Valerie Plame to Testify Friday

[ETA123]

Oh go look em up yourself ; they're all over the internet.

There you go, lying again.

You can't provide a source (I could swear I predicted that).

I've just shown you what the 2002 analysis (which took place before the invasion by my calendar) shows that he did not believe the WMD claims.

That is oddly contradictory of your assertion that he did.

Keep trying though, I'm interested to see what happens when you did yourself into a hole so deep you fall out the other side of the planet.

 

[B_JQblonde]

ok you win. Kucicnich had Bush nailed . < SnickeR>

 

[ETA123]

ok you win. Kucicnich had Bush nailed . < SnickeR>

Ahhhh, another sign of a typical right-wing troll, when proven wrong, act like it's a good thing.

Do you ever get tired of distorting reality?

Hmmm, suprising (not), you still haven't backed up your assertions (any of them). Where is that proof you were talking about that's all over the internet?

You know, the information about ALL Democrats and ALL world leaders? Where is that proof?

 

[B_JQblonde]

Blair: 'No doubt' Iraq had WMD

CNN.com - Blair: 'No doubt' Iraq had WMD - Jan. 22, 2004

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem &#8212; the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly &#8212; unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . " Clinton, July 2003: " . . . t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

Larry Elder

 

[B_JQblonde]

Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . 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."

Larry Elder

 

[B_JQblonde]

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush &#8212; he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country." Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

Larry Elder

 

[B_JQblonde]

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine 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."

Larry Elder

 

[B_JQblonde]

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998: "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."

Larry Elder

 

[B_JQblonde]

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 2002: 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."

Larry Elder

 

[B_JQblonde]

There you go, lying again.

You can't provide a source (I could swear I predicted that).
quote]


Now don't you just feel like such an asshole right about now?

[wink]

Liberals. Always sticking their feet in their big mouths.

 

[Freddie53]

I've skimmed through these posts and found some things interesting.
One the issue of WMD. Yes intelligence said they were there. Whether the evidence was doctored or not, I don't know. But many democrats as well as Republicans were for doing something about that situation.

But history shows that there were no WMD's after all. And while it was not being admitted publicly that the Bush administration wanted Saddam gone, we all know that to be true.

So the issue becomes what to do now. There are no WMD's and Saddam is dead. Our objectives have been met. So why are we still there? Debating what who know what and when did they know it is moot at this point in time. The question of what to do has now changed.


To me this debate while it may be fun for the debaters has little to do with what do do now which is my concern.

If you enjoy the debate, go ahead and have all the fun you wish. I may stay around to see who is winning debate points.

 

[ETA123]

There you go, lying again.

You can't provide a source (I could swear I predicted that).
quote]


Now don't you just feel like such an asshole right about now?

[wink]

Liberals. Always sticking their feet in their big mouths.

You really aren't that bright are you?

So tell me, If you say ALL of a group supported a position, yet I prove that even ONE of that group dissented, do you not realize that it's impossible to prove that ALL of them did? Are you really that dim? Seriously, can you possibly be that ignorant?

The only asshole here is the person that thinks that he can still prove that ALL of a group shared an opinion, despite the fact that "ALL" is an impossibility.

What I love is that the only source you use is Larry Elder (when many of the quotes you use are covered in the Snopes link I already referenced long ago). You attack others for alleged biased soruces, yet you use Larry Elder as your source????? Sorry, but anyone who puts in regular appearances as a columnist on WorldNet Daily and FrontPage Mag is hardly an impartial source.

Conservatives and hypocrisy. . . bah, you konw the rest.

 

[ETA123]

I've skimmed through these posts and found some things interesting.
One the issue of WMD. Yes intelligence said they were there. Whether the evidence was doctored or not, I don't know. But many democrats as well as Republicans were for doing something about that situation.

Just as food for thought:

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS (about lack of "WMD") TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovi...

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-...

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS (aluminum tubes for conventional rockets, NOT nukes)

While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE

"The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/636209...

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES

The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons."

INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/declass...

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE (against "drones")

"The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2755...

 

[ETA123]

More food for thought:

ANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL

"The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justif...

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND
CNN.com - U.N. report reinforces Security Council divisions - Feb. 14, 2003 /

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.ht...

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD
No 'direct evidence' of Iraq weapons - - MSNBC.com /

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.ht...

Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment
The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.
Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment

 

[ETA123]

Even more:

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
t r u t h o u t - CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
The Sunday Herald - Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans
The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.h...

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.h...

"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
-Bush speaking at a news conference Sept. 7 with Tony Blair

There never was, never has been, any such report.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm

France & Russia knew;

'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.'

The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswm...

The UK knew
"They also ignore the statements of Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary who resigned on the eve of the war to protest Prime Minister Tony Blair’s war policy. Cook was quoted in the June 18, 2003 Guardian newspaper as saying: “I think it would be fair to say that there was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion. I fear we got into a position in which the intelligence was not being used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...

 

[DC_DEEP]

Now don't you just feel like such an asshole right about now?

[wink]

Liberals. Always sticking their feet in their big mouths.

Eloquent, factual, level-headed.

 

[ETA123]

Oh and Freddie, as to what to do now, the Murtha plan suits me fine:

Congressman John Murtha - Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District - Press Releases

also discussed here:

the Iraq War| U.S. Congress: Senate Democrats move to restrict Bush's power

I'm rather partial to the clause that troops must be certified as combat ready before being sent.

 

[B_JQblonde]

I've skimmed through these posts and found some things interesting.
One the issue of WMD. Yes intelligence said they were there. Whether the evidence was doctored or not, I don't know. But many democrats as well as Republicans were for doing something about that situation.

But history shows that there were no WMD's after all. And while it was not being admitted publicly that the Bush administration wanted Saddam gone, we all know that to be true.

.

Say what? The policy of the US toward Iraq since around 1998 was "'regime change".

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
-Public Law 105-338

 

[B_JQblonde]

yaawn abunch of after the fact quites from nobodies.

Pass.

Mine :
Chriac < leader>, Blair < leader>

CLinton, Pelosi, Graham, all said YEA on WMD. Tenet said " slam dunk" .

Tenet's the director, I guess the President should listen instead to a bunch of low level yippers.


riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Liberals and logic. They just don't mix!

 

[ETA123]

yaawn abunch of after the fact quites from nobodies.

Pass.

Mine :
Chriac < leader>, Blair < leader>

CLinton, Pelosi, Graham, all said YEA on WMD. Tenet said " slam dunk" .

Tenet's the director, I guess the President should listen instead to a bunch of low level yippers.


riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Liberals and logic. They just don't mix!

Hint for you -

if A = All, A-1 can not, by any stretch of the imagination equal A.

There you go again, not addressing the fact that you LIED.

What's going to happen now is that the people here who have proven the fallacy of your argument are going to get bored with you and, at some point, will quit responding. You, as most of your ilk, will (instead of realizing the truth) pretend that this is somehow a "victory" for you. When, in reality, it's quite the opposite. Spewing until you're ignored isn't victory, it's stupidity. Perhaps you'll learn one day.