Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?hp
Published: November 15, 2005

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.

Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.

Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

That's basically a recap of everything everyone has said on this forum. When will his supporters take a real look at what happened?

It is so obvious that BuSh wanted to go to war so that he looked like he was doing something about 9/11 under the guise of ridding the world of Saddam and his WMD. It was typical of his deflection from the fact that the world's most sophisticated army couldn't find the real 9/11 culprit. Still hasn't.

History will not treat George W. Bush kindly. He's no hero in my book.

That's basically a recap of everything everyone has said on this forum. When will his supporters take a real look at what happened?


Never! Blind Trust! That's all they have! Also a stuborn as GW is, not willing to accept the true facts.

This is a terrible editorial, but I would expect nothing more from the New York Times. It's premise is wrong from the beginning and it has little regard for actual truth. It has more spin than a memo straight from the DNC headquarters.

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials....
But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.
O.K. So we are acknowledging that the information was consistant, despite the claim that some of it may have been ten years old. So this would mean there was no "deception" involved, just failed intelligence gathering.

So, do we blame the President who's been in office for two years, or the one who had eight years to destroy the intelligence gathering capabilities of the country? How do you blame Bush for not having enough intelligence assets in Iraq when the decade prior, the administation repeatedly advanced policies that made intelligence a greater challenge, eased up on Hussein and permitted the expulsion of UN inspectors?

As for the "fanciful"- that statement is to vague to debate because there is no way to know what he's refering to as "fanciful." If it's the "yellow cake uranium story," then we should remind the NY Times that despite Joe Wilson's deception, the story is infact true. The Iraqi's DID seek to buy it.


Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials.
So, they're saying that we failed to show our inadequate and fanciful data to our allies?

Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence.
The intelligence committe does to.


It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate.
No, this isn't true. Hussein was still ambitiously putting together the pieces necessary to reactivate his nuclear and weapon programs. He was still engaged in corrupt dealings through the UN and the Oil for Food Program. And many of the same liberals who are saying the "sanctions worked" now were the ones who were complaining that the sanctions were killing 50,000 Iraqi children.

It must be nice to be a liberal, you get to stay on both sides of every issue... Every issue except one, they're always convinced the U.S. is wrong and the embodiment of evil.

France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified.
France, Russia, and Germany has extense back room deals and contracts in place with Hussein. They had a distinct economic incentive to prevent the war. Regime change meant all of their contracts were going to be voided.

This isn't to mention the millions in blood money they were making through Hussein and the programs like Oil For Food.

In fact, I would argue that these three countries made war inevitable. Because of their 2 vote veto power on the security counsel, Hussein was confident that they would be able to prevent any kind of military action on Iraq. Because of this, he felt little pressure to complain to 1441.

Hussein was also confident that pressure from these three members would lead to a lifting of he sanctions, and then the freedom and money to completely reactivate his weapon programs.

Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.
Killing 3000 citizens in a morning will sort of make you rethink foreign policy.

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false,
I know, the NY Times has never let "facts" get in the way of a good editorial before, but let's correct this one.

The attempt to purchase uranium from Niger was TRUE. Everyone has confirmed it. And there is clear evidence that Hussein had his nuclear program ready to be reactivated.

and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.
And it was confirmed by analysts with real expertise as well.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda
No, this isn't an abusrd claim. Iraq served as a safe harbor for Al-Queda terrorists. Hussein funded terrorism through the region. There were training camps in Northern Iraq. Hussein wasn't ideologically in league with Al-Queda, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The Bush administration has NEVER made a direct link to Hussein and the 9/11 attack.



Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers......
So now we're critical of Bush for asking for a clear conclussion from the professionals? Would you rather Bush be handed all the information and given the sole responsibility of interpretting it himself? What hypocrits.

The paper acknowledges that there was NO pressure, then comes up with stupid criticism. Is there any wonder why Ny Times circulation has fallen off, and it has lost virtually all credibility?


Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

Do I need to reprint the list of Democrat comments about Iraqi weapons dating back to 1998? This is such a transparent, and dishonest, attempt to make political gains at the expense of National Security.

It's disgusting, and anyone who supports these people, the Democrat Party, really should feel dirty.

First of all, the sole reason for invading Iraq was not because HE HAD WMDs. Clearly they thought he did, otherwise, why would they send the military in with biohazard suits?

Clearly he had nuclear ambitions, in the 80s Israel blew up their reactor... the one that was built using French technology.

But the war isn't just about Hussein having weapons. It's part of a larger plan designed to combat the threat of terrorism, and more specifically, to reshape the face of the Middle East. It's ambitious and visionary. And at no time has anyone in the Bush administration said it was going to be quick or easy. I've never heard an assessment that said less than five years of large scale involvement in that country.

There were intelligence failures associated with this war. Why didn't the state department and intelligence agencies know that Iraq was just two steps ahead of the stone age? But the implication is that there was a fraud perpetrated on the public, and that just isn't the case.

And it is the most dispicable kind of political opportunism to do this. An honest discussion as to why the intelligence wasn't perfect is good, and constructive. The Democrats aren't engaging in anything constructive at all. According to a liberal, history began yesterday. They are never accountable for their past failure, and they lack the ability to judge things with a historical context. So, it doesn't matter if they implemented the policy of regime change in Iraq under Bill Clinton. And it doesn't matter that Clinton put us on the brink of War in Iraq everytime he was accused of raping another woman. And it certainly doesn't matter that he dismantled the intelligence community, and since he lacked any kind of visionary foreign policy, he took no proactive steps to reshape or foreign policy or intelligence to deal with the emerging threats of the 21th century and not the cold war.

Don't forget, the U.S. endured a succession of attacks by Al-Queda all through the 90s, but they were never addressed. So, it's even more hypocritcal when a rag like the times, after 8 years of boot licking, is condemning the Bush administration for not completely reforming all the agencies with the intelligence and state departments yet. And it's even worse when you recognize that every time he tries to nominate a reformer into the leadership positions to do that, he's met with unyielding criticism from fish-wrapers like the Ny Times. Look at the opposition Bolton and Goss received.

History will not treat George W. Bush kindly. He's no hero in my book.

Perhaps if you read a few more books, you'd view history a little differently.

Never! Blind Trust! That's all they have! Also a stuborn as GW is, not willing to accept the true facts.
When you recognize that the editorial department of the New York Times is only one step above publishing articles about "BAT Boy getting lose" you'll understand that this is an article that needs to be dismissed.

It's not an argument, it a press release from Harry Reid.

I stick by my statement. George W. Bush is no hero and he will be forever villified for his actions. But that's just my opinion. Oh yeah, By Rasmussen's numbers say 57% of American's agree with me.

I stick by my statement. George W. Bush is no hero and he will be forever villified for his actions. But that's just my opinion. Oh yeah, By Rasmussen's numbers say 57% of American's agree with me.

By the way, that comment I made was inapprorpriate. Unfortuantely, I didn't edit it in time.

As for Rasmussen numbers, I guess I missed the poll that found 57% of Americans think "Bush will be villified by historians for freeing 20,000,000 people and reshaping the face of the Middle East," perhaps I just skimmed over it too quickly.

You've can't be an effective executive if you base your decisions on short term poll numbers. Let's see how the poll numbers are in Nov. of 2006.

Calabrio,

Don't look at me, Bryan's the one that spouts Rasmussen poll numbers.

I was only slightly offended by your remark. I am pleased that you acknowleded it.

It is obvious that you have a vast knowledge of history but you shouldn't bank on President Bush's vindication. I firmly believe that it is he who attempts to write history, not those that he accuses of rewriting it.

I have to ask you a couple of questions. Did we not both watch aerial surveilance portrayed by Colin Powell as difinitive proof that WMD were stored in specific facilities? Did we not both watch CNN as we attacked Iraq on the ground? Why didn't we find WMD? I've heard it proffed so many times that the WMD were moved to Syria. In what? Invisible trucks. We have the best surveilance in the world. Where's the proof?

I sat glued to my television for weeks hoping to hear of a verified find of WMD. None ever came. I'm sorry, for all the conservative dodging you all know that the American public perceives that WMD was the one specific target of our efforts. We can't help feeling that we were misled.

Actually, I may have used the wrong term in the previous paragraph. I used the word conservative as if it was his only base. I believe he has supporters across the spectrum but, in my opinion, he seems to be losing his conservative base the fastest.

I have to ask you a couple of questions.

Did we not both watch aerial surveilance portrayed by Colin Powell as difinitive proof that WMD were stored in specific facilities?
He gave evidence that Iraq did have a program to develop WMDs.
And he also gave evidence as to how quickly they could move them leaving virtually no trace. He showed evidence of labs based on the back of tractor trailers. Trucks that could easily disappear.

Did we not both watch CNN as we attacked Iraq on the ground? Why didn't we find WMD? I've heard it proffed so many times that the WMD were moved to Syria. In what? Invisible trucks. We have the best surveilance in the world. Where's the proof?
Even the best surveilance in the world is unable to track every square mile of a country the size of California. Sadly, most of our expectations regarding military intelligence is far more influence by movies and science fiction than it is in fact.


I sat glued to my television for weeks hoping to hear of a verified find of WMD. None ever came. I'm sorry, for all the conservative dodging you all know that the American public perceives that WMD was the one specific target of our efforts. We can't help feeling that we were misled.
And it is absolutely valid to ask "why" the intelligence failed us so. Not simply regarding the inability to find any substantial stock piles of WMDs, but to more social and economic problems inside Iraq as well. Why didn't they know the population of Iraq was living in the Stone Age? Why did they rely on informants who hadn't lived in Iraq for over a decade.

Most people start to become socially aware around the age of 8-10. Operation Desert Storm was in 1991. So what do you think the average age of the native Iraqi insurgent is? What do you think their first memories are.

In the space of this post, I'm not going to address my theories and explanations for the failings. But it's perfectly valid to want to know what went wrong. And the governmet does have an obligation to investigate itself and provide an explanation.

That's not what we're hearing now though. The Democrat party is trying to make political gain out of this with no regard for the damage done. Their problem is they overwhelmingly supported a war, but their base is overwhelmingly against it. What are they to do?

They'll pretend they were mislead. And they'll attack the integrity of the President and his political party while their at it. They'll revise history, knowing full well the short attention span of the public. And since their "supporters" don't want to think Bush could have made a rational decision, they're very comforted to think that their candidates were just "fooled." To hell with the facts, to hell with the ten year build up.

Right now, we need to present a united front. There is no reasonable reason to believe that the President would involve us in a needless war for personal reasons. Reasons that are conspiculously never provided by these conspiracy Democrats.

It is not destructive or bad to say, "why didn't we know." It is destructive and it weakens us as a nation when people say "Despite no evidence, he lied, He's dishonest. We shouldn't go to war. America is wrong.."


Actually, I may have used the wrong term in the previous paragraph. I used the word conservative as if it was his only base. I believe he has supporters across the spectrum but, in my opinion, he seems to be losing his conservative bse the fastest.
I know, you're not the guy who brings up the polls. You really need to be careful when you read those. I haven't read the recent ones, so I'm not speaking in specifics. However, the wording in those is very biased, especially in the Pew and Zogby polls. But more importantly, polls are a snapshot. A snapshot of a disconnected and disinterested public. While they might help anticipate voting patterns, they really have nothing to do with the validity or importance of a policy.

And most often, they are used by the mainstream media as a way of shaping public opinion.... "x% of the 1000 people we surveyed (65% democrat, 34% Republican, 1%undecided sample) think y" maybe you should too."

What happened to Osama? I remember distinctly after 9/11 and before the war, Bush would use Osama and Saddam in the same sentence over and over throughout his addresses... Correct me if I am wrong, but Osama took credit for masterminding the 9/11 attack, yet Bush never speaks of him anymore. Shouldn't we be concerned about this guy? Shouldn't the president reassure us that we are still after him? Because, if the WMD's were magically spirited away to Syria, whats to stop Osama and his people from using them on the troops or on American soil?

C'mon...if you think we're not still after Osama...well, we are.

Actually there has been alot of talk around intelligence circles as to his possibly having been killed in the earthquake. Wishful thinking...yes...impossible...no.

What happened to Osama?
If he's alive, he's likely hiding in Pakistan. A billionaire can buy a lot of protection amongst those tribes.

Are you going to ask why we don't just go into Pakistan and flush him out next? Because, Pakistan isn't stable. The "President" is a dictator who took over the country in a bloodless clue around 2000. If American troops go storming through the country side, it will set off a reaction that could throw the country into chaos, likely forcing Musharef out of power. Why is this bad? While Musharef isn't the ideal leader, he is acting as an allie in the war on terror. If he's forced out, he'll be replaced by a Radical Islamo-fascist who would not assist us. Would fund terrorism. And WOULD HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB.

It's a delicate situation over there. They are handling it masterfully.

I remember distinctly after 9/11 and before the war, Bush would use Osama and Saddam in the same sentence over and over throughout his addresses... Correct me if I am wrong, but Osama took credit for masterminding the 9/11 attack, yet Bush never speaks of him anymore. Shouldn't we be concerned about this guy? Shouldn't the president reassure us that we are still after him? Because, if the WMD's were magically spirited away to Syria, whats to stop Osama and his people from using them on the troops or on American soil?

Osama wasn't the mastermind of 9/11. He was the front man and a financier of Al-Queda. While there is a psychological benefit in killing and capturing him, it doesn't end the war. He's not "that" important from a strategic standpoint. As mentioned before, he may have been killed in the Earthquake that killed around 100,000 pakistanis. Or, he could be hiding in a cave. He'll eventually be found. But he has been marginalized. And it's important to not get distracted by him.

And what's to stop them from using the weapons that may be in Syria. Hopefully, just the Syrian's fear that we'll turn their country into glass if we find out that they were the staging area for a bio-attack.

calabrio,

I disagree. He said the WMD were there. He pointed them out for millions of Americans to see. Their dog and pony show was real convincing.

Please post pictures of the bio labs. What they found was nothing. He'd be parading evidence of WMD all day, every day, if it existed.

OK, you guys seem to be hung up on two things. The first is Clinton. How is he responsible for GWB's decision to act on 10 year old intelligence to make his case for going to war? It's not like GWB moved into the White House and kept the same staff. He changed all the close advisers. Stop blaming Clinton for everything. I didn't vote for him either time. He was too slippery. That doesn't give you guys an out when George misbehaves.

The second is the accusation that Bush lied. OK, let's assume that Bush believed everything he was told. Therefore he didn't lie. However, it has been proven to your satisfaction that there was a failure in the intelligence community. Did GWB not show poor judgement in using that failed information? If your answer is yes, why not just take his licks and move on?

C'mon...if you think we're not still after Osama...well, we are.

Actually there has been alot of talk around intelligence circles as to his possibly having been killed in the earthquake. Wishful thinking...yes...impossible...no.

I said no such thing. I just said that after 9/11 Bush would speak of him and his ties to Saddam repeatedly, over and over... Fast forward 3-4 years, Bush never speaks of him.

That's basically a recap of everything everyone has said on this forum. When will his supporters take a real look at what happened?

It is so obvious that BuSh wanted to go to war so that he looked like he was doing something about 9/11 under the guise of ridding the world of Saddam and his WMD. It was typical of his deflection from the fact that the world's most sophisticated army couldn't find the real 9/11 culprit. Still hasn't.

History will not treat George W. Bush kindly. He's no hero in my book.
Explain the Clinton comments and actions about Iraq first. Let's have that discussion because it appears that Clinton ONCE AGAIN knowing lied to us.

Should we regurgitate all the Democrat talking points when Clinton was in office? The only reason that didn't take any action on the information THEY HAD is because Democrats, for the most part, are pussies.:Bang

Calabrio..

As far as marginalizing Osama, don't you think that is a terrible move? If he is the front man and a billionaire financier (bank roll) for Al-Qaeda, wouldn't focusing on him intently be an extremely wise move on the 'War On Terror' campaign? I know Osama is not the 'king' piece in a game of chest and if we kill him all will be well, but cutting a huge part of the terrorist cash flow would make it more difficult for them to move around, supply themselves, plan attacks etc.

That's one of my beefs with Bush. Something that was an imminent threat, a threat so large that war was necessary is now marginalized? Just doesn't sit well with me and others I'm sure.

Calabrio..

As far as marginalizing Osama, don't you think that is a terrible move? If he is the front man and a billionaire financier (bank roll) for Al-Qaeda, wouldn't focusing on him intently be an extremely wise move on the 'War On Terror' campaign? I know Osama is not the 'king' piece in a game of chest and if we kill him all will be well, but cutting a huge part of the terrorist cash flow would make it more difficult for them to move around, supply themselves, plan attacks etc.

That's one of my beefs with Bush. Something that was an imminent threat, a threat so large that war was necessary is now marginalized? Just doesn't sit well with me and others I'm sure.
Your attempt to distract from the debate that isn't going your way will not go unnoticed.

I just scanned this entire thread, and the only thing that doesn't fit in it is your out-of-place expostulation about Osama bin Laden.

We're discussing Bush and Iraq intelligence here, and you decide to change the subject. Why? Can't handle the debate as is?

You libs are the ones who are constantly harping and carping about how Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have NOTHING to do with Iraq, so now's your chance to practice what you preach.

It is so obvious that BuSh wanted to go to war so that he looked like he was doing something about 9/11 under the guise of ridding the world of Saddam and his WMD. It was typical of his deflection from the fact that the world's most sophisticated army couldn't find the real 9/11 culprit. Still hasn't.



David,

You should really read the posts. It was #2. Did you even read the article?

Calabrio..

As far as marginalizing Osama, don't you think that is a terrible move? If he is the front man and a billionaire financier (bank roll) for Al-Qaeda, wouldn't focusing on him intently be an extremely wise move on the 'War On Terror' campaign? I know Osama is not the 'king' piece in a game of chest and if we kill him all will be well, but cutting a huge part of the terrorist cash flow would make it more difficult for them to move around, supply themselves, plan attacks etc.

That's one of my beefs with Bush. Something that was an imminent threat, a threat so large that war was necessary is now marginalized? Just doesn't sit well with me and others I'm sure.

The idea is that Bin Laden has lost the ability to do anything much right now. While he may not be dead, he is unable to communicate with the rest of Al-queda. Every communication he makes increases the likelihood their will be a smart bomb fired into the mouth of his cave, or under his tent.

So, right now, he can't fundraise. He can't actively help recruit. There maybe a pr benefit, internally, of showing him on camera being pulled out from the camel's butt he's hiding in... but he's incapacitated otherwise.

The actual masterminds behind the attack have infact been caught or killed. Unfortunately, those stories didn't resonate with the press. Al-Queda has been devastated these past four years.

Bin Laden himself wasn't the threat. He was a figurehead. And it would be a great PR move to kill him, but killing him isn't the same cutting off the head of the snake. He isn't the head, he was just the face.

The idea is that Bin Laden has lost the ability to do anything much right now. While he may not be dead, he is unable to communicate with the rest of Al-queda. Every communication he makes increases the likelihood their will be a smart bomb fired into the mouth of his cave, or under his tent.

So, right now, he can't fundraise. He can't actively help recruit. There maybe a pr benefit, internally, of showing him on camera being pulled out from the camel's butt he's hiding in... but he's incapacitated otherwise.
.

He is? Al-queda seems to be doing just fine.

Bin Laden - the son of the Bush families best friends....

He is? Al-queda seems to be doing just fine.


Well, he certainly has you and all your liberal friends and all your anti-war demonstrators in Congress to thank for all the moral support he's getting.

You guys just keep it up. It's going to be embarrassing when you people end up on the wrong side of history.

What's it like to be a terrorist sympathizer? I can't relate to that.

Well, he certainly has you and all your liberal friends and all your anti-war demonstrators in Congress to thank for all the moral support he's getting.

You guys just keep it up. It's going to be embarrassing when you people end up on the wrong side of history.

What's it like to be a terrorist sympathizer? I can't relate to that.

Lol.. See what I mean Calabrio.. If you disagree with Bush then 'YOU MUST HATE AMERICA!" or "YOU MUST BE A TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER!"

McCarthyism at it's finest............

Lol.. See what I mean Calabrio.. If you disagree with Bush then 'YOU MUST HATE AMERICA!" or "YOU MUST BE A TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER!"

McCarthyism at it's finest............

Don't look now, but you committed a major faux pas. McCarthy's time wasn't in the middle of a shooting war: Totally irrelevant.

Right now comments like Rich's (and Ted Kennedy's and Harry Reid's and Dick Turban's, et al) give aid and comfort to our enemies as they see our politicians criticizing and falsely accusing (lying about) our President and our troops. You don't think that the terrorists watch the news? If you think that then you're a moron. The terrorists know exactly what the political climate is here, and they're banking on our spineless liberal dem congressworms to fold their tents and go home. That's what happened to Spain, and that's what's happening to France right now.

What your leaders in Congress are doing is despicable, because they are encouraging our enemies to stay the course and keep attacking our soldiers. They are becoming responsible for future deaths of OUR OWN PEOPLE! If you don't get that then there's no hope for you.

Don't look now, but you committed a major faux pas. McCarthy's time wasn't in the middle of a shooting war: Totally irrelevant. .

So when war is called everyone should shut up? That's the American thing to do? Don't look now, but you just shat on the Constitution.

No, the comment was not irrelevent, cold war or not.

Right now comments like Rich's (and Ted Kennedy's and Harry Reid's and Dick Turban's, et al) give aid and comfort to our enemies as they see our politicians criticizing and falsely accusing (lying about) our President and our troops. You don't think that the terrorists watch the news? If you think that then you're a moron. The terrorists know exactly what the political climate is here, and they're banking on our spineless liberal dem congressworms to fold their tents and go home. That's what happened to Spain, and that's what's happening to France right now.

What your leaders in Congress are doing is despicable, because they are encouraging our enemies to stay the course and keep attacking our soldiers. They are becoming responsible for future deaths of OUR OWN PEOPLE! If you don't get that then there's no hope for you.

Lol, you're right, if everyone would shut up and let Bush do whatever he wanted the war would of been over long ago and the people killing US soldiers would never dream of doing such acts. If you think that, then you're a moron.

Your attempt to distract from the debate that isn't going your way will not go unnoticed.

I just scanned this entire thread, and the only thing that doesn't fit in it is your out-of-place expostulation about Osama bin Laden.

We're discussing Bush and Iraq intelligence here, and you decide to change the subject. Why? Can't handle the debate as is?.

Osama was a reason for going to war... Like I said in the first post, Bush would use Osama (cause of 9/11 we were made to believe) and Saddam in the same sentence repeatedly, we were made to believe that Saddam had a personal hand in the 9/11 attack. Do you not remember Bush's speeches post 9/11 pre Iraq? But, if you to focus strictly on Iraq Intelligence (wmd's etc.), sure. But Osama was related to Al-Qaeda in intelligence when pretaining to the war. Don't look now, but you just pointed the finger at me for something you're guilty of doing in the pasted yourself.

You libs are the ones who are constantly harping and carping about how Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have NOTHING to do with Iraq, so now's your chance to practice what you preach.

That's the point! If Osama and Al-Qaeda had everthing to do why we're in Iraq, why has Osama been marginalized as Calabrio put.

So when war is called everyone should shut up? That's the American thing to do? Don't look now, but you just shat on the Constitution.

No, the comment was not irrelevent, cold war or not.



Lol, you're right, if everyone would shut up and let Bush do whatever he wanted the war would of been over long ago and the people killing US soldiers would never dream of doing such acts. If you think that, then you're a moron.

Now you've made the logical flaw of oversimplification. You are equating "just shut up" with "not telling lies" and "not knowingly making false accusations" and "providing aid and comfort to our enemies."

There's such a huge difference between legitimate criticism and what your libwack leaders are doing it's laughable. If you don't see that, then you're a -- no, I'm not going to sink to your name-calling level.

Don't look now, but you just shat on our troops and emboldened the terrorists.

Now you've made the logical flaw of oversimplification. You are equating "just shut up" with "not telling lies" and "not knowingly making false accusations" and "providing aid and comfort to our enemies."

There's such a huge difference between legitimate criticism and what your libwack leaders are doing it's laughable. If you don't see that, then you're a -- no, I'm not going to sink to your name-calling level..

You make me laugh.... You see any criticism on Bush as terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. While there are some people that go over the edge with accusations, that is not the majority.

I name call? Take a long look at your previous threads.

Don't look now, but you just shat on our troops and emboldened the terrorists.

Oh man, thanks for proving my point. 'Since I do not agree with Bush, therefore I must be a terrorist sympathizer.' It's the only logical explanation.

Bin Laden - the son of the Bush families best friends....

And thus, we know the real reason he is still on the loose. To the shrubbies, shatting on the graves of 3000+ dead New Yorkians is more palatable than pissing off fellow oil-buisness butt buddies.

You make me laugh.... You see any criticism on Bush as terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. While there are some people that go over the edge with accusations, that is not the majority.

I name call? Take a long look at your previous threads.



Oh man, thanks for proving my point. 'Since I do not agree with Bush, therefore I must be a terrorist sympathizer.' It's the only logical explanation.

Now you've switched from oversimplification to overgeneralization. You now equate "any criticism on Bush" with "terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. "

What you're doing is misusing my words, and you're not even good at it. I will say this one more time, and I dare you to understand it:

Legitimate criticism is NOT equal to lying and falsely accusing. And you're wrong: The MAJORITY of your Dem leaders are lying and falsely accusing Bush of lying, and they know they're doing it, because their quotes are being played back for them, and they're ignoring the facts while continuing to prevaricate.

Chew on this: (November 6, 2005, Meet The Press)

MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Iraq. There's a big debate now about whether or not the data, the intelligence data, was misleading and manipulated in order to encourage public opinion support for the war. Let me give you a statement that was talked about during the war.
"We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents...all U.S. intelligence experts agree they are seek nuclear weapons. There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them. ... In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon. ..."
Are those the statements that you're concerned about?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I am concerned about it, and that's why I believe that the actions that were taken by Harry Reid in the Senate last week when effectively he said that we are going to get to the bottom of this...

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the Senate in 2002 -- let me show you who said what I just read: John Kerry, your candidate for president. He was talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry. Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein. You, yourself, said, "Saddam is dangerous. He's got dangerous weapons." It wasn't just the Bush White House.

BuSh was in such a rush to remove Saddam from power, he has ignored a more real threat..............

Posted on Tue, Nov. 15, 2005


Nuclear threat lingers, 9/11 commission says

By Sylvia A. Smith

Washington editor


WASHINGTON – Terrorists will have 14 years to get their hands on material to make nuclear weapons unless Congress and President Bush step up the pace of a program created in 1991 by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., members of the Sept. 11 commission said Monday.

They said that half the nuclear arsenal amassed by the former Soviet Union has been dismantled in the 14 years since Congress created the Nunn-Lugar program, named for Lugar and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. At that rate, the commission said, it will take 14 more years to defang them all.

“We know Osama bin Laden has been trying to get weapons of mass destruction for a decade, yet our response will try to secure these fissile materials in the next 14 years, giving Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida time to get these weapons and attack the United States,” said 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer, a former Indiana congressman. “That’s not acting quickly and responsibly enough.”

The commission issued the third in a series of updates on how Congress and the White House have adopted the recommendations the panel made after its investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. In its original report, issued in mid-2004, the commission listed “maximum effort by the U.S. government to prevent terrorists from acquiring (weapons of mass destruction)” as one of its top recommendations. In the report issued Monday, the commission rated the effort so far as “insufficient progress.”

“Is there anybody anywhere who thinks we have 14 years?” said Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and the chairman of the 9/11 commission. “This is unacceptable.”

The commission said the unsecured stockpile of nuclear weapons – mostly in Russia – is “the most serious threat” to national security.

Kean said “positive signs” include an agreement reached last February by Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure nuclear warheads and material and an amendment the Senate adopted to streamline the use of Nunn-Lugar money.

“But they’re not nearly enough,” he said.

The report says that “preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be elevated above all other problems of national security” and called on Bush to accelerate the timetable for securing all material that can be used to make nuclear weapons. “The president should publicly make this goal his top national security priority and ride herd on the bureaucracy to maintain a sense of urgency.”

Lugar, in a speech two weeks ago, said both the United States and Russia could work harder to dismantle nuclear weapons.

“Not everyone in the former Soviet Union, and indeed, not everyone in our own country, believes these programs should be a priority,” Lugar said at Foreign Relations Council.

He added, “We could accelerate the program, but that requires two to tango. The Russians have to want to accelerate the program.”

In its report Monday, the Sept.11 commission gave a mixed critique about the Bush administration’s performance in other areas. It said the administration has not adopted standards for treatment of captured terror suspects but offered praise for U.S. attempts to integrate the Arab and Muslim world into the global trading system and in fighting terrorism financing.

Now you've switched from oversimplification to overgeneralization. You now equate "any criticism on Bush" with "terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. ".

Ever time I say something you claim I'm doing something else.... Idon't see this stopping. Get's old.

What you're doing is misusing my words, and you're not even good at it. I will say this one more time, and I dare you to understand it:.

YOU GOT ME! I am misusing your own words(sarcasm). Didn't you accuse Raven of the same thing on another thread and Johnny for that matter? As far as I can tell, no one has added, deleted or otherwise tampered with what you write. They're your own words; I dare you to understand that.

Legitimate criticism is NOT equal to lying and falsely accusing. And you're wrong: The MAJORITY of your Dem leaders are lying and falsely accusing Bush of lying, and they know they're doing it, because their quotes are being played back for them, and they're ignoring the facts while continuing to prevaricate.

I do not agree that the majority of Democrat leaders willingly lie about or knowingly falsify Bush's actions (my opinion, you have yours). I find it extremely ironic that what you wrote (BOLDED) is what the left and some on the right are accusing Bush of doing.

The fact of the matter is that your lib leaders are so upset that they lost the election that they will say or do anything to bring down the President, even if it means lying or undermining our troops and causing more deaths.

This is a political strategy that was put out in a memo by (D) Senator Jay Rockefeller. They planned this. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush lied. In fact, the only evidence out there indicates that he DIDN'T lie. Yet you people keep demagoguing and asserting something you don't know to be the truth. That makes what you are saying lies.


Rockefeller memo

Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives.

The fact of the matter is that your lib leaders are so upset that they lost the election that they will say or do anything to bring down the President, even if it means lying or undermining our troops and causing more deaths. .

So the Democrats are somehow letting troops die out of spite? That's what you're basically saying.

So the Democrats are somehow letting troops die out of spite? That's what you're basically saying.

That's what ROCKEFELLER basically said.

By the way, I could post the same question right back at you with Bush's name inserted. "So Bush is somehow letting troops die out of spite?"

Kurds Campaign Thanks U.S. for Liberation


A group representing Kurdistan thanks America for liberating that nation from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship of terrorism.

"The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say ‘thank you for helping us win our freedom. Thank you for democracy. Thank you America.”

The print and broadcast advertisements are sponsored by the Kurdistan Development Corporation, an organization created by the government of Kurdistan to encourage international investment.

The ad campaign began Monday in the United States with ads in The Wall Street Journal and on Fox News Channel. Ads begin airing Nov. 14 airing in Europe.

The group describes Kurdistan as a place "where peace and prosperity have reigned since liberation from Saddam Hussein.”
Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and Kurdistan’s High Representative to the UK, says the commercials are necessary to counter the American media’s largely negative coverage of Iraq.

"We feel the mainstream media,” she tells Newsmax, "is focusing on the negative stories coming out of Iraq and very rarely highlighting the good news.”

"We’re not saying that the media doesn’t tell the truth. They do tell the truth. There is violence. There is an insurgency. But it’s not the whole truth, or the whole picture.”

"The truth is that while there is violence,” she continues, "there are big strides being taken towards democracy in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan. There are vast sections of Iraq, and again particularly Kurdistan, where the region is safe, stable, and people are getting on with their lives, doing business, trying to build a future.”

Indeed, not a single coalition soldier has died in Kurdistan since March 2003.

Rahman worries, however, about suggestions that the United States should pull out of Iraq.

"If people are saying that America should withdraw their troops now, that would be a catastrophe, not only for the people of Iraq but also for the Middle East and the wider intentional community and the United States,” she says.

The current peace and prosperity is a welcome change from conditions under Saddam Hussein, who targeted the Kurds throughout his rule.

Among other atrocities, Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds, a majority of which were women and children.

Following the Gulf War in 1991, the United States and the United Kingdom established "no-fly zones” in northern Iraq to prevent continued bombing of Kurdistan by Saddam. Kurds ran a semi-autonomous government under the protection of the "no-fly zones.”

Kurdistan President H.E. Masoud Barzani thanked President Bush for his dedication to Iraqi freedom in an Oct. 25 visit to the White House.
"It was a brave decision that you have made,” Barzani told the president, "you have liberated a people from a dictatorial regime that has hurt a lot of people.”

Rahman goes further, calling President Bush a "hero.”

"The people of Kurdistan and the government of Kurdistan,” she gushes, "admire President Bush’s courage in fighting Saddam Hussein despite some of the doubts of America’s international partners.”

Rahman says there is no question that the decision to liberate Iraq was just.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant,” she notes, "a dictator who committed genocide against the people of Kurdistan ... To get rid of someone like that, there should be no question.”

In addition to the advertisments, the group maintains a Web site, www.theotheriraq.com, expressing its gratitude to the U.S. and the value of Kurdistan to the world community.

That's what ROCKEFELLER basically said.

By the way, I could post the same question right back at you with Bush's name inserted. "So Bush is somehow letting troops die out of spite?"


No, that question really wouldn't fit that way... The final call for war was his choice, he did make the final decision, so the 'somehow' aspect is invalid. So if you had asked "So Bush is letting troops die out of spite?" I would say, I don't believe he is doing anything out of spite, I don't think anyone here said that was a motive. Unless someone before brought up that he was after Saddam to one-up his father?

Unless someone before brought up that he was after Saddam to one-up his father?

Oh yeah, that. That's a ridiculous premise. There isn't one bit of evidence in Bush's character that points to a desire to one-up GHWB.

It would be less of a stretch for me to say that Ted Kennedy is calling Bush a liar to ease his own guilt about Chappaquiddick.

Oh yeah, that. That's a ridiculous premise. There isn't one bit of evidence in Bush's character that points to a desire to one-up GHWB.

I didn't know you were a psychologist and that you had studied Bush.

One thing though, anyone will tell you that presidents are extremely competitive. They don't reach the highest seat of a country by not being so; it's just the nature of the beast. A country needs its leaders to have that drive. So it would be ridiculous to say with 100% certainty that one-upping his father had nothing to do with his motives.

I didn't know you were a psychologist and that you had studied Bush.

One thing though, anyone will tell you that presidents are extremely competitive. They don't reach the highest seat of a country by not being so; it's just the nature of the beast. A country needs its leaders to have that drive. So it would be ridiculous to say with 100% certainty that one-upping his father had nothing to do with his motives.

Foolish statement.

But if it makes you fell better, he ONE UPPED his father when he was elected to a second term as President.

Foolish statement.

But if it makes you fell better, he ONE UPPED his father when he was elected to a second term as President.

Did you actually read what I wrote? What Fossten wrote? I did not say he did any such action. I said that to say for certain that he is impossible of such action as Fossten stated is ridiculous. Read before you attack.

I didn't know you were a psychologist and that you had studied Bush.

Again, right back at you: I didn't know you were God and could know if Bush was lying without any evidence.


One thing though, anyone will tell you that presidents are extremely competitive. They don't reach the highest seat of a country by not being so; it's just the nature of the beast. A country needs its leaders to have that drive. So it would be ridiculous to say with 100% certainty that one-upping his father had nothing to do with his motives.


You need to stop measuring Bush by the Clinton yardstick. If you go back and read every speech that Bush has ever given, and don't pick out all the verbal errors like usual, you will see an underlying theme: He doesn't EVER make it about him.

In contrast, Clinton did that all the time, and is still doing it, as evidenced by his speech at Rosa Parks' funeral. I don't see Bush doing or saying anything that indicates that he's trying to compete with his father.

I know you're going to say, 'You're bringing up Clinton again!' But my point is that you view Presidents that way because that's how Clinton is. He's the one who launched missiles on an aspirin factory to distract from Monica Lewinsky. He's the one who keeps bashing Bush in TOTAL disrespect for the tradition of ex-presidents. It's all about HIM.

The reality is that Clinton is largely responsible for the mess we are in. He's the one that left bin Laden on a silver platter. He's the one who abandoned our troops in Somalia. He's the one who's responsible for the wall of intelligence that Able Danger is all about. Because of his administration, Atta was in the country for a year and our intel services didn't know about it.

Try looking a little further back than Clinton. King George the First headed the CIA and fostered the lax coordination that carried all the way through his, Clinton's and the heir apparent's reign. Try placing the blame for failed intelligence where it belongs.

Try looking a little further back than Clinton. King George the First headed the CIA and fostered the lax coordination that carried all the way through his, Clinton's and the heir apparent's reign. Try placing the blame for failed intelligence where it belongs.

Actually, 'Wild' Bill Donovan headed the first CIA, which was known as the OSS, or Office of Strategic Services.

Try looking a little further back than Clinton. King George the First headed the CIA and fostered the lax coordination that carried all the way through his, Clinton's and the heir apparent's reign. Try placing the blame for failed intelligence where it belongs.

And you base this on what information?

George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA in the mid-70s. That is completley unrelated the the decisions made by the Clinton White House. It has nothing to do with the decreased funding, it has nothing to do with Clinton's new reliance of surveilance and electronic spying and his abandonment of using human resources. It also has nothing to do with the policy under Clinton that basically stated we would no longer pay for information from informants who were engaged in unsavory activities. The Jamie Gorelick memo, putting a communication wall up between the different agencies, that happened under Clinton too.

Do us all a favor, and before you start posting nonsense that you're pulling off the top of your head, don't limit your research to free-association, try doing a little reading.

It's not unrelated, and you know it.

It's not unrelated, and you know it.

That was a really weak response, barry. I expected better from you.

Try using some facts to back up your assertion.

Again, right back at you: I didn't know you were God and could know if Bush was lying without any evidence.

No, you're God and know the truth................

You claim that just because no proof of WMD's have been found where they were supposed to be doesn't mean that they were never there. So, just because there's no solid (smoking gun) evidence that Bush lied, doesn't mean it's not to be found. You may like it both way's, doesn't mean it’s so.


You need to stop measuring Bush by the Clinton yardstick..............

Lol. Clinton again? lol

So if a democrat is elected next and he/she makes an error any error I can turn around and blame it on Bush? That's really sad that your main weapon for anything gone wrong during this admin is "CLINTON DID IT!" If Bush were to come out and say he rapes small children, I am certain you would blame the fault on Clinton.

It also has nothing to do with the policy under Clinton that basically stated we would no longer pay for information from informants who were engaged in unsavory activities..


So it's ok to tolerate mass murderers, tyrants and any unsavory folk if it benefits us? Would Bush turn a blind eye on Saddam longer had he given us some juicy info on North Korea or any other 'hot' country? Somehow that would make the atrocities Bush so vehemently spoke against and why Iraq needed to be freed from Saddam's grasp acceptable?

I really do not get you righties sometimes..............

So it's ok to tolerate mass murderers, tyrants and any unsavory folk if it benefits us? Would Bush turn a blind eye on Saddam longer had he given us some juicy info on North Korea or any other 'hot' country? Somehow that would make the atrocities Bush so vehemently spoke against and why Iraq needed to be freed from Saddam's grasp acceptable?

I really do not get you righties sometimes..............


Once again, your premise is flawed. You attribute 'tolerating' Saddam to Bush, yet neither Bush ever did anything of the sort. You are trying to couple the actions of previous administrations during previous wars with this administration and this war. A very shoddy, sophomoric attempt to compare apples with oranges.

Once again, your premise is flawed. You attribute 'tolerating' Saddam to Bush, yet neither Bush ever did anything of the sort. You are trying to couple the actions of previous administrations during previous wars with this administration and this war. A very shoddy, sophomoric attempt to compare apples with oranges.


Once again you really don't read what I write.... I said 'WOULD' Bush as a question, not Bush did as a fact. Talk about childish.

I was stating that I found it wrong that Calabrio was critizing Clinton for making it illegal to deal with murderers/tyrants if it suited us. Nothing else. Not that Bush did anything. Relax, your hero was not under attack here.

Lol, you really don't read what I write.... I said 'WOULD' Bush as a question, not Bush did as a fact. Talk about childish.

Incorrect. You worded the question in rhetorical form, to be used as a statement in order to prove a point. You really didn't expect an answer, since the question itself doesn't require one.

Incorrect. You worded the question in rhetorical form, to be used as a statement in order to prove a point. You really didn't expect an answer, since the question itself doesn't require one.

I don't know why I bother sometimes. Then why did you give an answer that had nothing to do with the question if it didn't require one?

I don't know why I bother sometimes. Then why did you give an answer that had nothing to do with the question if it didn't require one?

LOL - because it was my turn to speak.

So it's ok to tolerate mass murderers, tyrants and any unsavory folk if it benefits us?
Actually, yeah... but that isn't what I was talking about.

Would Bush turn a blind eye on Saddam longer had he given us some juicy info on North Korea or any other 'hot' country? Somehow that would make the atrocities Bush so vehemently spoke against and why Iraq needed to be freed from Saddam's grasp acceptable?

First of all, you're comments have nothing to do with the intelligence policies I was speaking of. You're actually addressing more hypothetical concepts associated with foreign policy.

So, in this situation, no, you wouldn't embrace Saddam just for "information" regarding North Korea. Saddam is obviously hostile towards our nation and seeks to do us harm. It would be against our short and long term interest to give him a pass.

However, ON TOPIC, you might pay a North Korean thug, criminal, pimp, or arms runner for information regarding North Korea.



I really do not get you righties sometimes..............
There's a lot you don't understand. Perhaps you should learn a little about foreign policy. Henry Kissinger wrote an excellent book on the subject. Not only is it very educational, it's a really good read as well.

There's a lot you don't understand. Perhaps you should learn a little about foreign policy. Henry Kissinger wrote an excellent book on the subject. Not only is it very educational, it's a really good read as well.

Thank's dad.