White House Denies Forgery Charge

By Fact-esque

Well, they'd have to, wouldn't they? But they language they're using is a league beyond the usual arrogant dismissals, as if they can barely be bothered with something so off-the-wall. No, this time - after McClellan did them some heavy damage with their own people - they're going all-out. It's "gutter journalism". It's "absurd".

In BushSpeak, that's tantamount to an admission that Suskind's right.

The Bush administration joined former top CIA officials in denouncing a new book's assertion that White House officials ordered the forgery of Iraqi documents to suggest a link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the lead hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

***

Suskind, who has written two previous investigative books that contained criticism of Bush administration policies, described the alleged forgery as a deliberate "misusing of an arm of government, the kind of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings." White House condemnations of the book were equally dramatic, with officials blasting it as "gutter journalism." In separate statements, several former and current CIA officials disputed portions of the account, including two named by Suskind as key sources.

"The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter . . . is absurd," said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

Suskind's two major sources are now claiming they never said anything Suskind says they said, but Suskind says he's got it on tape.

Many of the interviews were taped, he said. Suskind added that he understood "the enormous pressure that can be brought to bear" on sources who formerly worked for the government and still have professional ties.

The "govt" they worked for is the Bush govt, where "Revenge" is their middle name. I'd deny it, too, I suspect.

Comments

(128)

Time to release the tapes

Let's out these vermin as the yellow liars that they are. Even if they'll walk away to Paraguay, maybe the names of Bush, Cheney, and Rove will go down in history with that of Benedict Arnold.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

Like Mark Twain said, a century or so ahead of his time...

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!"

I think it would be a much, much bigger bombshell if the Cowboy-hat Oathbreaker Admuddlestration came out and admitted their wrongdoing. In fact, that could even be the "October Surprise" that saves the g0p from its final catastrophic meltdown. It'll still be years before anyone in their right mind trusts them with any elected position higher than village sanitation manager, but it would still lay the foundation for a g0p resurgence sometime around 2028.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

Justice Department Subpoenas Its Former Lawyers In Civil Rights

Justice Department Subpoenas Its Former Lawyers In Civil Rights Probe
August 6, 2008 12:27 PM

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed several former senior Justice Department attorneys for an investigation into the politicization of the Department's own Civil Rights Division, according to sources close to the investigation.

The extraordinary step by the Justice Department of subpoenaing attorneys once from within its own ranks was taken because several of them refused to voluntarily give interviews to the Department Inspector General, which has been conducting its own probe of the politicization of the Civil Rights Division, the same sources said.

The grand jury has been investigating allegations that a former senior Bush administration appointee in the Civil Rights Division, Bradley Schlozman, gave false or misleading testimony on a variety of topics to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sources close to the investigation say that the grand jury is also more broadly examining whether Schlozman and other Department officials violated civil service laws by screening Civil Rights attorneys for political affiliation while hiring them.

Investigators for the Inspector General have also asked whether Schlozman, while an interim U.S. attorney in Missouri, brought certain actions and even a voting fraud indictment for political ends, according to witnesses questioned by the investigators. But it is unclear whether the grand jury is going to hear testimony on that issue as well.

...

The article goes on to tell who is being subpoenaed.

At least set the bar

Speaker Pelosi!... or the table. At least tell us what it will take for you to at least consider bringing these criminals to justice. Maybe the execution of some lib judge on the white house lawn?!? What?

ahhhh...yes

the smell of desperation...

Well, they'd have to, wouldn't they? But they language they're using is a league beyond the usual arrogant dismissals, as if they can barely be bothered with something so off-the-wall. No, this time - after McClellan did them some heavy damage with their own people - they're going all-out. It's "gutter journalism". It's "absurd".

In BushSpeak, that's tantamount to an admission that Suskind's right.

This is roughly the equivalent of this argument.

L: so I heard that when you are alone you play with barbie dolls!!!

R:What? No, That never happened...

L: ooooh....Why are you denying it so furiously, I must be right...the mor you deny, the closer I get!!!!

R: so your entire argument that I'm guilty unless I prove my innocence.... by proving I didn't do something you allege I have done...

L: impeach, impeach!!!!

I'll wait to see how this turns out...I'm just not holding my breath...McClellan's book already blew the lid off the whole administration...

So I should believe the Bush

So I should believe the Bush administration why? Even if they happen to be telling the truth this time, with their history of lies who could believe them about anything?

What I think will happen

There are a couple of ways this could go. First, whatever happens, Bush has gutted the Justice Department which means only shitty lawyers from tier four colleges are left to defend him. This is why Bush doesn't want Gitmo terrorists cases tried in real courts, because he got rid of so many good lawyers they would always lose.

Bush could keep a low profile until he gets out of office and then he just hi tails it out of the country, but I don't believe that will happen.

Probably, the Democrats don't want to do anything that would rally the American people behind Bush and also behind McCain. So I think they are just going to let it slide and then try to clean things up after Bush has left. Only the most ignorant still believe that Bush was good for this country.

Unfortunately I agree. The

Unfortunately I agree. The American public is too preoccupied with the economic situation (and justifiably so), and wouldn't appreciate anything that would APPEAR to be as partisan as impeachment proceedings.

Unless we get a real solid "smoking gun", I think we're stuck...

-- McCain = Four more years of the same --

Rally??really??

Back when the Dick got busted (btw Cheney was in that admin. too) at first his defenders said "His subordinates did it without his knowledge" then they said "He did nothing that the democrats haven't done before" it was then reduced to "Respect the office if not the man" ....and alls he did was rig an election (that could be proven). This latest crime family has done that (twice) and oh so much more. I should think that you would be hard pressed to say that anyone would rally 'round that in any way shape or form.

This just in.....

97% of all prison inmates claim they are innocent. So why should the administration behave any differently than the rest of the criminals?

Where's the Media!?

Where are the investigative journalists who are supposed to be covering this? Where is the outrage? What has happened to our country? This is FAR worse than Watergate! Indeed, the state of our government is Nixon's favorite wet dream! We have a completely politicized justice department, an out-of-control executive branch that stonewalls every chance it gets, and a legislative branch that has been made impotent by the Conservative elitist agenda! This has gotten way out of hand, and our own party is acting as the enabler by not standing up and demanding that the media cover this scandal. This is by far the biggest story of the year, if not the decade, yet the story gets no airtime, and no one is talking about it. Have we become that lethargic and passive? Our government is failing us and we have nothing to say about it.

Where is the media?

Maybe Dan Rather taught them to wait for some evidence and to not throw their trust at every shady source. If there was a shred of actual evidence, this would be running nonstop on the msm.

As has been proven

everything Rather reported was true. The MSM is run by right wing corporations who want to keep the fascists in power.

Where is the proof that fascism is on the left and that the WMDs are in Syria? Cant find any?

There's TONS of Evidence

Wake up Toad!

How many former Bush administration officials have come out and blew whistles on these people? We have several first-hand accounts from people who were on the inside of this insidious crime and you're telling me that we just don't know for sure? How about we start with an investigation. Oh wait, Congress did that, and the people that they subpoenaed to testify were ordered not to show up. The fact that you try to minimize all the evidence that has already surfaced tells me that you don't want to believe it. Denial will get you nowhere; there are vast amounts of evidence that the Bush administration has committed crimes.

Not so much

...considering the last time the MSM ran with something like this, their puppetmasters got Dan Rather fired.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By tropicaltoad August 6, 2008 - 5:06pm

Maybe Dan Rather taught them to wait for some evidence and to not throw their trust at every shady source.
--------------------------
Now, if only the White House would've learned such a lesson...

A chemical engineer from Baghdad seeking political asylum in Germany in November 1999 provided detailed descriptions of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Most everything the informant, dubbed "Curveball," said was untrue -- though that did not stop White House officials from embracing his stories. In fact, Curveball became the sole source for the administration's allegations that Hussein had chemical weapons.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_cias_flimflam_man

...they might not have found themselves invading Iraq.

What am I talking about?

It's become painfully clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together and who has been paying close enough attention that the White House was intent on invading Iraq...by any means necessary... even prior to being handed control of the Oval Office.
You either haven't been paying close enough attention. Or you're a brain cell short. Or both...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

Georges Sada

Georges Sada

Ooh! A conpuss one-liner based on conservofag talk shows

Well isn't that SPAY-SHULL?

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

...who, when asked about Saddam's weapons, said:

Not in Iraq.

So what you're admitting, toady, is that Cowboy-hat Oathbreaker invaded the wrong country looking for something that he knew wasn't there.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

They were there, they were

They were there, they were flown into Syria days before the invasion. That's what Sada said, not that they were never there.

Then provide reliable proof

that the WMDs are in Syria. You cant. You are a proven liar.

The Truth About WMD in Iraq

Here Toad, this is what you are after. Here is an article by factcheck.org, a completely independent organization that checks rumors and dispels them as needed:

Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?
I have friends in Texas, Seattle and Tennessee who say President Bush was right that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They claim that the weapons were hidden in caves in the mountains, and are still hidden there, but we have not found them yet. Where did they get such ideas, and is there even the slightest chance they are right, and if so why wouldn't Bush have said this? How did such a belief get started, and is there a way I can dispel them of the idea?

A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
As for how you dispel your friends' notions that Iraq really did have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons when President Bush no longer makes such claims himself, we suggest ridicule. If that doesn’t work, you may be out of luck.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.

According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq's WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.

During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it's likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends' beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:

* "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

* "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

* "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.

-Joe Miller
Sources
CNN. "Official: U.S. Calls off Search for Iraqi WMDs." CNN.com, 12 Jan. 2005.

Iraq Survey Group. "Iraq Survey Group Final Report." 30 Sept. 2004. GlobalSecurity.org, 14 Feb. 2008.

Priest, Dana and Walter Pincus. "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons." The Washington Post, 7 Oct. 2004.

Tropical Turd Goes Down In Flames...

... AGAIN! :~)

Frogglodyte, you really are an idiot! Syria?!?! HA! The only Iraqi things you will find there are about 1.5 million refugees, courtesy of GW!

Just to put that in perspective for you, tropical turd, that is equal to the population of Phoenix or Philadelphia.

By tropicaltoad August 6, 2008 - 6:32pm

No they weren't. And that's what multiple intelligence sources concluded.

Chalk it up as but one more thing the Bush cabal lied about...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

If Sada had an ounce of

If Sada had an ounce of credibility, the White House would have paraded him around Washington. Instead, both FOX and the Bush regime are strangely silent on Sada's claims. Why? Because they are BOGUS and to have them revealed as such would make them into laughing stocks.
Just like those of you who keep repeating that crap are laughing stocks.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower

By tropicaltoadAugust 6, 2008 - 6:32pm

They were there, they were flown into Syria days before the invasion. That's what Sada said, not that they were never there.

LMAO!!!

So Saddam was supposedly getting yellow cake from Niger and shipping the weapons he made to Syria. And we attacked Iraq. We didn't attack the country supposedly giving Saddam materials and we didn't attack the country Saddam supposedly gave the weapons to either. But this was suppose to be about the wmd's and wmd proliferation. That's rich.

Even if we accept the idea that Niger was providing yellow cake to Iraq and Iraq gave it's weapons to Syria; the fact that we only attacked Iraq and neglected the other two suggests one thing: It was about the oil!

Pure fantasy.


I think you must have dreamed that, froggy.

Show me a scrap of independant, verifiable evidence to that effect and I'll kiss your ass on main street.

I'm afraid "just making shit up" doesn't count as evidence.

Congrats to your daughter on her graduation.

by socialistfrogg

so then, no proof from a RELIABLE source for either lie. You make it much too easy, you ditto head dunce.

By tropicaltoad August 6, 2008 - 6:12pm

Georges Sada
--------------------------
If I remember correctly, that was the Iraqi general, turned spokesman and NSA for the habitual liar Ayad Allawi (aka "US puppet prime minister"), who was completely rebuffed by the Duelfer report.

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
http://tinyurl.com/48j9h

You want me to believe a story, from a documented liar working for another documented liar, about how the US-- despite its stated fear of Saddam possessing WMD that he could transport out of country or pass off to "terrorists" and having the country under constant monitoring and watch-- completely missed flights supposedly carrying said WMD out of country?

Er. Um. Sorry.

Despite my fair amount of recreational herbal pastime, I still have functioning brain cells.
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

White House Denies Forgery Charge

Just real quick off the top of my head, the White House has also denied:
--using PKK and MEK members for operations in Iran
--authorizing torture
--knowing Abramoff
--manipulating scientific information

A quick, short list to be sure, but all things we know to be true which were denied.

And remember when it was "ridiculous" and "absurd" to suggest that Karl Rove or the White House had any involvement in the Plame outing?

I would suggest the existence of a pattern.

"Gutter journalism"?
I guess that's what it takes to win a Pulitzer while at the Wall Street Journal.
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

the pressure in my tires

is now so high that i just got a rebate check from Shell Oil for all the Shell gasoline i've ever purchased.

"Obama - the judgment to be a big enough blowhard to have his campaign be considered 'wind powered'".

Nice Rush one-liner again

Doesn't your mother need you out on the streets bringing in some business, PUSSY?

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

Dood

Totally insulting to all of us real pussies. After all you are what you eat and I'll just bet my man itso hasn't been anywhere near the real deal.

Are you paying the drug addict the royalties you owe him

...for using his material?

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By its_so_overAugust 6, 2008 - 6:07pm

Why don't you inflate your tires on the way to the recruiter mr. chicken hawk?

Do you even have a clue as

Do you even have a clue as to how ridiculous you make yourself look?
Misconstruing a position and arguing from a misconstrued position, although a favorite tactic of the rank and file GOP'ers, really makes you guys look like uneducated rubes. Try using that gray matter in your skull. It was put there for a reason.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight Eisenhower

The left's hypocrisy never

The left's hypocrisy never fails to amaze me. How do you look yourself in the mirror each morning? The advice you gave is what you should follow but don't.

WTF are you talking about?

Conservofascist drivel, as usual. See ya this fall, creep!

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

by fucking liar skeet

When you look in the mirror, you dont see a reflection. Evil, souless demons like you dont have a reflection. Here is some advice, get out of my country before it is too late for you.

By SheddAugust 6, 2008 - 10:31pm

Dammit, skeety-poo! You promised not to post a comment until 2:30am, & it was supposed to be a comment on a video. Another lying contard. No surprise there.

Local Idiot to Post Comment on Internet

George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.

And McCain agrees with him

That liberal pussy.

We could generate a significant amount of energy if we harness the motion of McCain changing his policy positions. He was against tire inflation before he was for it. He was against offshore drilling before he was for it (and before getting $250K from oil executives).


"...religion, in and of itself, ...is neither good nor bad... it is like a knife. When you use a knife for cutting bread, it’s good. If you use that knife to stick into somebody’s guts, it’s bad." - Bishop Desmond Tutu

Deny, Deny, Deny

Those are the words Scott Peterson's mother gave her killler son before he went on trial. Repukes believe that if you deny it enough people will believe you. But, after almost 8 years almost 80% of the people don't buy what the Repukes are selling. OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA IN '08!

Just another inconvenient

fact of yet another high crime and misdemeanor committed by this criminal administration that has absolutely nothing to worry about as long as the authoritarian Speaker continues to shit in the face of Americans dependent on this one singular person to show just a fraction of an ounce of decency, morals, ethics and judgement to give them a fraction of an ounce of justice.

Impeach Pelosi First!

An Inconvenient Truth

In writing this "book," Ron Suskind comes across as a dishonest, greedy, and agenda-driven opportunist, who hopes that enough people will buy into his excrement without checking the facts, so that he can make a fast buck. Caring nothing about truth, fact, or objectivity, the unscrupulous and unprincipled left is positively giddy at slurping up this waste and vomiting it where ever and whenever it can, even if it's totally false, so long as it impugns the hated and despised Bush, who beat the Democrats in 2000 and (as the Republican leader) went on to thoroughly and methodically thrash them in 2002 and 2004.

With about 17% calling themselves liberals and even less calling themselves the oxymoronic "progressives," Suskind knows that several million suckers (most of them willing suckers) will buy his book and line his pockets. But the other 83% will not, for in varying degrees, they know how the truth does not favor Suskind, Sedar, or others of their ilk - truth that I've posted here, here, and here.

And regarding this last link, I'd like to offer a little present to everybody's favorite Sam Sedar wanna be, f u bush2, who stated the following in one of his posts:

Bush rushed us into a disaster.

Joe Wilson said "wait a minute, I've got something to say".

Joe was right. Bush was wrong. But that wouldn't have been so bad if George had said "let's hear what you have to say".

...to which I give a direct quote from the British Butler Report (page 125, paragraph 503) on the validity of British and American pre-war intelligence, concerning Iraq's efforts to obtain African uranium, especially from Niger:

503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi
attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different
sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of
Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government
did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British
Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact
of the forgery does not undermine it.

...which totally, completely, and thoroughly demolishes the so-called claims of the left's patron saint, "Joe Wilson," that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium from Africa and Niger, in particular. Case closed. End of Story. You lose. Thanks for playing.

By SheddAugust 6, 2008 - 11:34pm

You promised to keep your stupidity & lies to yourself until 2:30.

Local Idiot to Post Comment on Internet

George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.

Translation

Shedd spread "Dammit, I haven't read this yet, but the drug addict says it's evil and nasty and shows this admuddlestration in a bad light so I have to decry it as loud and fast as I can!"

Stick a fork in the RepubliCANT Reich...yep, it's done. CASE CLOSED, END OF STORY.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

You have never posted anything

true here. 17% of Americans are liberals? Why are 52% of Americans Democrats and only 35% Republicans?

Suskind got the smoking gun on Bush.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author got it on tape.
Courtroom drama soon to follow.
Stay tuned.
We're going to see the two putrid sacks of stinking lowlife dogshit, called Bush and Cheney fried yet.

The Real Truth About Iraqi WMD

...in response to the cherry-picking and disinformation posted by McCain = Bush:

Excerpts from Iraq Survey Group Final Report, Regime Strategic Intent, Key Findings:

"Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

...and McCain=Bush goes down in ignominious defeat as a flaming ball of wreckage. For if we'd listened to the idiots on the left and not invaded Iraq, Saddam would've defeated the sanctions by around 2001, recreated his WMD stocks, and continued hosting, training, and equipping terrorists, many of whom were Al Qaeda affiliates.

By SheddAugust 7, 2008 - 12:43am

Well the first paragraph in that posted excerpt is difficult to believe in it's entirety as it is well known Saddam had to sleep in different locations each night for fear of assassination. It's hard to imagine anyone in such a situation fully dominating a regime.

Just Like Obamalamadingdong: More Heat, Less Filling

My goodness! You managed to write all those angry words in several posts preceding this one and still managed to say absolutely nothing - just like your glorious leader, the anointed one, yea - verily I say unto you, the Great Barak Obamalamadingdong! May we all bow down and worship his radiance and may we live under his all-knowing gaze for a thousand years!

My, my! How SHRILL you sound!

Your meltdown is VERY entertaining. Tell me, with all the various colors of flame your brain is erupting, can it also do plaid?

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By SheddAugust 7, 2008 - 4:28am

Another post from shedd full of nothing but hot air.

By SheddAugust 7, 2008 - 12:43am

For if we'd listened to the idiots on the left and not invaded Iraq, Saddam would've defeated the sanctions by around 2001, recreated his WMD stocks, and continued hosting, training, and equipping terrorists, many of whom were Al Qaeda affiliates.

Let's think about how utterly ridiculous this statement is shall we?

1. Defeated sanctions by 2001? So after 9/11 the only two choices concerning Iraq were to drop sanctions or invade? Give me strength. I do believe that no matter your feelings on invasion, after 9/11 there was certainly a willingness to consider threats and deal with them in an appropriate manner.

2. When did we invade? Certainly after 2001. That alone disproves this nonsense of Saddam having sanctions removed by 2001.

3. So the reason for invading was because Saddam meant to equip "terrorists, many of whom were Al Qaeda affiliates." First of all this is a blatant lie fabricated by the right. Not surprising as the right is noted for it's pathological liars like shedd. But let's think about this logic. Shedd just got done telling us that invasion was necessary because Saddam was willing to equip terrorists. Saddam is considered a bad person for this and other reasons. A dangerous individual. And according to the right, Saddam had a deal with Niger to purchase yellow cake uranium. Now I would say anyone willing to do a deal with Saddam that involves uranium must by definition be supporting terror. Who else would Niger be willing to sell too? Why is there no outcry form the right to invade Niger?

Of course the document linking Saddam to this deal with Niger were forged and it was well know Saddam didn't need yellow cake as he already had some. It was also well known that he was not refining the yellow cake. But if we follow the right wing logic we must conclude that Niger was willing to do business with evil doers and needed to be dealt with.

These right wingers like shedd are growing ever more pathetic in their attempts to justify this war.

It's No Wonder You Support Obama...

...since your reasoning, logic, and decision-making abilities are very similar to his (deeply flawed), even if you do have facts furnished by a reputable source, like the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG). Do you actually allow your students to get away with this sort of nonsensical reasoning on their papers? Scary! It's no wonder that we have to (in a sense) retrain so many students, who come out of college and enter into my profession, the environmental consulting field. And yes, Saddam did almost defacto defeat the sanctions (meaning, even if they were'nt officially dropped, many nations had already begun doing business with Iraq under the table, like Russia, France, and the countries bordering Iraq) by the time indicated in the ISG report, and as the ISG report and captured Iraqi documents proved Saddam was doing so right up until we invaded.

As for a so-called "appropriate" response (which you're probably referring to as diplomacy), diplomacy failed (for the preceding 11 years) to stop Saddam from circumventing the sanctions, pursuing WMD, corrupting OFF to do so, and (yes) hosting, training, and equipping terrorists, many of whom were either Al Qaeda affiliates or had the same goals as Al Qaeda (killing us). This is not a "right-wing lie," as you continually and falsely assert but is proven by the sources linked in this post.Therefore, since diplomacy failed, the only appropriate response was to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.

On another idiocy, there's no outcry to invade Niger because it's never tried to conquer its neighbors, like Saddam; it's never tried to develop WMD, like Saddam; it's never hosted, trained, and equipped terrorists, who wanted to kill us, like Saddam; it wasn't in violation of 18 U.N. resolutions to stop these activities, like Saddam; and it never failed to meet these resolutions, despite 11 years of diplomacy, like Saddam. So invading Niger would've been a true violation of international law - not the fabricated one alleged by the left.

As for the yellow-cake uranium in Iraq, it was under IAEA seal and inspection, and therefore, couldn't be used to make nuclear material, which is documented in the Butler Report. The IAEA also had Saddam dismantle most of his uranium enrichment capabilities, even though Saddam deliberately witheld at least some of this equipment from the inspectors, including documentation needed to enrich uranium - in complete violation of U.N. mandates - so that he could restart his nuclear program, which the ISG proved he would do.

That's why Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa - uranium that wasn't under IAEA scrutiny. This is also documented in the British Butler report.

Also, in the late 1990's, Saddam had managed to convince Germany, Russia, France, and China to vote for ending the sanctions - something that Britain and the U.S. opposed - leaving only these two countries to support the sanctions and enforce them. Thus, Saddam had defacto defeated the sanctions, leaving him relatively free to reconstitute his WMD and nuclear capabilities, which the evidence proved that he would.

As for the forged document, it had no bearing on British Intelligence's finding that Saddam was seeking uranium from Africa. The explanation that the forged document had no bearing on these findings or the validity of Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech is given here.

So, don't you ever tire of being proven wrong? What grade would you give your students, if they persisted in repeating the wrong answers or giving faulty information on tests, even though you'd given them the correct information? You'd obviously fail them. So what makes you think you can leave intellectual honesty, honest reasoning, honest research, and fact-checking at the door, when it comes to the security of your own country? It makes absolutely no sense, unless your a close-minded and rigid ideologue, who cares more about the predominance of your ideology (no matter how deeply and fatally flawed it is) than your country.

"Proven wrong?"

You have proven nothing but your ability to stick your finger down your throat and regurgitate Fatso's talking points for that day. Do YOU not tire of the daily bitch-slappings you take here?

Guess not. After all you're a republiperv. Humiliation probably makes you shoot your pitiful little goo. Is that how you'll get off when you're a guard at the death camps, you little Hitler Youth coward?

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastAugust 7, 2008 - 2:29am

shedd is an ass. He should look at how his religious devotion, and others, to Bush has helped to kill over 4100 soldiers in Iraq.

By SheddAugust 7, 2008 - 2:13am

The Butler report? More garbage. The "evidence" in that report is here say from an Iraqi. Reminds me of curveball.

Im so tired of watching soldiers suffer for chicken hawks like you. You are disgusting.

Response to shit head chicken hawk

As for a so-called "appropriate" response (which you're probably referring to as diplomacy), diplomacy failed (for the preceding 11 years) to stop Saddam from circumventing the sanctions, pursuing WMD, corrupting OFF to do so, and (yes) hosting, training, and equipping terrorists, many of whom were either Al Qaeda affiliates or had the same goals as Al Qaeda (killing us). This is not a "right-wing lie," as you continually and falsely assert but is proven by the sources linked in this post.Therefore, since diplomacy failed, the only appropriate response was to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.

Well let's see. The report you cited claimed Saddam "wanted" to have the sanctions end and "wanted" to start a wmd program. Why? Because the sanctions had prevented him from having that program up to that point you dumb ass. The report also stated that Saddam's nuclear program had been non-existent since 1991. Something was working on that front.

You idiotic Bush supporters bought into the belief that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. And when you realized how ridiculous that was you have pursued every imaginable spin you could possibly put out to justify this war for oil. Now you are trying to say that because Saddam "wanted" something he had successfully been prevented from having for over a decade we had to invade. How can you live with yourself.

The absolute truth is that this decision was NOT urgent. Ther was no reason to invade when we did. We could have used the resources to hunt down Bin Laden and make a statement that we will quickly hunt down and kill those that attack the US as his organization did. Instead we have turned him into a martyr.

I will never understand how you right wingers can be so blindly devoted to Bush that you defend the indefensible.

More silliness from the chicken hawk shedd

On another idiocy, there's no outcry to invade Niger because it's never tried to conquer its neighbors, like Saddam; it's never tried to develop WMD, like Saddam; it's never hosted, trained, and equipped terrorists, who wanted to kill us, like Saddam; it wasn't in violation of 18 U.N. resolutions to stop these activities, like Saddam; and it never failed to meet these resolutions, despite 11 years of diplomacy, like Saddam. So invading Niger would've been a true violation of international law - not the fabricated one alleged by the left.

How can he use his retarded right wing logic and then refuse to accept the same logic when thrown back at him? Ahh the key word is retarded.

So you see folks shedd just got done telling us that he believes the lie that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda. He used the argument that because Saddam might be supplying these terrorists that he himself must be targeted. Now then I ask shedd why we shoud not be concerned that Niger is willing to sell Saddam yellow cake uranium? And he says it's because Niger hasn't attacked it's neighbors.

Well you see the problem don't you? Iraq was in no position to attack anyone. But the right argues that he was secretly going to supply others with wmd's. Now the same applies to Niger. Niger may not be attacking it's neighbors but certainly if it is willing to supply Saddam that nation is against us; not with us. And without Saddam who is to say they won't sell to others?

Clearly the logic to invade Iraq must be applied to Niger. But Iraq has more oil. So that must figure into the equation.

By SheddAugust 7, 2008 - 2:13am

shedd

you obviously believe the spin and propaganda. So winning this war on terror must be very important to you. Look at this picture:

 pics of coffins

Now picture 4100 more flag draped coffins that have come from this cause you believe in. Then think about the soldiers that have had to go back 4 times and how the divorce rate among soldiers is high. Think about the mental illness of the vets that is sky rocketing.

Now ask your self why you won't call up the recruiter and say you believe in this cause so much that you spend your time posting garbage on left wing boards. Then say you want to do more. You want to train and go to Iraq so that the soldiers don't have to go back so often. Then tell your story on right wing blogs. Get more of your fellow ditto heads to do the same.

You can all get it done. Just join up together and do the job.