personnel & the injuries of tens of thousands more punished. I want retribution for the forced evacuations of millions of Iraqi civilians and the deaths of god alone knows how many of them. These criminals belong in jail & I want to ensure that this never EVER happens again.Because they’re MY political enemies? No. Because they deserve it…and worse.Too bad you can’t think for yourself, John.

ceu- These criminals belong in jail & I want to ensure that this never EVER happens again.Hey, good luck with all of that- ceu.