Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Show me a President that never lied. You can't in the past 20 years for sure.<< It's one thing to lie about a hummer, it's another thing altogether to tell a lie that results in the death of hundreds of thousands of people. So much for the Republican "culture of life!"
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I was wondering what lib was going to get all excited and post this. I guess we have a winner. To bad this report is total crap and Saddam had massive ties to Al Quaida. I guess it's time to show the connections again. Once we do that what are the libs going to say? Are they going to slink into their hole and wait for the next piece of news they can get all excited about as they continue to support terrorists and undermine our country?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Another idiot who knows more than the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<To bad this report is total crap and Saddam had massive ties to Al Quaida. I guess it's time to show the connections again. Once we do that what are the libs going to say? Are they going to slink into their hole and wait for the next piece of news they can get all excited about as they continue to support terrorists and undermine our country?>> <<Another idiot who knows more than the Senate Intelligence Committee.>> The Republican Senate Intelligence Commitee, no less.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Are you still posting on threads only to attack people? I guess you are not smart enough to see that the Senate Intelligence Committee got it wrong and it's all politics. There is so much information linking Saddam to Al Quiada the report is laughable. Way to be a sucker...again.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I guess you are not smart enough to see that the Senate Intelligence Committee got it wrong and it's all politics. There is so much information linking Saddam to Al Quiada the report is laughable. Way to be a sucker...again." Have I thanked you lately for being the best evidence against yourself with asinine posts like the one above? If not, thank you very much. I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, snookie lumps.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I guess you are not smart enough to see that the Senate Intelligence Committee got it wrong and it's all politics. Will you believe it if tony snow says it? He does. How about bush? He does. There is so much information linking Saddam to Al Quiada the report is laughable. You've been having your head filled with paranoid conspiracies that attempt to justify our invasion of iraq after the fact. And you believed it. Sucker.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's one thing to lie about a hummer, it's another thing altogether to tell a lie that results in the death of hundreds of thousands of people.> Why are you bringing up LBJ in this thread?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Another idiot who knows more than the Senate Intelligence Committee.> I don't claim to know more than the Senate Intelligence Committee, but I do question the intelligence or the honesty of whoever is writing this report. The ties between Saddam and Al Queda are well documented, and it either takes a lot of chutzpah or a bit of brain damage to have forgotten all of it already. <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp</a> Or maybe it's just politics as usual, unfortunately. <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGMzMzk2Y2YxZjlkNWJmYTlhYTAyYWY4N2Q2NWQ2ODY=" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview. com/print/?q=OGMzMzk2Y2YxZjlkNWJmYTlhYTAyYWY4N2Q2NWQ2ODY=</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Will you believe it if tony snow says it? He does. How about bush? He does.> Can we see the quotes?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Today tony snow dismissed the whole hub-bub as "old news" - hardly a refutation. As it happens I heard a bit of rush today - he said the same thing. Bush this week in some stump speech reiterated that there's no connection between saddam and iraq and 9/11.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Today tony snow dismissed the whole hub-bub as "old news" - hardly a refutation.> Here's what he said, "Based on the characterizations we've seen, it's nothing new. . . So, it's, again, kind of re-litigating things that happened three years ago." No, it's not a refutation, but neither is it an affirmation, like you claimed he had made. <Bush this week in some stump speech reiterated that there's no connection between saddam and iraq and 9/11.> Well, he's been saying that for awhile, and never claimed there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. He has claimed there was a connection between Saddam and Al Queda, because there was.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Do the libs EVER get tired of starting threads when they hear something that sounds good to them, only to be totally smacked around for being so.... damn... stupid? We have been pointing out the Saddam - Al Quaida connections for years on here. Douglas has always documented his finds with easy to read links that are pure fact. To have the democrats run out and tell people that " this time " they have got Bush " in a lie " is kinda like watching Charlie Brown never being able to kick the football because it keeps getting yanked away at the last second. Of course STPH bought the hype. He always does.
Originally Posted By bboisvert The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, ladies and gentlemen. Of course it was released on a Friday, right before 9/11, so this will likely get buried. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060909/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report_36" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60909/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report_36</a> <snip> Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq. </snip> <snip> The report also faults intelligence gathering in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion. As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi." Democrats contended that the administration continues to use faulty intelligence, including assertions of a link between Saddam's government and the recently killed al-Zarqawi, to justify the war in Iraq. They also said, in remarks attached to Friday's Senate Intelligence Committee document, that former CIA Director George Tenet had modified his position on the terrorist link at the request of administration policymakers. </snip> <snip> White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new." A second part of the report concluded that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq. It said U.S. intelligence agents put out numerous red flags about the reliability of INC sources but the intelligence community made a "serious error" and used one source who concocted a story that Iraq was building mobile biological weapons laboratories. The report also said that in 2002 the National Security Council directed that funding for the INC should continue "despite warnings from both the CIA, which terminated its relationship with the INC in December 1996, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including the Iranians." According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said. The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents. </snip>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The "Republican-controlled Senate committee" includes 7 democrats and 8 republicans, 2 of whom, Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snow, are anti-war. <But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."> This is certainly new information to me, and, if true, would certainly blunt one of my arguments for removing Saddam's regime. However, it doesn't pass the smell test: Zarqawi was treated in a Bagdahd hospital; how could Saddam have been unable to seize him? And it certainly doesn't prove that President Bush or any other member of his administration lied when they said al Zarqawi was one of the connections between al Queda and Saddam. If true, it just shows that the CIA was wrong about another piece of pre-war intelligence.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Do the libs EVER get tired of starting threads when they hear something that sounds good to them, only to be totally smacked around for being so.... damn... stupid?>> Looks to me like its Beau and the Republicans getting smacked down this time, and getting smacked down good. Of course even though Doug is realizing there may be something here, Beau still has no clue.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy RT, you voted for Bush. Why are you always trying to make your vote look like a mistake these days? This is what I mean by you being very confused about, well, pretty much everything. And this is hardly a smackdown. Can you be any more desperate? You have a report that leaves out all kinds of information and you have democrats once again over reaching Valerie Plame, Bogus document syle. I won't even bother asking you why you think Bush would have lied. Your not going to be able to think that hard without making more stuff up.
