Friday, December 16, 2005

Bush Admits Iraq Intelligence Was Faulty, But Was It?

President Bush said on Wednesday that the responsibility for invading Iraq was based in part on faulty intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Bush said, “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.”

But was the intelligence really faulty?

Bush went on to say that foreign intelligence agencies, including several governments who didn’t back his decision to invade Iraq, also believed that Saddam Hussein had possession of WMDs.

But did they really say that?

We do know that the Bush administration was quite wrong on Iraq’s supposed stockpile of WMDs. We know that Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong when he said on March 17th, 2002 that “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” We know that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was wrong when he said on January 29th, 2003 that “[Saddam’s] regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” We know that former Secretary of State Colin Powell was wrong when he said on May 16th 2003 that “In fact, we have found a couple of items of equipment, some mobile vans, so that with each passing day the evidence is clearer to us that they were used for biological weapons purposes.” And we know that President George W. Bush was wrong when he said on May 1st, 2003 that, “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda.”

But was the Bush administration simply wrong because our intelligence services had given them faulty information? Or did the Bush administration fix the intelligence to their pre-determined policy of going to war with Iraq?

Vice President Cheney had said that we know that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons, however the information the Vice President received from the intelligence community was an “estimate”. Former CIA Director George Tenet said, “it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof.” Furthermore, Cheney’s statement flew right in the face of the Defense Intelligence Agency, whose position on the subject prior to the war was that, “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

And while Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was claiming that Saddam’s regime had “the design for a nuclear weapon”, and “was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” the CIA was waving red flags about the claim. In two memos sent to the White House, one of which was addressed to National Security Advisor Condi Rice, the CIA was expressing serious doubts that such a claim was accurate. CIA Director George Tenet warned against using such a claim in the State of the Union Address, which Rice claims “we forget to take it out.”

But did she simply forget to take it out? On July 13th, 2003 Secretary Rice said that, “knowing that apparently there were concerns swirling around about this, had we known that at the time, we would not have put it in…And had there been even a peep that…George Tenet did not want that sentence in…it would have been gone.” One can only conclude that a personal memo sent to the White House, addressed to the National Security Advisor of the President of the United States simply does not count as “a peep.”

The CIA had expressed doubts on the Niger claim for good reason. More than a year before Bush declared the claim in his 2003 State of the Union address, French intelligence was warning the CIA that there was no evidence to support the allegation. After extensive on-the-ground investigations into Niger and other former French colonies, where uranium mines are controlled by French companies, French officials concluded that there was no evidence that Iraq had obtained yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Former French official Alain Chouet said the CIA had contacted French intelligence several times on the allegation, including a mid 2002 inquiry that Nigerian officials had agreed to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq. Chouet had dispatched a team to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium. The team found none.

Furthermore, Niger Prime Minister Hama Hamadou told Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper on July 28th, 2003 that “Niger had never had diplomatic or bilateral relations with Iraq.” Hamadou said that the US and British governments had been mistreating his country, which had sent 500 troops to support the 1991 Gulf War.

And while Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that US forces had found “some mobile vans” that showed “evidence” that they were “used for biological weapons purposes”, the Defense Intelligence Agency had come to radically different conclusions. Engineers at the DIA who had examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

And despite that on May 1st, 2003, when President Bush said, “We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda.”, Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that there were “no evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists.” Additionally, Andrew Wilie, a former Australian defence analyst resigned his post as the Iraq war began, saying that the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists were a “concoction.”

US intelligence was well aware that Iraq did not possess any weapons. Saddam’s own son-in-law, General Hussein Hamel had said under US detention that he personally oversaw the destruction of all of Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities.

But the Bush administration didn’t have to rely on Saddam’s own son-in-law for the information. All they had to do was ask the US Army. Before the war began, Delta Force, Task Force 20, a covert specialized army unit, had scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. They found “no working conventional munitions, long-range missiles or missile parts, [or] bulk store of chemical or biological warfare agents or enrichment technology for the core of a nuclear weapon.”

If the Bush administration was so wrong then, would it follow that they would be wrong now? This Wednesday, President Bush claimed that several foreign intelligence agencies, including several governments that didn’t back his decision to invade Iraq, believed Saddam had WMDs. However, on February 25th, 2003, a month before the war began, the Guardian reported that Russia, China, France, and Germany offered a “counter-proposal” to the US draft resolution before the UN to go to war. The memorandum offered by the four nations stated: “While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field.”

But if France, Germany, China, Russia, Australia, Niger, the CIA, the DIA, George Tenet, and Saddam Hussein’s own son-in-law could not convince the Bush administration of the obvious, then you would think that the Bush administration would at least pay attention to their own National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.

Long before the events of 9/11 took place, in February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” In July of 2001, National Security Advisor Condi Rice said, “We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

So was the pre-war intelligence on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction faulty? Or did the Bush administration simply manipulate it and cherry pick it for their own benefit? Surprisingly, our very own Secretary of Defense can quite possibly shed the most light on this quandary.

“There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it. And that’s just a fact.” - Donald Rumsfeld.

13 Comments:

Blogger MiamiMiami said...

You're on to something here! I mean Bush did say those things! But funny, well not so funny more ironic, well not so ironic more like surpirsing, well not so surprising more like typical of most liberal lies, the Democrats ALSO said a few things before they VOTED for the IRaq war. Yeah! That's right. It's amazing that when a liberal tries to bring up the fact that a LIE was told they always seem to make it sound like it was Bush that lied BUT...

they always seem to "conveniently" forget that there were many Democrats who also saw the same intelligence and back then voted for the war. Now they are trying to re-write histroy much like yourslef Jihadist brother in arms Alva So here are some quotes you might want to include with the other "lies"


WARNING! The following contains an element of truth which has been known to cause severe allergic reactions to left-wingers and liberals alike. It is HIGHLY recommended that a large dose of Benadryl be self-administered to counter-act any possible allergic reactions caused by the truth. PLEASE READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

I also would like to remind the very liberal and very misguided jihadist Alva that the CIA director that provided such intel, the intel that Bush was relying on to make that decision was NOT a Bush appointee. It was a Clinton appointee. Aint the truth a bitch?

11:25 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:52 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

This is what a "lie" looks like. Pay close attention


by Michael Crowley
www.tnr.com (The New Republic)
Post date 01.06.03 | Issue date 01.13.03
Printer friendly
E-mail this article
Florida Senator Bob Graham's declaration last week that he is "seriously considering" seeking the Democratic presidential nomination wasn't exactly a well-conceived attention-getter. Graham offered his surprising news just two days before Christmas, with the political establishment off sipping eggnog. (The New York Times devoted 278 words on page A-20 to the revelation.) Odder still, Graham first declared his interest in running on a Haitian-American radio talk show in Miami--hardly "Meet the Press." It was, in other words, a trial balloon floated in the dark of night. But people close to Graham say he wasn't just speaking off the cuff. "He's very serious," says his old friend and former chief of staff, Charlie Reed. "He's got the fire."

Fire, to put it mildly, is not a word normally associated with Graham. The round-faced 66-year-old looks like he could be president of the AARP--or anyone's suntanned grandpa retired to a life of Florida golfing. Graham is a methodical man, famous for keeping diaries that chronicle--minute by minute--his meals, trips to video stores, and bathroom breaks. His Milquetoast appearances on television, where he has been a ubiquitous presence since the September 11 attacks, thanks to his co-chairmanship of he joint intelligence committee, tend to be as memorable as infomercials.

But lately there's been a change in Graham. His sensible, unremarkable commentary has become charged with a darker, almost apocalyptic vision of our national security. Where Graham once spoke in platitudes about the need to reform the intelligence community, he now speaks of "modern Armageddon" and of imminent, catastrophic terrorist attacks for which we are "scandalously ill-prepared." In November, he insisted, "There will be hell to pay for our vulnerabilities." As the early punditry has noted, Graham opposed Congress's Iraq resolution, making him unique in the broad field of Capitol Hill Democrats considering presidential runs. But Graham is no dove. Instead, he argues that the United States should be attacking several other Middle Eastern countries harboring terrorists--and he warns his colleagues that "blood is going to be on your hands" if they don't listen to him. While few people were paying attention, the most boring man in the Senate became the most hysterical. And that might just be his best hope for success.







In many respects, Graham looks a lot like his fellow Democratic presidential aspirants: a centrist on domestic policy who opposes the Bush tax cut and supports both abortion rights and the death penalty. But it's Graham's unexpected foreign policy vision that could make him stand out.

Unlike the other 20 Democrats who voted against the October Iraq resolution, Graham wasn't worried that it was too tough but that it wasn't tough enough. "[T]his resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak," Graham explained on the Senate floor. He would be willing to support an Iraq invasion, he said, only if it expanded the president's authority even further, "to use force against all international terrorist groups who will probably strike the United States as the regime of Saddam Hussein crumbles." Warning of a massive terrorist retaliation for a war against Iraq, Graham offered up an amendment on October 8, three days before the final vote, that would have given President Bush the authority and mandate to go after several terrorist groups other than Al Qaeda--including Hamas; Islamic Jihad; the Abu Nidal organization; and, above all, the group he calls "the A-team," Hezbollah (see "Rough Trade," page 15). Graham described the failure of U.S. forces to strike against Hezbollah and other terrorist camps in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria as "inconceivable." The senator's dire rhetoric generated almost no debate, and his amendment collected just ten votes, leading him to vote against the final resolution.

Yet Graham may be betting that his unusual hawk-dove two-step could distinguish him in a Democratic primary. On the one hand, his stand on the Iraq war will earn him credit with liberals for having opposed the president. On the other, centrists will remember his support for the 1991 Gulf war resolution and may appreciate his vehemence against terrorism. Of course, it remains to be seen whether a cry for attacks not on Iraq but Iran will rally voters (and whether Graham can adequately explain why Saddam deserves more time to build a nuclear weapon). But Democratic strategists say that, with the credentials he has earned on the intelligence committee and with his access to highly classified information, Graham will have a standing on security issues that rivals that of Vietnam veteran John Kerry. "He's staking out interesting and bold positions on foreign policy," says a party strategist. "There's a sense that he's an adult, that he's substantive."

There are other reasons why Graham could be a surprisingly viable candidate. His perch on the intelligence committee has made him an increasingly familiar face nationally; according to Roll Call, Graham had more Sunday talk-show appearances than any other member of Congress in 2002--a publicity bonanza that has boosted his stature. And Graham has some impressive admirers. When Bill Clinton spoke before the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) last month, his discussion of foreign policy began with the line, "First of all, we ought to listen to Senator Graham." (Clinton is a longtime fan who promoted Graham as a running mate for Al Gore in 2000.) One Graham aide says that after Clinton's speech several prominent Democrats who had attended the DLC gathering contacted Graham and urged him to consider a run.

In addition, several Democratic consultants said that while Graham would have to work hard and fast to catch up with rivals like Kerry and Dick Gephardt, he has built enough of a political network through his career--including his over eight years as Florida governor and 16 years in the Senate--to do so. In particular, they say, Florida is a gold mine for Democratic fund-raising, and several of the state's top moneymen will feel compelled to back a local product. "Anyone in my state has to consider a run by Senator Graham," says Fort Lauderdale attorney Mitchell Berger, who raised millions for Gore in 2000. Graham can also argue that he's more likely than any of his Democratic rivals to carry the precious swing state of Florida in 2004. Adds one unaligned Democratic strategist with extensive presidential campaign experience: "I think Graham could be a very credible candidate. ... He's going to have to catch a gust of wind, but he's well-positioned to do that."

There are, unfortunately, those notebooks, a source of mirth in every profile and conversation about Graham. For decades, he has carried pocket diaries in which he scribbles details about his days. When a Time magazine reporter asked to have a look in 2000, and Graham disastrously complied, what emerged was nothing short of bizarre: a narrative of virtually every waking moment, no matter how mundane. For instance:

8:25: Awaken at MLTH (Miami Lakes Town House)
8:45-9:35: Kitchen, family room. Eat breakfast, branola cereal with peach
9:35-9:40: Complete dressing. Watch "Meet the Press"
9:25-9:50: Drive to ABC studio
Graham chronicled his entire day this way. He even took note of the color of his pants and the amount of time spent rewinding a rented copy of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

Some reports suggested the excerpts instantly bumped Graham off Gore's V.P. list. Graham has never quite lived them down, and they're sure to haunt him again if he runs, less for any one detail than for their suggestion of an obsessive-compulsive mind. ("Is the over-examined life worth living?" one Democratic strategist jokes.) Then again, when a man is warning about Armageddon, it may be hard to fixate on the peculiarities of his personality. If Bob Graham runs, it will be as the Paul Revere of the war on terror. And there's nothing boring about that.

11:56 AM  
Blogger Alva Goldbook said...

Miami,
I am glad to say that I accurately predicted your reaction. I saved a nice little article for you. It came from that horrible liberal rag, The Washington Post.

Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A23

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."

The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw. If such information is available, the report's authors do not have access to it. The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report, however, concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress.

The White House disputed both charges, noting that Congress often works directly with U.S. intelligence agencies and is privy to an enormous amount of classified information. "In 2004 alone, intelligence agencies provided over 1,000 personal briefings and more than 4,000 intelligence products to the Congress," an administration official said.

The report, done by the Congressional Research Service at the request of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), comes amid allegations by Democrats that administration officials exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities and terrorism ties and then resisted inquiries into the intelligence failures.

Bush has fiercely rejected those claims. "Some of the most irresponsible comments -- about manipulating intelligence -- have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," he said this week.

Feinstein, who is on the Senate intelligence committee, disagreed. "The report demonstrates that Congress routinely is denied access to intelligence sources, intelligence collection and analysis," she said. The intelligence panel met yesterday to discuss the second phase of its investigation into the administration's handling of prewar assertions. In July 2004, the committee issued the first phase of its bipartisan report, which found the U.S. intelligence community had assembled a flawed and exaggerated assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities.

The second phase, which examines the White House's role, was agreed to in February 2004 but remains incomplete. Last month, Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session to extract a promise from Republicans to speed up the inquiry. At the time, committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the report was nearing completion. But yesterday, committee aides said it is unlikely the report will be done before spring.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a former member of the panel, said the report should not be rushed. But he urged the White House to release more documents to support its claims. "The only way to be is certain is to look at what they saw and what we saw side by side," he said.

12:05 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Miami,
I am glad to say that I accurately predicted your reaction. I saved a nice little article for you. It came from that horrible liberal rag, The Washington Post.

=====>Actually I accurately outed you as the typical liberal. Easily refuted by facts.

Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A23

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."
=====>Oh yes this is a purefly factual statement. Anything that starts with "Democrats said..." must be factual. I remember when certain Democrats were saying Iraq had WMD's too. Don't you remember Alva? Oh that's right only Bush said those things. You see? Facts, they're important.

The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw.
====>Huh???? Wait a minute! Let's read that one again!
The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw. Yikes!!! That doesn't look too good there my jihadist brother from another mother!



If such information is available, the report's authors do not have access to it. The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report, however, concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress.
====>The report concludes this with little information or facts. It's based on what "Democrats" said. Hmmmm. I remember whn Democrats said there were WMD's in Iraq. Ooops sorry. Pesky facts again!

The White House disputed both charges, noting that Congress often works directly with U.S. intelligence agencies and is privy to an enormous amount of classified information. "In 2004 alone, intelligence agencies provided over 1,000 personal briefings and more than 4,000 intelligence products to the Congress," an administration official said.
=====>OH no!!!!!! That means that Congress DID have the intel as well and chose to vote FOR the Iraqi war! Yikes!

The report, done by the Congressional Research Service at the request of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), comes amid allegations by Democrats that administration officials exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities and terrorism ties and then resisted inquiries into the intelligence failures.
====>Ah yes. Finally it is outed as another Democrat lie! Feinstein backed this! But of course. The same Feinstein who voted for the Iraqi war! This report only shows how desparate the Dems are to make a total re-write of history.

Bush has fiercely rejected those claims. "Some of the most irresponsible comments -- about manipulating intelligence -- have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," he said this week.

====>The only bit of truth so far in this insipid article.

Feinstein, who is on the Senate intelligence committee, disagreed. "The report demonstrates that Congress routinely is denied access to intelligence sources, intelligence collection and analysis," she said. The intelligence panel met yesterday to discuss the second phase of its investigation into the administration's handling of prewar assertions. In July 2004, the committee issued the first phase of its bipartisan report, which found the U.S. intelligence community had assembled a flawed and exaggerated assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities.

The second phase, which examines the White House's role, was agreed to in February 2004 but remains incomplete. Last month, Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session to extract a promise from Republicans to speed up the inquiry. At the time, committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the report was nearing completion. But yesterday, committee aides said it is unlikely the report will be done before spring.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a former member of the panel, said the report should not be rushed. But he urged the White House to release more documents to support its claims. "The only way to be is certain is to look at what they saw and what we saw side by side," he said.

====> You know Jihadist Alva you are right abolut one thing. The Post is NOT a liberal rag. This article was clearly printed to out the Dem's especially Feinstein for what they are. They are a bunch of kooks who are either spineless because they refused to stand up to the President way back then when they supposedly "knew" the intel was bad or are revisionists because they too believed the intel and voted for it and now have to keep the loyalty of their wacko liberal base so they have to try to re-write history in order to appeal to this base. Either way it is apparent that the easiest way to argue with a liberal is to simply state the facts and the rest will take care of itself.

Nice try son....

8:01 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Breaking News!

Early results from the Iraqi election are in....

No Democrats were elected, again. DNC Chairman Howard Dean is calling for a special investigation. "It's happened again, "said the former presidential candidate from Vermont, "The Republicans have managed to steal another election from us and I am not surpirsed." Former Vice President Al Gore beleives that Florida's Governor Bush is behind the Democrats loss. However when Mr. Gore was todl that there were no Democrats actually running for office in the Iraqi election the former presidential nominee responded with, "That doesn't matter! If we don't make this into something bad we will never win another election. No, No this just smells of Florida in 2000 all over again." The former vice-president then rushed off claiming that he was working on another invention to follow up on the internet he brought us years ago. Mr. Gore would not divulge the actual invention but stated that it would revolutionize how we communicate with each other leaving us with this clue..."It's a cellular project. I'll phone you later with the details!"

8:23 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

Alva,

I enjoyed the manner which you approached the subject. I like the application of the words "wrong" and "faulty."

Of course there are always those Bush apologists that will try to validate Bush's decision to invade Iraq predicated upon something Bill Clinton and various other Democrats said 5 years earlier.

It really doesn't bode well for Bush when his apologists attempt to build up the justification for invading Iraq on statements that were wrong in 1998 and wrong in 2002-3.

And then of course the Bush apologists tout out the line about how "many Democrats who also saw the same intelligence and back then voted for the war."

OOPS!

This is another one of those fallacies that has been blown apart like a suicide bomber.

I suppose that they can always go back to what Dean said about not being able to win this war while they convienently forget that in 2004 Bush said of Iraq, "We can't win it."

Come to think of it, the DNC blew it. They should have attacked (like the Republicans attacked Dean) and said that Bush doesn't support the troops or believe in the mission.

Alva, thanks again for offering up a different perspective.

2:09 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Almost like taking candy from a baby....


Here we go, again.


I enjoyed the manner which you approached the subject. I like the application of the words "wrong" and "faulty."

=====>I also like how he conveniently forgets other important facts. You know like the ones I provide. But again if it weren't for truth maybe the Democrats would have actually won more elections.

Of course there are always those Bush apologists that will try to validate Bush's decision to invade Iraq predicated upon something Bill Clinton and various other Democrats said 5 years earlier.

=====>Yes and statements made by Russia, France, England, Germany, Japan, the UN, other Democrats like Miller and Lieberman. Yes those silly facts that liberals tend to forget when they misuse a word like "lie."

It really doesn't bode well for Bush when his apologists attempt to build up the justification for invading Iraq on statements that were wrong in 1998 and wrong in 2002-3.
=====>There are many jusitifications for war. The problem starts when you predicate your opposition to the war on what you think was a "lie". And then when asked directly what would motivate a person to wage war based on a lie you get answers that are byeond obsurd. The problems with a liberal is that they actually believe these emotionally driven reasons for war. Sorry George Bush isn't shipping millions of gallons of oil to his ranch in Crawford. Halliburton stock has actually gone down since the war and unfortunately for the left in this country the Iraqis are actually pretty happy the Saddam is gone. sorry....

And then of course the Bush apologists tout out the line about how "many Democrats who also saw the same intelligence and back then voted for the war."

OOPS!

This is another one of those fallacies that has been blown apart like a suicide bomber.

======>Yes. This report. Interesting isn't it? The Congress had a 92 page report of the intelligence before the vote. Yeah 92 pages! The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary. So now that they have a liberal kook base that discovered this they are, of course, mad at the Democrats who voted for the war. These Democrats are scared because they know that their wacko base is taking names as to who voted for the war. So now they HAVE to go around saying the they were lied to. They can't go out in public saying that the intelligence they saw was faulty and their vote was based on their own honest belief that they believed that Saddam had WMDs. No no no. If they did that they would be in the same "pack of liars" they painted Bush to be in. You see the difference between a lie and being wrong? Bob Graham lied when he said that he didn't vote for the war becuase of what he knew back then. That's a lie. He didn't vote for it because he felt the measure was not strong enough and did not give him enough power to go after the terrorists. read the article. Now when Bush gets faulty intelligence from an appointee of your boy Clinton and he follows it along with the same intelligence from Russia, France, England, Japan, The UN, Germany and it turns out to be worng that is NOT a lie. See the difference? probably not but the facts are laid out for you to deny at any rate.


I suppose that they can always go back to what Dean said about not being able to win this war while they convienently forget that in 2004 Bush said of Iraq, "We can't win it."
======>Ummmm. We are winning. I know it breaks your heart but we are. In less than 3 years the Iraqis have done more than what it took us to do in 7 years. They have a constitution and now have voted in their government. No one forced them to do it. The turnout was better than in this country during an election. The Sunnis came out in mass to the point where they had to keep the polling places pen and find more ballots. The insurgents are losing. Sorry I know how this must make you feel but your people are losing and mine are winning.

Come to think of it, the DNC blew it.
====>On this we both agree. They blew it. They have shown our soldiers what surrender and cowardice looks like.

They should have attacked (like the Republicans attacked Dean) and said that Bush doesn't support the troops or believe in the mission.
=====>Yeah that's why the people going around saying we are the terrorists and that we are losing are....lo and behold...Democrats. You think that the soldiers can't see what's happening? You are silly.

Alva, thanks again for offering up a different perspective.
======>Alla Akbar Alva!

7:48 AM  
Blogger M A F said...

Miami,

You are yet another messianic follower of Bush. It is really hilarious to watch you put forth statements made by others that were wrong to validate the actions taken by Bush.

But in doing so, you also fail to remember that the governments of France, Germany, Russia and the majority of the UN did not advocate the invasion of Iraq.

No, the only person who is willing to say '"Knowing what I know now, I’d do the same thing" the day before admitting the intelligence you used to invade another country was faulty' is Bush. The guy you keeping making excuses for.

Ah, personal accountability is something Republicans talk alot about, imposing on others. While shirking their own. (And please spare me any reference to Clinton or any other Democrat as it is the Republican party, the Republican party that likes to talk about having personal accountability yet has none.)


Alva,

you are most corect, he certainly is predictable in his responses.

1:44 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

oh my this is almost too easy sometimes....

You are yet another messianic follower of Bush. It is really hilarious to watch you put forth statements made by others that were wrong to validate the actions taken by Bush.
=====>It is even funnier to not only be armed with these facts but to watch the left in this country squirm when faced with the reality that their rants have basically gone unheard. The statements that were wrong that I have quoted were from the same people that supported him. Those statements were from the same Democrats claiming that he lied. So if Bush lied then so did they. So then I guess in a way you and I agree that the Democrats were liars as well.

But in doing so, you also fail to remember that the governments of France, Germany, Russia and the majority of the UN did not advocate the invasion of Iraq.
======>No you are absolutely correct. While they shared the same agreement that Saddam supposedly had WMD's they did not want to invade iraq. In fact France went so far as to actively try to prevent such an invasion. I wonder why? Wasn't that a little strange? Oh it must have been because France, germany and Russia were getting kickbacks from the Oil-For_food program. A program that was supposed to help the Iraqi people but only helped to line the pockets of those countries and Saddam while his people were suffering. Yes the great UN! Only problem here is that these countries had a lot to lose and the US wasn't in the UN or Iraq's pocket. Quite a contrast to the claims that we had a monetary reason to invade Iraq isn't it?

No, the only person who is willing to say '"Knowing what I know now, I’d do the same thing" the day before admitting the intelligence you used to invade another country was faulty' is Bush. The guy you keeping making excuses for.
=====>I make no excuses for him. Quite the contrary he made a mistake relying on the CIA's report. Just a reminder that the director at the time was NOT a Bush appointee but a Clinton appointee. Crazy facts again getting in the way of a good rant! But to go out and make it appear as if he MADE up the intelligence is a whole different ball game. That's the problem with the left in this country. They take a leap from "wrong intelligence" to he lied". Fortunately these statement are easily refuted by facts.

Ah, personal accountability is something Republicans talk alot about, imposing on others. While shirking their own. (And please spare me any reference to Clinton or any other Democrat as it is the Republican party, the Republican party that likes to talk about having personal accountability yet has none.)
=======>Huh? Didn't you hear the speech made by Bush. He is and has been taking responsiblity. But since you mention it Clinton is a great example. Thanks for the reminder!


Alva,

you are most corect, he certainly is predictable in his responses.
======>As is Alva and yourself. The best part of it all is that making my case is simple. I just lay out the facts and they speak for themselves.

DSL Cnnection=35.00 a month
Watching FOX news on digital Cable=$70.00 a month
Humiliating a liberal with the facts=Priceless

There are some things money can't buy but for everything you need to put a lib in their place all you need is a little truth.

Allah Akbar Alva and McDonald

7:51 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Bush Haters Fail to Grasp Magnitude of Events in Iraq
David Limbaugh
Saturday, Dec. 17, 2005
"If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president," said the increasingly shameless John Kerry, speaking to 100 of his hapless 2004 presidential campaign warriors, according to the Hotline. That pretty much sums up the substance of the Democrats' master plan for the War on Terror.

While the Iraqi people courageously march toward constitutional self-rule, the Democratic Party is too full of pride and too committed to its predictions of and investment in doom to recognize the magnitude of this historic achievement. Whether or not they are rooting for the aspiring democrats in the Middle East, it clearly kills them that these events are occurring at the behest of the reviled President George W. Bush.

When you juxtapose President Bush's mature stewardship of America's national security against the destructive sniping of the Democratic Party, the contrast is staggering. Bush-haters can cynically dismiss this all they want, but the president, despite the nonstop abuse with which they have bombarded him for five years, is on the verge of distinguishing himself as a Churchillian visionary in the annals of world history.

Though we can't be 100 percent certain of the permanence of the transformations unfolding in Iraq and the larger Middle East, many of us seem to be greatly under-appreciating the profundity of what is now taking place.

In President Bush's most recent speech on Iraq, made necessary to further rebut the lies and propaganda issuing from Democratic bile machines, he reminded Americans of the justness of our cause in Iraq, notwithstanding our failure to find the degree of WMD we anticipated were there.

President Bush rightly defended the prudence and moral imperative of our invasion of Iraq. He reiterated his heartfelt, reasonable and correct belief that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist-abetting menace who represented a genuine threat to American security and had to be deposed for that reason alone, not to mention myriad others. He also spoke of our commitment to the Iraqi people and its new government and our noble role in helping to establish and stabilize it.

Instead of joining with the president in emphasizing the triumphs that have occurred in Iraq in a stunningly short period of time, the Democrats have chosen to exaggerate any and every morsel of negativity. They have taken sides, by their disgraceful words and actions, with those forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the world who are actively undermining the interests of America and her troops, the cause of the Iraqi people and the forces of goodness in the global War on Terror.

Democratic leaders have had a chance to rise to this historic occasion and stand tall with the president and his party in the face of the evil enemy against whom we are at war for the survival of civilization. But they have instead made themselves ever smaller, demonstrating a reckless partisan pettiness perhaps without parallel in our nation's history, considering what is currently at stake in this struggle.

On the eve of the Iraqi election, in which the courageous Iraqi people would once again risk their lives to vote and consummate their investment in their new republic, Democratic leaders were too paralyzed by their own Bush-hating straitjacket to grasp the sheer majesty of what was happening.

You didn't catch would-be-president John Kerry, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi or Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid rejoicing at this milestone for the Iraqi people and praising the United States, much less President Bush, for making this possible. They were too busy making asses of themselves, launching vitriol at President Bush.

After paying grudging lip service to Iraq's movement toward democracy, Pelosi issued a statement berating President Bush for invading Iraq instead of pursuing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Displaying her well-hidden brilliance, she opined that "there are ways for the United States to make Iraq more stable that do not require 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and which would make the American people safer and the Middle East more secure." In the meantime, Harry Reid proudly declared that we are not winning in Iraq.

Frankly, the naysaying and specious arguments advanced by these people who masquerade as national leaders shouldn't be dignified with a response. Suffice it to say that they demonstrate how blessed America is at this point in her history not to have the modern Democratic leadership in charge of her national security.

God bless America, her brave soldiers and President Bush.

3:51 AM  
Blogger Alva Goldbook said...

What’s wrong Miami? Rush was too hopped up on drugs to write this, so he gave it to his brother?

The “War on Terror” is a farce. A joke. It’s nothing more than an excuse for reducing YOUR liberty, and to keep sending your tax dollars to Halliburtion’s bank accounts. As for impeaching Bush, that would be the BEST first step to fighting terrorism, as it would remove from power the world’s LEADING TERRORIST.

What the Middle East needs, is what we provided to Egypt in the late 70’s. Low interest bank loans, foreign investment, hell, a Middle East Marshall Plan wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen under any Reich Wing administration. Their purpose for being there is to STEAL their resources, not to create a democratic state. The neo-cons are trying to prove that laissez faire capitalism works, and we have all seen the results, both in Iraq, and here at home.

At the end of WWII Truman had a different idea, and that was to create GENUINE democratic nations in Europe. The result is that Europe, not the Middle East, are home to first world nations...many of whom are far better off than the United States.

There is nothing historic about the creation of another puppet regime in Iraq. Self-rule will happen when the Iraqis rule themselves, it’s as simple as that. It is no more profound than the US overthrow of multiple democratic nations in the past, starting from Iran (leading to the current situation today), to the Bush administration’s overthrow of the democratic Aristide government of Haiti.

Of course, the Reich wingers will not stop crowing about their undying love for their pet fascist in the White House, but the American People have long ago grown quite tired of it. They know that 9/11, Katrina, Rita, and the lies about WMDs have all happened on Bush’s watch, while continued terrorist attacks have occurred in Madrid, London, as well as in the Middle East, such as the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia a year ago. Meanwhile, plane cargo holds are not checked for explosives, our ports remain completely vulnerable, our borders remain unguarded, and the only answer the Reich wing has for protecting our citizens against a future terrorist attack is to spy on us, including sneek and peeks into what books we check out of the library. Despite the Reich wing love of limiting Constitutional rights, they have yet to produce any evidence that it has prevented a single terrorist attack. One can’t blame them for such an omission, as the answer simply leaves the fascist in the White House out in the cold. The simple fact is that terrorism is not so dire a threat as they would like us to believe. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to die from suicide than terrorism, making yourself a bigger threat to your security than terrorists are.

Saddam, as wicked as he was, tended only to be wicked on our behalf. He gassed the Kurds with our gas. He invaded his neighbors with our weapons, on our behest, even if it did involve some diplomatic trickery in order to fool him. Since our puppet regime has been put in place, Iraq, just as was under Saddam, has killed and tortured their own people in the jails, while schools, hospitals, running water and electricity capabilities all continue to degrade day by day. Other than dropping high explosives upon their heads, the leading cause of death for Iraqi children are dysentery or severe malnutrition.

The Reich wing knows quite well what is at stake in this struggle. The future of Exxon’s oil profits. They know that the world is running out of oil, and that reality could harm the future existence of energy monopolies, like that of Enron. And a future where Exxon’s oil profits are threatened, also threatens the American People’s position of subservience to those very monopolies.

Despite that, an alternative energy economy is possible, from biomass sources of fuel, to the very water that falls from the sky, to solar and wind power that we all letting just go to waste. An economy that would put a new focus and investment to a dedicated goal of eco-friendly and renewable sources of energy would be far cheaper than our war in Iraq, and would result in an economic boom for the United States that would make the dot.com boom look like a recession. Such a move would not only save our nation from expensive wars, but would revitalize our economy, give new hope for our nation’s family farmer, would help reduce the global warming that lead the disasters of Katrina and Rita, but would act to remove the billions of US dollars that flow into the Middle East for oil, which is used as the primary source of funding for radical terrorists organizations.

4:02 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Hmmmm........

What’s wrong Miami? Rush was too hopped up on drugs to write this, so he gave it to his brother?
=====>Wow this coming from a liberal. Aren't the liberals supposed to be the caring and inclusive of all of us? WOW! So when David Limbaugh tells that the the all-caring liberal Alva has to take a swipe at Rush's drug addiction. I wonder why you didn't accuse of him of being "lying white guy" as well. David Limbaugh writes a regular column, it wasn't a last minute thing. This coming from a protester for "peace". Liberalism=duplicity

The “War on Terror” is a farce.
=====All Akbar!

A joke.
=====>All Akbar Alva. This is only a joke to you and your ilk. But that's nothing new.

It’s nothing more than an excuse for reducing YOUR liberty, and to keep sending your tax dollars to Halliburtion’s bank accounts.
===>Excuse me, pardon me. My apologies. I am sorry for the interruption. Please forgive me. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh my God I need to take a deep breath.......
oh no here it comes again....help me please...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I have NEVER heard that before! Alva you are too much! That was painful laughing so hard. You gotta warn me when you crack good ones like that, seriously!

As for impeaching Bush, that would be the BEST first step to fighting terrorism, as it would remove from power the world’s LEADING TERRORIST.
=======>No you have it all wrong. You need to rise up against him and revolt! Oh wait...I was just asking a liberal to stop complaining and actually do something! Oh my God here...it...comes...again...help....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What was I thinking? We ALL know that isn't gonna happen.

What the Middle East needs, is what we provided to Egypt in the late 70’s. Low interest bank loans, foreign investment, hell, a Middle East Marshall Plan wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
=======>Yeah. The Marshall Plan only came AFTER we beat the Japanese back into the stone age. You're right though because that's what we are doing. We beat Saddam and we are now providing the Iraqis the manner to which they can do for themselves. Back then when the Marshall Plan was started people were skeptical that the Japanese could do Democracy and guess what they did and did it well. Liberalism=duplicity.

Unfortunately, that will NEVER happen under any Reich Wing administration.
======>Spell check please it's right not Reich wing. And if you feel that the Bush administration is such a Nazi-like governement you really need to form a militia and overthrow him. Oh no! I did it again! Oh geez...It's...coming...again...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I did it again. What is wrong with me? We all know liberals don't do anything about problems they only complain! Geez you think I would have learned already!

Their purpose for being there is to STEAL their resources, not to create a democratic state.
=====>Yes I hear that there is a direct pipeline being built from Bagdad to Crawford! And that Hallibruton is literally purchasing Iraqis wholesale to use them in international slave trade corporations that they are forming! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


The neo-cons are trying to prove that laissez faire capitalism works, and we have all seen the results, both in Iraq, and here at home.
=======>Yeah it's such a failure! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

At the end of WWII Truman had a different idea, and that was to create GENUINE democratic nations in Europe.
======>After we beat them down militarily of course.

The result is that Europe, not the Middle East, are home to first world nations...many of whom are far better off than the United States.
======>Yeah that's why there are SO many people FLEEING to Europe where there is unemployment in double-digits and taxes are soaring.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

There is nothing historic about the creation of another puppet regime in Iraq.
====>Yes because this time we will bleed them of their oil! Finally! YEAH! YAY!

Self-rule will happen when the Iraqis rule themselves, it’s as simple as that.
====>You're right. We need to stop these elections immediately if we are going to subjugate them the way we planned to!

It is no more profound than the US overthrow of multiple democratic nations in the past, starting from Iran (leading to the current situation today), to the Bush administration’s overthrow of the democratic Aristide government of Haiti.

=======>CLinton was responsible for Haiti. Great job there!

Of course, the Reich wingers
======> right

will not stop crowing about their undying love for their pet fascist in the White House, but the American People have long ago grown quite tired of it.
======>uh huh. That's they are rioting in the streets against the new coming of Hitler. HAven't you seen the millions of people marching trying to stop Bush? Oh wait you haven't? That's because they don't believe that! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

They know that 9/11, Katrina, Rita, and the lies about WMDs have all happened on Bush’s watch,
====>hey if you are saying that Bush can create hurricanes I wouldn't mess with him. You know what I mean?

while continued terrorist attacks have occurred in Madrid, London, as well as in the Middle East, such as the terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia a year ago.
====>Yes the terrorists are bombing us. T his is news? You mean that our (well not yours Alva) enemy is attacking back? That's NEVER happened before!

Meanwhile, plane cargo holds are not checked for explosives, our ports remain completely vulnerable, our borders remain unguarded, and the only answer the Reich wing has for protecting our citizens against a future terrorist attack is to spy on us, including sneek and peeks into what books we check out of the library.
=====>You think that this started with BUSH?
Please read about Clinton's plan to spy on us



Despite the Reich wing love of limiting Constitutional rights, they have yet to produce any evidence that it has prevented a single terrorist attack.
====>Yes Alva. They are gonna come out and tell EVERYTHNG that they are doing that is supposed to be secret so as to satisfy the idiots who are hoping for our defeat. Yeah hold on....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

One can’t blame them for such an omission, as the answer simply leaves the fascist in the White House out in the cold. The simple fact is that terrorism is not so dire a threat as they would like us to believe.
====>So...when are YOU going to visit Iraq then? I mean terrorism is not a threat so why not show us? I mean do as I say right? Pussy.


Statistically speaking, you are more likely to die from suicide than terrorism, making yourself a bigger threat to your security than terrorists are.
======>Actually statistically speaking you are more likely to die from an automobile crash than a nuclear attack. So what does that have to do with combatting it?

Saddam, as wicked as he was,
=====>Wo! Wait a minute...are you admitting that Saddam was...a...Bad Guy? That would almost, almost justify removing him from power! Be careful Alva. Your jihadist buddies are starting to wonder!


tended only to be wicked on our behalf. He gassed the Kurds with our gas.
=====>So if you kill someone with your Buick is Buick responsible for YOUR actions. Typical liberal response. Saddam gassed the Kurds with our gas? No Saddam killed his own people. Stop making excuses for him. Librealism=duplicity.


He invaded his neighbors with our weapons, on our behest, even if it did involve some diplomatic trickery in order to fool him.
=======>So if you kill someone with your Buick is Buick responsible for YOUR actions. Typical liberal response. Saddam invaded his neighbors with our weapons? Stop making excuses for him. Saddam could have easily saved his country with our qweapons as well but HE chose not to.Librealism=duplicity.


Since our puppet regime has been put in place, Iraq, just as was under Saddam, has killed and tortured their own people in the jails, while schools, hospitals, running water and electricity capabilities all continue to degrade day by day.
=======>So then why hasn't the new Iraqi army risen up to forcably remove us. You know the day they want to all that they would have to do is just join up with the other jihadists and just go for it. I wonder why? I mean they have guns and plently of ammo. But they haven't have they? Hmmmm.....curious. Maybe they are happier than you hope they are. But that's impossible! I mean they must be miserable. Why else would they walk miles to vote? Hmmmm...excuse me again.......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.



Other than dropping high explosives upon their heads, the leading cause of death for Iraqi children are dysentery or severe malnutrition.
======>You forgot when we tortured the children to show us where the oil fileds were.....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Reich wing knows quite well what is at stake in this struggle. The future of Exxon’s oil profits.
====>You forgot Chevron, Conneco, Texaco, BP, Mobil, Shell. I thought you liberals were all about being inclusive! Geez! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

They know that the world is running out of oil, and that reality could harm the future existence of energy monopolies, like that of Enron.
Please read this. We are NOT running out of oil


And a future where Exxon’s oil profits are threatened, also threatens the American People’s position of subservience to those very monopolies.
=======>Wow. So then, when are we getting our numbers tatooed to us? Excuse me again.........BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Despite that, an alternative energy economy is possible, from biomass sources of fuel, to the very water that falls from the sky, to solar and wind power that we all letting just go to waste. An economy that would put a new focus and investment to a dedicated goal of eco-friendly and renewable sources of energy would be far cheaper than our war in Iraq, and would result in an economic boom for the United States that would make the dot.com boom look like a recession.
======>yeah but who would do that? A capitalist! Yes, someone would make a profit from this and that would upset the other jihadist socialists like yourself Alva.


Such a move would not only save our nation from expensive wars, but would revitalize our economy, give new hope for our nation’s family farmer, would help reduce the global warming
=======>uh, what? Global what? Excuse me again....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Historical Data of the Earth's temperatures



that lead the disasters of Katrina and Rita,
======>Um what the hell are you talkking about?
This is so frustrating sometimes. Read about Global Warming and Hurricanes


but would act to remove the billions of US dollars that flow into the Middle East for oil, which is used as the primary source of funding for radical terrorists organizations.
======>Wait a minute. I thought Bush was the biggest terrorist? Liberalism=duplicity

11:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home