The Bush administration is full of ruthless liars who manipulate the American people. Several CIA analysts, Iraq experts and former Bush officials have revealed that senior officials have exaggerated the significance of some reports about Iraq, particularly about its links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war. A former US intelligence officer who served under the Bush administration said, “Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the US”.

A group of former US intelligence officials wrote to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraq’s WMD before the war. One former CIA officer said, “The Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) was using intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fits their agenda. If it doesn’t fit their agenda, they don’t want to accept it”. Present and former CIA officials claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservatives in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of banned weapons and links to al Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.

Before the war the CIA told to the White House that Iraq has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al Qaeda or related terrorist groups. US weapons inspector David Kay said, "I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists." A report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that the Carnegie analysts found no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between the government of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda nor any evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al Qaeda under any circumstances.

“A former US intelligence officer who served under the Bush administration said, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the US”.
- John Edwards would take issue with you on that one.

PS - Welcome - Well written

It's common knowledge that bush and his death cult pressured the CIA into giving him a report that leaned the way he wanted it to. They passed on the phoney information to the senate to get permission and money to attack Iraq.

George Tenet specifically stated that that wasn't true. If you have some information the CIA Director wasn't privy to, please notify the CIA.

Also, will everyone please stop making excuses for Senators Kerry and Edwards for when they used to say what they really believed.

Originally posted by Brooks
George Tenet specifically stated that that wasn't true. If you have some information the CIA Director wasn't privy to, please notify the CIA.

Also, will everyone please stop making excuses for Senators Kerry and Edwards for when they used to say what they really believed.

You better check your info. The intellegence was doctored. And of course Edwards and Kerry believed it. The entire country believed it. No one was aware that bush had fixed the intellegence to say what he wanted it to say.

Typical neocon. Tell a lie and when you are found out blame the other guy for believing you. You guys are so transparant.

like i say, most people have a reason first, and then go to war.....bush had a war and needed a reason. thats why the fbi and the cia are scapegoats.

New day, same posts.

EDIT: Let me amend my statement. New day, same STUPID posts.

Originally posted by Karankawa
New day, same posts. new day, same shit going on !

"You better check your info. The intellegence was doctored. And of course Edwards and Kerry believed it. The entire country believed it. No one was aware that bush had fixed the intellegence to say what he wanted it to say."

Did our intelligence also fool the Brits, the Russians and the Egyptians? I didn't know we shared doctored CIA info with Mubarek

Originally posted by Karankawa
New day, same posts.

EDIT: Let me amend my statement. New day, same STUPID posts.

Yes, stupid! lol, care to explain why?

its the same ol same ol..anything a rep says is blantanly attacked by liberal hatred-filled echo......she must be old and senile, hating anything that she doesnt like.

Its a nice conspiracy theory you guys have....but its nothing more than that. There's really no way to prove it......

The more beleivable plot in all this is the UN's involvement of getting funds on behalf of Saddam....which is why they didnt want him out of power to begin with. As you know...countries dont like giving up things that make them money......maybe thats why so many people wouldn't go with us? Its pretty much fact that many nations DID prosper off Saddam...so why would they take him out?

Originally posted by Decka
its the same ol same ol..anything a rep says is blantanly attacked by liberal hatred-filled echo......she must be old and senile, hating anything that she doesnt like.
So, anything a Dem says isn’t blatantly attacked by the Republicans on this board? You’ve got to be kidding me! Stop being so partisan, Decka.

Originally posted by Decka
Its a nice conspiracy theory you guys have....but its nothing more than that. There's really no way to prove it......
The fact is, Colin Powell and Ms. Rice all said previous to the 9/11 attacks that

“we have been able to keep arms from Saddam Hussein and he has not reproduced any weapons”

Then after 9/11, all of a sudden Saddam does have weapons. Even though the UN reports showed that he had nothing, and that he was cooperating 100%. But Bush manipulated the intelligence and mislead America. Period.

Originally posted by Decka
The more beleivable plot in all this is the UN's involvement of getting funds on behalf of Saddam....
Lets see…David Kay was a reprehensive of America in the inspections. We had I believe the most inspectors out of any country in Iraq. Which thus means, it was a completely fair inspection. Nice try…though

if you can soundly say everything is 100% as you claim...than you were there right?

On paper your claims have some crediblity, and i agree with most of the things you say too.....just the reasoning behind them is difference(on the current subject)

and if you are unwilling to admit that there is no corruption in the UN between saddam and other nations than you are in a different world than the one i live in.

Originally posted by Decka
if you can soundly say everything is 100% as you claim...than you were there right?
I can look at the reports…and it justifies everything I’ve claimed.

Originally posted by Decka
and if you are unwilling to admit that there is no corruption in the UN between saddam and other nations than you are in a different world than the one i live in.
I know perfectly well that a scandal did take place between countries in Europe and Iraq. Does that mean it affected the inspections? Maybe…but most likely not. The fact being, we had American inspectors who said Saddam had no weapons and that he was complying 100%. So that is why I think the inspections were not partisan.

I love how you always assume that the Republicans/conservatives are always lying or wrong and the Democrats/liberals are telling the truth or are correct.

How did I assume in that last post? Please, enlighten me.

Its a nice conspiracy theory you guys have....but its nothing more than that. There's really no way to prove it......How about Richard Clarke, a terrorism expert appointed by that bleeding-heart liberal Ronald Reagan, who served for 4 Presidents and spend 30 years in government? Is he objective enough for you?
CLARKE: "What happened was the president, with his finger in my face, saying, "Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaida, a memo on Iraq and the attacks." Very vigorous, very intimidating, and in a way that left all of us with the same impression, that he wanted that answer. Well, we couldn't give him that answer because it wasn't true."
Richard Clarke is not running for anything, not endorsing anyone. The intellegence was cooked from the get-go and now it's somehow Kerry's fault for believing it. Kerry, in fact, did make a mistake: he didn't think it was possible for a sitting President to stoop so low.

Now we all know better.

Is that the same Richard Clarke who said he and President Clinton foiled the millenium plot even though the customs agent who discovered the terrorist said they weren't put on any heightened alert, she just got lucky? Same guy?

Same guy who timed the release of his book to coincide with his testimony?

Same nonpartisan guy who contributes to Democrats?

Same guy who suggested Condoleeza Rice hadn't heard of Al Qaeda in 2001 even though she spoke extensively about it in radio interviews a year and a half earlier?

Yeah, you're right. He's objective enough for me.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

- Paul H. O'Neil: George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary. CEO of Alcoa Aluminum for 12 years. Left the administration in 2002.

Just another of those liberal loonies, right? Funny how they keep turning up....

Wow good point. Your statements from Paul O'Neill have convinced me of the objectivity of Richard Clarke.

About the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda:
"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection" Colin Powell, January 8, 2004 press conference.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two" Donald Rumsfeld, Oct 5 interview

9/11 Commission: There is "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States".... "Contacts" between al-Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

1. O'Neil and Clarke, quoted above, are both credible sources. Brooks, your ability to ignore overwhelming evidence makes the OJ Simpson jury look like a bunch a amateurs.

2. Bush's excuse that he was given bad intel about the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda simply doen't fly. He is ultimately responsible for all the intel that comes from an agency that reports to him. Especially if he is starting a war based on that intel. Truman had a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here."

Fluffernutter, you just got clowned. "Overwhelming evidence"...my ass. If Brooks is to ignorance what you are to gross partisan misinformation, then you've toppled the best efforts those ignoramuses used to acquit OJ on that fine day in 1994. In other words, if anyone here made the OJ jury look like a bunch of rank amateurs while applying baseless logic, then it was you, my friend. Given the scenario, I'd have to say that my analogy is slightly more appropriate. Sorry.

Prae you totally missed the entire point. Basically you are saying that anything the bush administration said before they told us that Sadam and Alquida were in bed together was wrong. They flip flopped. Lied, whatever you want to call it. But you can't have it both ways. They DID say those things and then later they changed their minds and decided to use alquida as one of the excuses to attack Iraq. None of their original reasons for attacking Iraq held true or the second round of reasons either. We are now down to the third or forth set of reasons and that is to "free the Iraqi people, bring them democracy" and "make the world a safer place".

I know you feel that bush can do no wrong and that anyone who is liberal is a nutcase, but the bottom line is that bush is not perfect, he makes mistakes, he makes BIG mistakes. And liberals actually see those mistakes for what they are rather than making excuses for them.

Your hero lied to you and every other American. You refuse to see that. Is it a choice or lack of knowledge?

Prattle: do you have ANY evidence of ANY connection between Saddam and the attacks of 9/11? Everyone in the Bush admistration seems to be looking for it at the moment. Let's hear it....I'm curious...

Fluff, I think an argument for the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq can be argued, but I agree with you that there probably isn't a direct one between Iraq and 9/11 (although some captives have said Al Qaeda practiced in that 727 fuselage in the Iraqi desert)

You're right that the Administration implied a connection between Iraq and 9/11 (using language that I probably would have called Clintonesque 5 years ago). But links have been shown between Iraq and al Qaeda that I think justify the war.

The only issue I took with you on this thread was the assignation of credibility to Richard Clarke.

Prattle: do you have ANY evidence of ANY connection between Saddam and the attacks of 9/11? Everyone in the Bush admistration seems to be looking for it at the moment. Let's hear it....I'm curious...
"Prattle" - Classic. You get points for originality. I think Brooks pretty well answered the question you directed my way, so I'm not going to bother.

I was poking fun because, if you reread the thread, I don't think it's possible to keep a straight face while taking in your response to Brook's rip on Richard Clarke. You completely went another direction, and the way he responded to you was truly hilarious. JMO.

The only issue I took with you on this thread was the assignation of credibility to Richard Clarke. Brooks: Point taken about Clarke, thank you for your clarification.

Bush knew -- planes flew
Bush lied -- troops died

Simple as that

ROTFLMAO

Dop

bush knew about 9-11 and used it as an excuse to launch a war to exterminate the arab people so we can take their oil. sound about right dop? if its all a big scam, does that mean there is no terror threat at all, and its a big con?

Originally posted by Travh20
bush knew about 9-11 and used it as an excuse to launch a war to exterminate the arab people so we can take their oil. sound about right dop?

I don't know what dop thinks, but i'd say you have it exactly correct.

This country has been killing innocent Muslims in Iraq for over ten years, which as we both are aware, is one REASON why the terrorist attacks occured in the first place....along with the fact that this government installed unwanted military bases in Saudia Arabia and has for decades backed the Israelis in exterminating Muslims in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Travh20
if its all a big scam, does that mean there is no terror threat at all, and its a big con?

There is a terror threat.

But back THEN the planned attacks were known about by either Bush or people in positions of power in his administration.

Bush and/or people in positions of power in his administration were forced to actively participate in ALLOWING the attacks to take place as planned.

Of course, NOW there is an even GREATER terrorist threat to the U.S., now that our fascist government has done exactly the OPPOSITE of what needed doing to stop terrorism.

I'm speechless.
No, seriously, who is this. Someone's putting us on, right? Is that you Praetorian. You little joker.

The reason the Muslims dislike us, is because of our blind support for Israel. Israel has broken UN resolutions, attacked Muslim lands, retaliated against Muslim actions, and is very much responsible for the chaos in the Middle East.

We have also created a double standard in the Middle East. We let Israel break UN resolutions, we let them attack, kill, and take lands that aren’t theirs. Yet, when a Muslim nation does this…we threaten and blindly believe they are 100% at fault, when Israel should take at least half the blame. Since we provide Israel with all of their supplies and money, to create chaos in the Middle East, Muslims dislike and hate us because of our blind allegiance to Israel and the hell we are supporting.

We put bases in Saudi Arabia, and since the Muslims in Saudi Arabia are extremists, they believed we were becoming imperialists and invading their way of life. That was another reason, as to why the Arab World hated us so much.

We are fighting terrorism incorrectly. We go to war in Iraq, yet, Saddam had “slim” ties to terrorism and no weapons of mass destruction. How is that correctly fighting terrorism? Many other nations had larger ties to terrorism, and yet, we didn’t invade them. We let Osama Bin Laden escape in Afghanistan. The man who was behind 9/11. The Bush Administration has OK’d the Prisoner Abuse, which has led to Al Queda being able to recruit massively. The death in Iraq, deformities, and chaos has also lead to recruitment. We have let countries like Iran build weapons. They have ties to terrorism, and Iran is the country that would be supplying terrorism. According to the 2003 Terror Report we are at a 21-year high. So how are we correctly fighting terrorism, when we are at a 21-year high?

Israel, Israel, Israel. The UN is as anti-Israel as the Arab countries. Is it any surprise Israel breaks UN resolutions.

WHoaa. What Arab lands does Israel take? Are you talking about 1967 when Israel was attacked and beat back the attack past its original borders.

If we are disliked for our support of Israel, why have Spain, Bali, Russia and the Phillipines been attacked recently?

Also, despite being a liberal, you inadvertently reveal a lot of prejudice when you talk about "the Muslims". Can we also say "the blacks" commit crimes or "the gays" molest boys. I'm friends with some of "the Muslims".

Originally posted by Brooks
Israel, Israel, Israel. The UN is as anti-Israel as the Arab countries.

??

What evidence do you have that the UN is "anti Israel"..??

Because they pass sanctions against them?!?!

They do the same to any nation that systematically commits human rights abuses and other assorted attrocities.

Originally posted by Brooks Is it any surprise Israel breaks UN resolutions.

Not to me.

Mass murderers probably do not worry themselves overmuch about the laws against jaywalking, and similarly, terrorist nations worry little about obeying UN resolutions.

As evidenced by the US and Israel.



Originally posted by Brooks WHoaa. What Arab lands does Israel take? Are you talking about 1967 when Israel was attacked and beat back the attack past its original borders.

Not 1967.

1948.

Originally posted by Brooks If we are disliked for our support of Israel, why have Spain, Bali, Russia and the Phillipines been attacked recently?

??!

Are you asserting that the fact that Spain, Bali, Russia and the Phillipines have been attacked somehow proves that this country's support of Israel does not cause resentment toward this country among groups (such as al Queda) based in the Middle East??

Originally posted by Brooks Also, despite being a liberal, you inadvertently reveal a lot of prejudice when you talk about "the Muslims".

??

Saying "the Muslims" instead of saying "Muslims" reveals --- "a lot of prejudice"....??

Guffaw.

I'm embarassed that I even responded to your first looney post.

Originally posted by Brooks
I'm embarassed that I even responded to your first looney post.

No doubt what embarrasses you most is the fact that you have no rebuttal to what I posted.

Go paint us a nice, artsy picture to illustrate the contempt you have for our government, "Freethinker". One doesn't have to rebut stupidity to prove a point...

its as common knowledge as 2+2=4 to know that israel gets screwed by the UN.....And kerry would continue that process even more.

Well he's not misleading these people --
American Conservative magazine endorses Kerry

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

Dop

Originally posted by The Praetorian
One doesn't have to rebut stupidity to prove a point...

He hasn't proven his point, and that's the point Freethinker is trying to convey...

Originally posted by Overdose We are fighting terrorism incorrectly. We go to war in Iraq, yet, Saddam had “slim” ties to terrorism and no weapons of mass destruction. How is that correctly fighting terrorism? Many other nations had larger ties to terrorism, and yet, we didn’t invade them. We let Osama Bin Laden escape in Afghanistan. The man who was behind 9/11. The Bush Administration has OK’d the Prisoner Abuse, which has led to Al Queda being able to recruit massivelyWell put, OD.

so in other words the liberals advocate pre emptive attacks on "real" terrorist nations

Originally posted by Overdose

I know perfectly well that a scandal did take place between countries in Europe and Iraq. Does that mean it affected the inspections?

Maybe not, but it disproves every major foreign policy criticism Senator Kerry has made about the administration. Maybe that's why CBS et al has largely ignored it.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Well he's not misleading these people --
American Conservative magazine endorses Kerry

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

Dop

That's a donkey in an elephant's skin. I looked at their issue titles. "Iraq, the mess we've made," "Whose War? The loudest critique behind the President's policies," "Cheney Builds an Empire," "("The world is safer" repeated on a chalkboard) Repitition doesnt make it true," "Death of Manufacturing, How Free Trade Imperils America."

Hell, they see Ralph Nader as Right Wing. This is definately not a conservative newspaper.

No, it's fully a conservative magazine. It is not a neo-conservative magazine though, I'm sorry they don't follow stock Republican beliefs. My question is how would you know what conservative is? I doubt you've ever seen one.