OT: U.S. Publically Admits Screw Up

[7 Wishes]

I don't remember the Pres or even the agenda driven networks saying there was a connection between Saddam and Al Quieda.

revisionism (n):
# 1. Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.
# 2. See Squirt1.

[AlienC]

Dems are picking up 11 to 14 Senate Seats.

Does that come in a Fridge Pack?
They better pay for them before they leave the store.
Is that enough to override? Better get a few more, may lose a few to scandal.
They're slippery, all covered in lube.
I'm saying the Fat Lady has yet to sing.









speaking of fat ladies.....













Watch the Guam / American Samoa vote swing the whole damn thing.


Oh yes I did !!!!
< ----waves to crowd as I exit...
YES, I'm Here all week,
two shows a day....

theme song fades ........ yes I have a theme song, dammit!!! I'm Rick James BITCH!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

My view- I would recommend that everyone read the report as it comes out before rushing to judgement. The 9/11 commission report said there was no iRaq 9/11 link and the headline came out and was wideley reported. that there was no Al Qaeda / Iraq link. The actual report in fact did outline some low level contacts between the two organisations and Lee Hamilton (chairman) said that there were possibilities of links -and that things were inconclusive. Im just saying whats in the depths of a report can differ from what news headline writers grab onto.

I would urge caution regarding the rush to impeach too. Anyone who has been trained in intelligence analysis and intelligence based decison making knows that you do not wait until you are certain a piece of intel is 100 true or false. The decison to act is made somewhere between 40% certainty and 80% certainly given the potential risk/treat to the party or interest you are trying to protect.

if your remember, back in 2002/ 2003 all the President knew for certain was:

1) Saddaam had publicly admitted sending money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers / Hamas
2) Al Qaeda had been Iraq - Granted this was in the north of the country - and we werent sure if group members frequented Bagdad or not

on the issue of WMD -
1) we knew saddamm had WMD at one point . if he got rid of them he wasnt showing inventory lists and schedules showing the destruction of the materials (which the UN mandated he show )
2) russian french, german,isreali intelligence thought they had them (they just disagreed what to do about it due to national interest

The director of the CIA, George tenet (clinton apointee btw) was telling you intellegence was a slam dunk and the Democratic party was agreeing.

Thats plenty to get you in the cetainty range of 40- 60%. If you were the president, and you had seen 9/11 happen, and swore never again, what would you do when everyone seemed to agree on the facts. Think about this before you decide impeachment was the way to go.

(Im not defening President bush in all things here btw. If he would have listened to Powell and sent 500,000 troops to the country instead of a light strike force we probably would have seized alot more documents before they got looted and had alot more clarity )

By the way, dont hold your breath for any massive policy changes if Clinton / Obama gets elected. Anyone connected to US foreign policy from 1948 onwards will tell you that with a few exceptions (ie. some of reagan's cold war policies) there is often little difference in the two parties approach beneath the rhetoric. They are all driven by the same realities.
Obama will be in Iraq another 4 years if he gets elected, Clinton and McCain maybe a bit longer - 8 years if they are elected. [/quote]

[AlteredDNA]

Ahem...cough..cough...it seems some do like to jump to conclusions, including our beloved Main Stream Media and all of those with the Bush Derangement Syndrom..........read and weep....

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 14, 2008


WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri

http://www.nysun.com/article/72906

Saddam's Dangerous Friends

What a Pentagon review of 600,000 Iraqi documents tells us.

by Stephen F. Hayes
03/24/2008, Volume 013, Issue 27

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

--snip--

Among the study's other notable findings:

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."

Now, back to your regularly scheduled BDS programming.

Yeah, I noticed there were many people that were calling this report "proof that Bush lied" before it came out. Now that it's out - silence...

[Eric]

BUsh never said Hussein was connected with 9-11 or Al Quada. What he did say and is true is that Hussein was connected to terrorism...

[Enigma869]

Bush is a fucking moron, who can't put an English sentence together! I honestly don't know how ANYONE can defend anything this guy has done! To call him a buffoon would be cruel to buffoons around the world! Jesus, even if you're one of these bible thumping yahoos that thinks everything in the south (including W) is great, you still have to cringe every time this jackass opens his mouth! He has the vocabulary of the average 10 year old, and that's probably not giving most 10 year olds enough credit! As the great George Carlin said about W..."I call him Governor Bush, because it's the only election he ever won, legally, in this country"


John from Boston

[RedWingFan]

Bush is a fucking moron, who can't put an English sentence together! I honestly don't know how ANYONE can defend anything this guy has done! To call him a buffoon would be cruel to buffoons around the world! Jesus, even if you're one of these bible thumping yahoos that thinks everything in the south (including W) is great, you still have to cringe every time this jackass opens his mouth! He has the vocabulary of the average 10 year old, and that's probably not giving most 10 year olds enough credit! As the great George Carlin said about W..."I call him Governor Bush, because it's the only election he ever won, legally, in this country"


John from Boston

You know you're usually a well thought out intelligent poster, 'til your BDS flares up.

[MJM1959]

BUsh never said Hussein was connected with 9-11 or Al Quada. What he did say and is true is that Hussein was connected to terrorism...

Yes, the Bush administration often claimed there was a connection between Hussein and Al Queda.

http://www.leadingtowar.com/claims_fact ... ration.php

No BDS. Just cold hard facts. This president and his entire administration are nothing but a bunck of liars that led us into a war that we have no purpose being in.

[MJM1959]

The below link should begin the download of the Pentagon Report. 7.5Mb
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/JDF-Saddam-Report.pdf

[conversationpc]

I don't remember the Pres or even the agenda driven networks saying there was a connection between Saddam and Al Quieda.

revisionism (n):
# 1. Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.
# 2. See Squirt1.

I've seen many news stories, articles, etc., since 2001 claiming that Bush claimed a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

[Saint John]

For crying out loud people, if Saddam was funding Zawahiri he was funding Al-Queada. Period.end of story! How much more does anyone need to know. Let alone the funding of terrorists in the Sudan in the late 1990s against American forces there. He needed to go. And he's gone. Good Fucking Riddance.

Bingo!!! We have a Bingo!!! Please hold all cards.

[Saint John]

For crying out loud people, if Saddam was funding Zawahiri he was funding Al-Queada. Period.end of story! How much more does anyone need to know. Let alone the funding of terrorists in the Sudan in the late 1990s against American forces there. He needed to go. And he's gone. Good Fucking Riddance.

Bingo!!! We have a Bingo!!! Please hold all cards.

I'd really like to know what these folks think we should have done after 16 years of sanctions, the first war, cutting off his North and Southern fly zones, 15 or 16 UN Resolutions, he gassed the Kurds in Halabja and the Iranians in their war, and the ass still wouldn't play along in a humane manner. We told him it was comming and Bush gave him 48 hours to leave Baghdad and take exile. He is responsible for this. We did what everyone thought had to be done at the time. War approval ratings were as high as 73% leading up to the invasion. The fuckers that like to look back and armchair quarterback this war need to Google Earth Baghdad and see just how big that city is, and they need to understand that things were sort of going ok until Zarqawi bombed the Golden Mosque in 06.

I agree. D-Day alone saw the U.S. lose 6,603 soldiers. Think about that...one day. If we had the armchair quarterbacks of today, we would have cut and run and lost the war. Iraq hasn't been perfect, but considering that 73% approval rating you speak of was in spite of reports that Saddam might have had the capability to kill as many as 10,000 coalition soldiers once they crossed a certain boundary. Now, years later, with the casualty count half that, we are suddenly "losing." We learned from those cool videos the Clinton administration had of Bin Laden running around in the desert playing war games that an entire country (Iraq) with vast resources, money, a maniacal leader, and a history of playing "shell games" with weapons inspectors, that we simply couldn't take another chance.

[tj]

Damn, this couldn't have come last week when people here were roasting me about my "Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11 comment"??

I don't think I was roasting you. I was simply pointing out that I didn't think the Bush administration had made the claim that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks but just to Al Qaeda in general. If this report is correct, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.

If the same government (ours) who said that there was a link between Saddam and Al Quaida could not be believed, why should we believe them when now they say there wasn't? Regardless of which side of the issue you choose to be on, how can the same source be right and wrong at the same time on the same issue? So they have looked through 600,000 documents (or so they say). That's about 60 cases of copy paper. I have to believe that even the Iraqi government produced more than 60 cases of documents prior to the invasion.

Kind of like weapons of mass destruction. Just because you don't find them doesn't mean they don't exist. Same with 9/11, right? Just because we can't prove that the government blew up the towers doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[ohsherrie]

There is absolutely no rational justification for what that fucking moron in the White House has done to this country, that country, and the world by using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq.

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

[conversationpc]

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

[tj]

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

[ohsherrie]

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

What's liberal about wanting to get and keep the terrorists out of this country? Do you really think they're all over there in Iraq trembling with fear of Lord Bush Vadar?

[conversationpc]

What's liberal about wanting to get and keep the terrorists out of this country? Do you really think they're all over there in Iraq trembling with fear of Lord Bush Vadar?

That last BDS-laced comment is a good example of that "liberal crap".

BTW, I hear that Lord Bush Vader and Lord Cheney Satan are good pals.

[Red13JoePa]

England had to occupy Northern Ireland for like 40 years for stability to prevail.
And we're mad because it hasn't worked over night in Iraq?

[conversationpc]

England had to occupy Northern Ireland for like 40 years for stability to prevail.
And we're mad because it hasn't worked over night in Iraq?

We've also been in South Korea now for 50+ years.

[ohsherrie]

What's liberal about wanting to get and keep the terrorists out of this country? Do you really think they're all over there in Iraq trembling with fear of Lord Bush Vadar?

That last BDS-laced comment is a good example of that "liberal crap".

BTW, I hear that Lord Bush Vader and Lord Cheney Satan are good pals.

Do you know how much credibility whatever point you may be trying to make loses when you fall back on the BDS bullshit?

If that stupid remark is meant to say that the opinion of anybody who hates that bastard is negligible, then I guess I need to put you back among the ranks of the BAS (Bush Apologists Society) and consider everything you say irrelevant.

If behind that lame answer you're trying to say that anybody who doesn't support Bush's folly in Iraq is liberal. Please tell that to Ron Paul.

Personally, I don't think what those two monsters have done to this country is a joking matter. I think they should be impeached and prosecuted for treason.

[conversationpc]

Do you know how much credibility whatever point you may be trying to make loses when you fall back on the BDS bullshit?

Do you know how much credibility YOU have when you consistently refer to conservatives as unintelligent, uninformed, compare them to wife beaters, etc? If that's the way you feel, is it really any different than a lot of the outrageous comments you make about people on here on a regular basis?

If that stupid remark is meant to say that the opinion of anybody who hates that bastard is negligible, then I guess I need to put you back among the ranks of the BAS (Bush Apologists Society) and consider everything you say irrelevant.

No, there are people who dislike him who are still sane and realize that the guy is not evil incarnate and that, yes, he does do something good at least occasionally. Then there are those who think he IS evil incarnate and that he has never done a good thing as President.

If behind that lame answer you're trying to say that anybody who doesn't support Bush's folly in Iraq is liberal. Please tell that to Ron Paul.

I didn't say that and also didn't even infer it.

Personally, I don't think what those two monsters have done to this country is a joking matter. I think they should be impeached and prosecuted for treason.

BDS is no joke.

[ohsherrie]

Do you know how much credibility whatever point you may be trying to make loses when you fall back on the BDS bullshit?

Do you know how much credibility YOU have when you consistently refer to conservatives as unintelligent, uninformed, compare them to wife beaters, etc? If that's the way you feel, is it really any different than a lot of the outrageous comments you make about people on here on a regular basis?

So you're still saying that there are no conservatives and/or republicans that are unintelligent, uninformed or beat their wives?

If that stupid remark is meant to say that the opinion of anybody who hates that bastard is negligible, then I guess I need to put you back among the ranks of the BAS (Bush Apologists Society) and consider everything you say irrelevant.

No, there are people who dislike him who are still sane and realize that the guy is not evil incarnate and that, yes, he does do something good at least occasionally. Then there are those who think he IS evil incarnate and that he has never done a good thing as President.

I don't think I ever called him evil incarnate and I've asked you to tell me something he's done that was good for this country. You haven't yet.

If behind that lame answer you're trying to say that anybody who doesn't support Bush's folly in Iraq is liberal. Please tell that to Ron Paul.

I didn't say that and also didn't even infer it.

So what was so liberal about my post?

Personally, I don't think what those two monsters have done to this country is a joking matter. I think they should be impeached and prosecuted for treason.

BDS is no joke.

Neither are the crimes he's committed against this country.

[conversationpc]

So you're still saying that there are no conservatives and/or republicans that are unintelligent, uninformed or beat their wives?

Didn't say there weren't just like there aren't any liberals who don't do the same, yet your comments have been sweeping generalizations making it look like you think that of ALL conservatives.

I don't think I ever called him evil incarnate and I've asked you to tell me something he's done that was good for this country. You haven't yet.

I've pointed things out before and, regardless, if you can't come up with something on your own, it's yet another symptom of BDS.

So what was so liberal about my post?

Your BDS-influenced comments about that "fucking moron", "those two monsters", etc.

Neither are the crimes he's committed against this country.

Yet another symptom of....Oh, never mind.

[ohsherrie]

So you're still saying that there are no conservatives and/or republicans that are unintelligent, uninformed or beat their wives?

Didn't say there weren't just like there aren't any liberals who don't do the same, yet your comments have been sweeping generalizations making it look like you think that of ALL conservatives.

No they haven't. Yours have though. Every time you've used your misrepresentations of what I said to divert from the topic and avoid giving a pertinent response in an argument.

I don't think I ever called him evil incarnate and I've asked you to tell me something he's done that was good for this country. You haven't yet.

I've pointed things out before and, regardless, if you can't come up with something on your own, it's yet another symptom of BDS.

So your saying anybody who hasn't benefited in any way, and sees nothing in his administration that's been of benefit to this country as a whole is suffering from some mental deficiency. And you have the gall to accuse me of making sweeping generalizations?

So what was so liberal about my post?

Your BDS-influenced comments about that "fucking moron", "those two monsters", etc.

No Dave, you're diverting attention again. I meant this post that you orginally called "liberal crap":

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

I do think he's a fucking moron and if he and Cheney getting thousands of United States soldiers killed over a personal agenda isn't monstrous then I don't know what is.

Oh, never mind.

Probably a good idea because I miss diagnosed you. You're clearly suffering from HSFUBAYCSBTS.

[conversationpc]

No they haven't. Yours have though. Every time you've used your misrepresentations of what I said to divert from the topic and avoid giving a pertinent response in an argument.

There you go again. Whenever someone disagrees with what you say, it's always a "misrepresentation" or they're uninformed, etc., etc.

So your saying anybody who hasn't benefited in any way, and sees nothing in his administration that's been of benefit to this country as a whole is suffering from some mental deficiency. And you have the gall to accuse me of making sweeping generalizations?

Well, someone who falls into a category where they cannot seriously name even one thing that Bush has done to deserve credit for, that's hardly a generalization. That's a very narrow category that no rationally-thinking Americans are in.

No Dave, you're diverting attention again. I meant this post that you orginally called "liberal crap":

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

Yes, I know...Diverting attention, misrepresenting...

Probably a good idea because I miss diagnosed you. You're clearly suffering from HSFUBAYCSBTS.

Nah, it's more like TLTPIGTMBSOOME.

[ohsherrie]

There you go again. Whenever someone disagrees with what you say, it's always a "misrepresentation" or they're uninformed, etc., etc.

Then show me where I said ALL conservatives are either unintelligent, uninformed or beat their wives.

I've said that some posts made me think the people who made them must be uninformed or ignorant, but I don't think I've ever said unintelligent (there's a difference). I've also said that some of the warmongering posts made me think of militaristic wife beaters running through the woods playing war games. But I've NEVER made a sweeping generalization that all cons and/or reps were any of those things.

You've tried very hard to make it seem as if I did though.

So your saying anybody who hasn't benefited in any way, and sees nothing in his administration that's been of benefit to this country as a whole is suffering from some mental deficiency. And you have the gall to accuse me of making sweeping generalizations?

Well, someone who falls into a category where they cannot seriously name even one thing that Bush has done to deserve credit for, that's hardly a generalization. That's a very narrow category that no rationally-thinking Americans are in.

That would be your very narrow opinion. I don't personally know of anybody who has benefitted in any way from anything Bush has done. In fact, I know hundreds who have been hurt by his policies and know of thousands who have been.

But I'll ask once again, what would you have me give him credit for?

No Dave, you're diverting attention again. I meant this post that you orginally called "liberal crap":

The apparent irrationality of voters in this country who continue to try and argue the merits of this war are almost as frightening to me as the terrorists that we're not controlling within this country or keeping out of this country while all of our resources are being used over there on Bush's personal agenda.

Yes, I know...Diverting attention, misrepresenting...

Well if you know you're doing it, stop it.

Probably a good idea because I miss diagnosed you. You're clearly suffering from HSFUBAYCSBTS.

Nah, it's more like TLTPIGTMBSOOME.

BS

[conversationpc]

That would be your very narrow opinion. I don't personally know of anybody who has benefitted in any way from anything Bush has done. In fact, I know hundreds who have been hurt by his policies and know of thousands who have been.

But I'll ask once again, what would you have me give him credit for?

Let me turn it around a bit...If I were dumb enough to say that Clinton did not do even one good thing while he was in office, wouldn't you think I was a freaking nutjob? I hope so because that exactly what you are if you can't come up with even one minor thing.

FYI, you do personally know one person who has benefited from something Bush has done...Me. My family income taxes have gone from 27.5% when Clinton was in office to 25% since Bush took office and, no, I'm not even close to being rich so don't try to pull the "Bush has only lowered taxes on the rich" card BS.

[Enigma869]

Me. My family income taxes have gone from 27.5% when Clinton was in office to 25% since Bush took office

Right, and the price of a gallon of gas has gone from about 95 cents a gallon to about $3.50 a gallon, and climbing, and that's not to even mention how ridiculously high EVERY thing else is!

For the record, I think W. is the kind of guy most people would actually have a good time having a beer with. It just doesn't change the fact that I think the guy has an IQ of about 8! I won't even get into his political decisions, because I think his record speaks for itself. The fact that this guy has one of the lowest approval ratings that ANY president has EVER had, in the history of our country, tells me that he's made more bad decisions than good ones, according to the vast majority of the American public!


John from Boston