Cheney: No link between Hussein and 9/11

[Van]

I'm thinking he'd insist.

[Felix]

pass...see I thought you were talking something along the lines of old 8mm reels starring big titted one-legged asian women doing midgets wearing party hats

[LTS TRN 2]

You guys are missing the forest for the trees here. Cheney and Chimp were of course determined to attack Iraq, regardless of how much they had to lie and manipulate intelligence--and backstab agents and officials whose info disagreed with the WMD "threat" policy. And similarly the Clintons dutifully toed the line for demonizing Iraq. ALL of this was instigated by Israel and its PR organs--PNAC, AIPAC, JINSA, and others. If you are actually in some doubt--let alone denial--of this basic fact then you are essentially a complete fool, a puppet of pumped up fears and propaganda. Add now as the truth seeps out--that Cheney and his ilk were lying up and down--well...what? Are you surprised?

[Tom In VA]

The problem is, with Terry and TVO, they merely look to "blame Bush".

At least LTS's conspiracy theory is bi-partisan and it might be right. The fact is, since WWI the United States, i.e. US have been poking our noses into business that doesn't belong to us. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, etc.. etc.. USMC Smedley Butler comes to mind.

Also this poking as been good for the economy - for awhile anyway - to the point that it depends on it. Certainly, we could withdraw to total isolationism again but we would all feel pain. BSmack's point in another thread comes to mind. Are willing to bear that pain ?

I am. If it will shut the fucking likes of Terry and TVO up it might just be worth it. But probably not, they're lawyers. Lawyers, just like the lawyers and bankers who got us into this fucking mess over 100 years ago.

Terry, you're full of shit. No two ways about it.
TVO, you're vapid. There was no "lock step". It's called reading the fucking material available to the general public, understanding that some material is classified and we might not have all the information and forming an opinion. Further, reading the material provided by Saddam and by Osama. Clinton and Bush might have lied, I don't know - I don't think they did. I do know that you are, by trade, a liar.


RACK shutyomouth and Smackoholic.

[Van]

The fact is, since WWI the United States, i.e. US have been poking our noses into business that doesn't belong to us. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, etc.. etc..

Two things....

1-What was the point of writing, "the United States, i.e. US"?

Did the "United States" term require clarifying? Did re-labeling it as the "US" accomplish anything there?

-How do you figure we "poked our noses into business that doesn't belong to us (sic)," where WWII is concerned? Do you see some reasoning by which we shouldn't have entered that conflict? Do you even see any possibility that we could've avoided entering that conflict, following Pearl Harbor?

For that matter, how was the Cold War not our business? Without the U.S. there is no Cold War. It was almost solely our war, with the Soviets.

[Tom In VA]

The fact is, since WWI the United States, i.e. US have been poking our noses into business that doesn't belong to us. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, etc.. etc..

Two things....

1-What was the point of writing, "the United States, i.e. US"?

US = objective case of we


As for number 2.

The writings of Smedley Butler are very interesting in that regard. FDR was itching to get us involved in WWII. In fact, we were, long before 7Dec1941. We provided 'material support' to Germany's enemies.

The Jap thing ? Jury's still out on that one in my opinion. Did we provoke them ? Shove the proverbial cattle prod into their starving bellies so they felt compelled to attack ?

[Van]

Tom was there any doubt that "we," or "US," are the "United States"?

As for providing material support to Germany's enemies, of course we did. Of course we always would, if Germany's enemies happen to be our strongest allies.

What, were we ever not going to come to England's aid, even if it was just supplies and help with securing shipping lanes?

I also still don't get how you think the Cold War wasn't our business. If it wasn't our's, whose was it? That war began the moment Soviet tanks rolled into Berlin, if not earlier. That war was unavoidable, unless of course you would've preferred a traditional hot war with the Soviets.

What other options were there?

[Tom In VA]

It's like this, dude.

Some folks believe that WWI was fought for Wall Street as opposed to Main Street. Now "Domino Theories" aren't restricted to Communism. The ever expanding reach of U.S. "foreign interests" that occurred throughout the late 19th and 20th century are viewed by some to be ..... against the founding principles.

We engaged in WWI. Enjoyed some spoils along with our allies. Spoils to include areas such as former holdings of the Ottoman Empire such as the newly created "Iraq". Yep.

WWI begat WWII.
WWII begat the Cold War and several "firefights" of varying degrees of magnitude. The argument again, has been made, that post WWII the United States, i.e. US (I just did that to piss you off :) ) has made a living protecting the former assets held by our allies. European colonies could no longer be defended by .... Europeans. So we became "guns for hire". And, our economy has flourished in many aspects because of it.

Purists, don't believe we had any business getting involved in:

1. Colonialism, see Domincan Republic, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska etc..
2. Protecting the former Empires "colonies" (Vietnam (French), Middle East (French and British), etc..

Did that explain to your satisfaction ?

[Van]

Well, you began this by saying we stuck our noses in things that weren't our business. You didn't qualify it by saying "some believe we stuck our noses, etc...."

No, you simply stated it, without qualification.

So, screw what some "purists" (by that, do you mean "Isolationists"?) think. Is that what you think? Do you really think we manufactured our full scale entry into WWII, and do you really think there was any way (short of actual fighting) to avoid the Cold War, once the outcome of WWII had been decided?

Do you really think we killed all those U.S. soldiers, just to advance our economy? We simply manufactured Hilter, Pearl Harbor, Stalin and Kruschev?

If you do think so, i.e., if you really think our government is that evil, how on earth can you even stomach living in this country?

When did you move to SLO and don a tinfoil hat? Did I miss a memo?

As for those "purists" saying we shouldn't have gotten involved in...Hawaii and Alaska?? Are they retarded?? We purchased Alaska, and nobody in their right mind would say that purchase turned out to be anything but a great deal for the United Sates.

Hawaii, too. Miss Hawaiian Tropics hotties, much??

I supposes those same shmoes also think the Louisiana Purchase was reckless colonialism on our part. That island of Manhattan thing was ill-advised, too.

[poptart]

The problem is, with Terry and TVO, they merely look to "blame Bush".

Yes.

Bush was authorized to start the war.

House dems, 82 of 208, gave him authorization to use force.
Senate dems, 29 of 50, gave him authorization.

They should NEVER have done this, as it is not in line with the Constitution's instruction that it is CONGRESS who declares war.

You don't pass the buck and give that power over to ONE man.

They, DEMS INCLUDED, fugged it up badly.


Further, dems repeatedly continued to vote to FUND the war.

[Tom In VA]

So, screw what some "purists" (by that, do you mean "Isolationists"?) think. Is that what you think?

We have something in common Van, that would be "what we think" amounts to a pile of shit. It is what it is and that is all it is.

My opinion and your opinion is part of the same turd surrounding one little kernel of corn (this issue).

But since you asked. Here's what I think.

I appreciate the sacrifice the men and women have made in the fullfillment of their oath's of enlistment.
I have directly and indirectly benefitted from the "way things have been" since WWI, WWII, Cold War and beyond with the United States using it's muscle to belly up to the bar of the Earth's natural resources.

I see it for what it is. Far be for me to condemn daddy for being the executioner while I live under his roof and eat the food his work provides.

[Cuda]

Cheney and Chimp were of course determined to attack Iraq,

So what. After 9/11 happened, it was only a matter of time before we'd have to take care of the Saddam Problem- you know, the one Colin Fucking Powell left to fester 10 years previously. It was inevitable. And since it was inevitable, why the fuck would we wait for Saddam to get stronger? The UN sanctions were failing in large part because UN officials couldn't resist the bribes, and partly because the Euros needed some corporate income to get tax revenue from. Besides, the sanctions were killing all those Iraqi children*






*preventing Saddam from re-carpeting the rape-rooms and buying spare parts for the wood-chippers he used to throw his political opponents into

[Van]

Tom, or should I say, poptart Posing As Tom In Virginia, since I asked, how about you just answer the question. That answer you just tried to fob off on me was a complete non-answer.

I didn't ask you about your feelings on the sacrifice made by our soldiers, or whether you're thankful for our dominant position in the world.

I asked you a very simple question: Do YOU believe that the American government intentionally maneuvered us into WWI, then WWII, then the Cold War, just for economic reasons?

That's what you said "some" people claim, and you've hung your hat on it, as well.

Yes or no, is that what you believe?

Fuck. Why is it so difficult to get you people to simply answer direct questions with direct answers?

[Tom In VA]

Van,

Why do you ache for an answer so much ?

"just for economic reasons" ? Not entirely. I believe "freedom" was part of the overall motivation.


Freedom to do business with us and our allies.

:P

[Van]

And you're cool with that? Countless U.S. lives lost, and countless other lives lost?

World War II, and Normandy, and Iwo, and the U.S.S. Arizona...Hiroshima and Nagasaki...the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden...all lies? Murder, on that scale, simply to cover up the hidden agenda of big business?

Bullshit. If you truly believed that you wouldn't be nearly this blase about it. You're describing one of the worst crimes in the history of mankind; something that flies in the face of everything worth preserving. You'd be sickened, ashamed and outraged.

You certainly wouldn't be nearly as lock-step patriotic as you claim to be, not unless you're quite simply pure evil.

Nah. You don't buy that crap. You're just playing Conspiracy Guy on the internet.

[Tom In VA]

Trade routes Van. Fertile ground. Access to water. Hunting grounds.

The human race has been fighting over these things for ... well ... since the opposable thumb made it so we could grasp a bone or a rock and inflict death or pain upon one's competitor for such things.

Do you, Van, dispute that ?

[Van]

Trade routes Van. Fertile ground. Access to water. Hunting grounds.

Those are matters of survival.

Manufacturing WWII for the purposes of stuffing the coffers of Big Business doesn't even come close to being the same thing.

We we told we were fighting for freedom, not access to water. We were told we were fighting tyranny; we weren't hurting for water, or trade routes, or fertile ground. We were told we were going to war in response to a deliberate, dastardly and completely unprovoked attack on the Unites States. It was an act of war, which brought us to war.

FDR was clear in our motivations, and it wasn't about expanding our business opportunites.

To the Congress of the United States:
Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

See any mention there of the need to improve corporate America's bottom line, as justification for sacrificing American lives?

The human race has been fighting over these things for ... well ... since the opposable thumb made it so we could grasp a bone or a rock and inflict death or pain upon one's competitor for such things.

Do you, Van, dispute that ?

Not all conflicts are equal, Tom. WWII wasn't about Big Business, not for the Soviets, not when the Wehrmacht was laying seige to Moscow. It wasn't about Big Business, when U.S. sailors were bobbing like corks in the ocean, waiting for their turn to be taken by sharks. The Rape Of Nanking wasn't Business As Usual, for the Bank Of China.

WWII was about mad, glory drunk dictators, and their plans for conquest. It was about the fight to stop them. It sure as fuck wasn't fought in order to improve Monsanto's bottom line.

Tom, the U.S. was on the winning side of WWII. If that war was strictly about economic spoils why have we continued to pay through the nose for middle eastern oil, over these past sixty some years? There was nothing and nobody there to prevent us from merely taking it, yet we never did.

To this day, we still haven't, even with U.S. boots on soil.

[Tom In VA]

I'm not being judgemental about these things Van, you are. Food, water, and the ability to trade goods and services is not something trivial. Nor is it evil. It is the lifesblood of humanity's existence on this planet. It isn't just about base survival either it's about the LIBERTY TO PROSPER.

WWI was the U.S. sticking its neck out to get more of a stake in things. WWII was trying to protect that stake as was the subsequent cold war and the current wars being fought.

Are you questioning that Wilson and FDR were itching to get us into WWI and WWII, respectively ?

Okay, so the Japs attacked Hawaii .... hmmm .... why were we there ?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm

America's annexation of Hawaii in 1898 extended U.S. territory into the Pacific and highlighted resulted from economic integration and the rise of the United States as a Pacific power. For most of the 1800s, leaders in Washington were concerned that Hawaii might become part of a European nation's empire. During the 1830s, Britain and France forced Hawaii to accept treaties giving them economic privileges. In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster sent a letter to Hawaiian agents in Washington affirming U.S. interests in Hawaii and opposing annexation by any other nation. He also proposed to Great Britain and France that no nation should seek special privileges or engage in further colonization of the islands. In 1849, the United States and Hawaii concluded a treaty of friendship that served as the basis of official relations between the parties.
A key provisioning spot for American whaling ships, fertile ground for American protestant missionaries, and a new source of sugar cane production, Hawaii's economy became increasingly integrated with the United States. An 1875 trade reciprocity treaty further linked the two countries and U.S. sugar plantation owners from the United States came to dominate the economy and politics of the islands. When Queen Liliuokalani moved to establish a stronger monarchy, Americans under the leadership of Samuel Dole deposed her in 1893. The planters' belief that a coup and annexation by the United States would remove the threat of a devastating tariff on their sugar also spurred them to action. The administration of President Benjamin Harrison encouraged the takeover, and dispatched sailors from the USS Boston to the islands to surround the royal palace. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, worked closely with the new government.

Dole sent a delegation to Washington in 1894 seeking annexation, but the new President, Grover Cleveland, opposed annexation and tried to restore the Queen. Dole declared Hawaii an independent republic. Spurred by the nationalism aroused by the Spanish-American War, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 at the urging of President William McKinley. Hawaii was made a territory in 1900, and Dole became its first governor. Racial attitudes and party politics in the United States deferred statehood until a bipartisan compromise linked Hawaii's status to Alaska, and both became states in 1959.

[Van]

Why wouldn't we be there?

[Felix]

Almost everytime I post those WMD quotes by Democrats, the libs either respond with crickets, or they go to the fabulously gay "context" mode, which just doesn't hold water with what those people said.

I've responded to it numerous times...maybe you just didn't read it
the democrats were being fed most of the same lame intelligence that Bush and Cheney were getting....there were intelligence sources that indicated that Iraq was exactly what we found them to be...a toothless paper tiger....but Bush and Cheney were so gung-ho to invade, they manipulated the intel data to the point where they had everybody believing that a nuclear weapon was going to destroy New York at any minute....and everytime they brought up Iraq, a reference to 9/11 was never far behind....they cobbled their speeches together in such a way that at the time of the invasion, 74% of the people believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11...now you can have the mvscals of the world screaming "they never said any such thing" which on face value is true, but the way they laid out their case, it's no coincidence that so many Americans were duped into believing that Iraq and 9/11 were connected.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The problem is, with Terry and TVO, they merely look to "blame Bush".

No, as Poptart pointed out, Dems bear some of the blame as well. But Bush was the catalyst, no doubt about it.

You see, Tom, I readily admit that the Democratic Party has a HUGE problem. For pretty much my entire lifetime, they have lacked a collective spine. They have been pushed around by the Republicans at every possible turn. The runup to the Iraq War was perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, example of that.

By contrast, have you ever conceded any flaw in your boy, W? Other than trading Sammy Sosa, that is?

Terry, you're full of shit. No two ways about it.

So, you're denying that the Bush Administration played up a nonexistant connection between Iraq and 9/11? Are you really that brainwashed?

[Terry in Crapchester]

There (again) was a large amount of Democrats in Congress and the House who voted TO INVADE IRAQ. Bush couldn't have done it without their help.

The Democrats were in the minority in both the House and the Senate in '03. Bush didn't really need their help to get a majority vote, although it was nice from a PR standpoint. Which is why he went to the "you're either with us or with the terriss" card, and once again, too many Dems caved (but what else is new?).

[Van]

So, you're denying that the Bush Administration played up a nonexistant connection between Iraq and 9/11?

"Ahem...."

"Grab some pine, Meat!"

[Moving Sale]

The problem is, with Terry and TVO, they merely look to "blame Bush".

No, as Poptart pointed out, Dems bear some of the blame as well. But Bush was the catalyst, no doubt about it.

You see, Tom, I readily admit that the Democratic Party has a HUGE problem. For pretty much my entire lifetime, they have lacked a collective spine. They have been pushed around by the Republicans at every possible turn. The runup to the Iraq War was perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, example of that.

2nd

[Moving Sale]

So, you're denying that the Bush Administration played up a nonexistant connection between Iraq and 9/11? Are you really that brainwashed?

And how was it determined that this connection was "nonexistant"?

STFU you vapid racist fuckstickkk. When we want your opinion we''ll go to your big black boyfriend's house and ask you.

[Felix]

Taking out Saddam was a GREAT fucking thing - doesn't matter if he was in 9/11 or not.

so I'll ask you....do you think the United States is better off for having invaded Iraq.....never mind the "we got rid of a bad dude" spin

of course the answer is NO...do I feel safer....NO.....are we going to quit hemorrhaging money in that shit hole anytime soon....NO....are more American soldiers going to die.....YES

so, how would you say the US is better off having started a war with Iraq?

[Felix]

We will be in the long term, you stupid, dickless fuckwad.

we will be what, better off? is this going to make us more prosperous? will it result in increased security? will we get better prices for oil? will it enhance our standing in the Middle East? is it going to increase jobs?

go ahead and explain how the war in Iraq will ultimately benefit the United States

[Cuda]

are we going to quit hemorrhaging money in that shit hole anytime soon....NO....are more American soldiers going to die.....YES

yet you still haven't figured out that your messiah lied to you with all that Hopey Change talk.

or do you still think Cheney won't let him pull out of Iraq like he promised?

[LTS TRN 2]

Sure, Avi, you pathetic wind-up hack, go on and explain just what is supposed to be better by launching a grotesque catastrophe of an attempted occupation of a huge and disparate foreign land? Go ahead. Let's see, it WON'T help the economy--quite the opposite. It WON'T promote America's reputation or its supposed values--quite the opposite. It sure as hell WON'T help the U.S. military--quite the opposite. Let's see...who WILL it help? How about our Special Apartheid State buddies huddled behind their Wall armed to to the teeth with illegal nukes? Yep, they like it. You're a fucking joke.

[LTS TRN 2]

The is yes to all of the above. Having a reasonably well inclined government in Iraq similar to Jordan or Egypt will result in greater regional security and prosperity which will provide a more stable business environment with lower costs and greater opportunity.

The alternative to that would be dealing with Saddam's shit kids, Uday and Qusay* after he kicked the bucket. If you think that would be a better deal for us, you are a brainless fucktard. I think we've already established that several times over, though.









*Prayers up

What a shallow bucket of swill! The list of leaders who are plain thugs and hoodlums supported by American business interests--and therefore our military--is long and ugly. The notion that we couldn't deal with Saddam is bullshit. We had for years--and of course supported him in shamelessly attacking Iran. The idea of a solid Shiite government in Iraq, meanwhile, is a nightmare. As for our imploding Military Machine, you've been pounded on that score and the untold thousands of permanently damaged GIs need not testify as much for a lock-step Rove Monkey asshole like you. As for the economic disaster of this clusterfuck, it's all in black and white. Go ahead, do what it is you really do: call someone a "dipshit' and pretend you know what you're talking about.

[LTS TRN 2]

And you ARE a fucking joke. Saddam was a thug like many other that we'd worked with. The ONLY reason for us to not abide him was and remains Israel. You have a curious blind spot in this area which makes your fake acumen all the more apparent. The idea of Reagan doing anything brilliant is a joke, of course. His economic policies led straight to the Ponzi Economy of the 90's, etc. And his "stalemate" in the Middle East was nothing more than heinous bloodshed of millions of people. And for what? What interests? All it gained was a deep and permanent hatred of all thing American throughout the region. As for the expense of this fake war--you know, the lies about WMD and the desperate efforts to fan fears--well the money we've shit down a hole in Iraq could have paid for Social Security, relieved state debts and a innumerable other actual needs of America. You're such a fucking joke.

[Felix]

Having a reasonably well inclined government in Iraq similar to Jordan or Egypt will result in greater regional security and prosperity which will provide a more stable business environment with lower costs and greater opportunity.

we'll have rainbows and lollipops

[poptart]

Congress DID declare war when it authorized the Commander in Chief to use military force. I keep hearing this happy horseshit all the time and I keep asking the same question which nobody has ever bothered to answer. I'll try it again.

In which legal document is the term "Declaration of War" defined and its proper form outlined?

Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress has power to declare war.

Nowhere else in the Constitution does it say that someone else has that power.

Congress did NOT declare war with Iraq.
They passed the buck and told the president, "Hey, if YOU want to declare war, do it."


Congress has power to declare war because Congress ... is ... the people (supposedly) and it is to be the people who declare war and not ONE dipshit in the oval office.

[Tom In VA]

The problem is, with Terry and TVO, they merely look to "blame Bush".

No, as Poptart pointed out, Dems bear some of the blame as well. But Bush was the catalyst, no doubt about it.

You see, Tom, I readily admit that the Democratic Party has a HUGE problem. For pretty much my entire lifetime, they have lacked a collective spine. They have been pushed around by the Republicans at every possible turn. The runup to the Iraq War was perhaps the most obvious, but by no means the only, example of that.

By contrast, have you ever conceded any flaw in your boy, W? Other than trading Sammy Sosa, that is?

Terry, you're full of shit. No two ways about it.

So, you're denying that the Bush Administration played up a nonexistant connection between Iraq and 9/11? Are you really that brainwashed?

1. You can't spin the facts. You can try but it only make you look like a liar. Being a lawyer I know that is your job and all but still - you can't bullshit a bullshitter and Terry ... you're full of it.

2. To be honest, I always remembered them referring to Saddam's links with Al Queda and the broader support for terrorism he provided. He did in fact provide material support to Palestinian bombers. If you find me a direct quote where it was explicitly stated that Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld thought Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, I'll stand down on that point. As for your brainswashed comment. Brainwashed by what ? The fucking deluge of pro Bush propaganda that came out of Hollywood and in the mainsteam press ? Oh I know the internet was replete with Pro Bush propaganda on sites like MoveOn.org, and the Huffington Post. You're lying again.

[Moving Sale]

Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress has power to declare war.

Power they exercised by authorizing the Commander in Chief to use military force against Iraq.

STFU you racist POS. When we want your opinion we will lift your rock and ask you.

[LTS TRN 2]

The fact of congress signing off on attacking Iraq is belied by the fact that Cheney and PNAC manipulated, distorted, and fabricated the actual intelligence--and undermined any attempts to present the realistic assessment of experts, etc. This is the basis for a straight up war crimes indictment. Don't expect Avi or any other lock-step neocon to admit this, but it's plain and clear.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well...if you say so.

Avi, you are such a fucking joke!

The row over the use - or misuse of intelligence - in the run-up to the Iraq war reignited today when a watchdog concluded that top Pentagon officials wrongly insisted on a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

The Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, told the senate armed services committee that the office headed by Douglas Feith, formerly the number three man at the defence department, took "inappropriate" actions in pushing the al-Qaida connection not backed up by America's intelligence agencies.

A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.

More than a dozen calls to the White House, the CIA, the National Security Council and the Pentagon for comment were not returned.

The ad-hoc committee, called the Office of Special Plans, headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and other Pentagon hawks, described the worst-case scenarios in terms of Iraq's alleged stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and claimed the country was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, according to four of the CIA agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the information is still classified, who conducted a preliminary view of the intelligence.

The agents said the Office of Special Plans is responsible for providing the National Security Council and Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Rumsfeld with the bulk of the intelligence information on Iraq's weapons program that turned out to be wrong. But White House officials used the information it received from the Office of Special Plans to win support from the public and Congress to start a war in Iraq even though the White House knew much of the information was dubious, the CIA agents said.

[LTS TRN 2]

Wrong, Avi--it's CIA agents and a top pentagon official. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[LTS TRN 2]

Yes, clever...until it promptly turned into a catastrophe. And of course the British are all just a bunch of libtard puppets, right?

A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

[LTS TRN 2]

Yeah, it's called a "smoking gun." So...you like being bounced around like a basketball? You're some kind of twisted masochist? That is, you don't dare actually dispute any of the specific claims--besides the typical attempt at a quick dismissal. And you imply what..? That MI6 is somehow in the service of Al Gore? You are a fucking joke!