Cheney: No link between Hussein and 9/11

[JMak]

Just take a position and stand on it, you fucking baby. You Americans completely lack resolve. No wonder you're so wishy-washy.

Certainly descriptive of the American Left and many Americans these days.

[JMak]

apparently he did, Bush just didn't want to believe it
sure Hussein was being uncooperative, but his retention of power in Iraq was fully dependent on the Irani people believing he still possessed them....that was a big deterrent to any potential civil uprising against him....

Great excuse...problem is that the 16 UN Resolutions didn't grant Hussein an exception to his obligation to fully disclose and arm so that he could continue to oppress Iraqi civilians.

[JMak]

of course Bush exaggerated it....Rumsfeld never said we THINK he may have WMD's based on the intel we've received, but of course that kind of statement would have slowed the "Attach Iran" machine that was already steaming full speed ahead....insofar as Rumsfeld's completely untrue statement about buried bunkers, it's a part of the Congressional minutes.....he said it

Your characterizations of Bush have been unreliable, why should I take you word re: Rummy?

look, you seem to want to ignore the fact that your government took this country to war under highly questionable pretenses and very shaky evidence....even if the evidence was solid that Hussein possessed these WMD's there is simply no substantive argument that he posed any immediate danger to the US......

So all you have is an imminent threat argument? If you want to debate when the use of US military action is appropriate, well, lets have it. But your disagreement with Bush's philosophy doesn't grant you license to repeatedly assert that the intelligence community deliberately manipulated intelligence.

honestly, do you feel safer because we invaded Iraq?

Quite irrelevant.

[LTS TRN 2]

Look, weasel, the charge against Cheney is not about what the intelligence agencies were providing, but how he and his ilk selectively manipulated those offerings in the direct service of fomenting a war. Moreover, is the clear record of smearing and undermining those intelligence sources which contradicted his fear mongering surge to attack. The proper method of analyzing intelligence includes objectively weighing the all sides--and then determining the validity of the respective sources. Quite the opposite occurred with Cheney and Feith, etc., as the intelligence to which they gave credence was laughable, while the competent sources were dismissed.

So, quit your tedious niggling and get a fucking clue.

[Felix]

If you want to debate when the use of US military action is appropriate, well, lets have it.

sure thing.....give me one example of any other time in our history where we INVADED a soverign nation that had never attacked us....our military is for defense of our country and our interests....I'd like you to explain to me how the Iraqi invasion was
a) for the defense of our country
b) to protect our interests

Quite irrelevant.

the fuck it is.....that's what this whole fucking sham was supposed to be about-making us safer-or have you been stuck under some rock while Cheney takes his "we kept America safe" bullshit tour....what he always fails to note is that the single biggest attack on our nation happened while Dick and Gdub were asleep at the wheel.....they fucked the dog on it and they spent the next few years trying to foist the blame on anybody/everybody else

August 8, Bush was presented with a memo that told him Bin Laden was determined to attack the US by flying planes into buildings....how much more warning would you need if you were President?

[Van]

If mvscal were president??

:D



"I see dead people. I see fuckloads and fuckloads of dead people. You, Felix, for starters."

[Felix]

[/img]

"I see dead people. I see fuckloads and fuckloads of dead people. You, Felix, for starters."

the fuck...I'd kick that messican's ass

[JMak]

Look, weasel, the charge against Cheney is not about what the intelligence agencies were providing, but how he and his ilk selectively manipulated those offerings in the direct service of fomenting a war.

Charge already addressed and disproven. Interesting, though, you fools were not calling for Clinton's head when he and his advisers arrived at the very same conclusions as BushCo.

Moreover, is the clear record of smearing and undermining those intelligence sources which contradicted his fear mongering surge to attack.

Clear record? Sorry, I'm not a truther so I don't peruse the bottomless depths of the internets trolling for such garbage.

The proper method of analyzing intelligence includes objectively weighing the all sides--and then determining the validity of the respective sources.

You don't know wtf you're talking about. You're not an intelligence analyst and none that I have read has ever described the process as such. Besides, intelligence ain't about all sides of anything. It's about analyszing imperfect and incomplete information and relies on the subjective abilities of the analysts to fill in the blanks and render their guesses, errr, estimates. And it is a proper role of the POTUS and his advisers to review those guesses and apply their own subjective lens to them.

Quite the opposite occurred with Cheney and Feith, etc., as the intelligence to which they gave credence was laughable, while the competent sources were dismissed.

So intel sources are not classified as competent or incompetent? No, clown, they're reliable or not and intel analysts use their subjectivity to determine reliability.

So, quit your tedious niggling and get a fucking clue.

Right. Any disagreement with the you is mere tedious niggling. No room in the world to disagree with a clutz like you.

[JMak]

sure thing.....give me one example of any other time in our history where we INVADED a soverign nation that had never attacked us....our military is for defense of our country and our interests....I'd like you to explain to me how the Iraqi invasion was
a) for the defense of our country
b) to protect our interests

Afghanistan?
Iraq when it invaded Kuwait?
Granada?
Panama?
Haiti?
The republics of the former Yugoslavia.

You were saying fuckwit? WTF is wrong with you?

[quote[the fuck it is.....that's what this whole fucking sham was supposed to be about-making us safer-[/quote]

Hmmm, I haven't seen US military naval vessels being attacked by terrorists. I haven't seen US military barracks being attacked by terrorists? No, no more US embassies being attacked by terrorists. Have you seen any mor skyscrapers being toppled in a major US city? me neither.

or have you been stuck under some rock while Cheney takes his "we kept America safe" bullshit tour....what he always fails to note is that the single biggest attack on our nation happened while Dick and Gdub were asleep at the wheel.....they fucked the dog on it and they spent the next few years trying to foist the blame on anybody/everybody else

Right. That 9/11 plan was hatched in a mere eight months after Bushie stole the election from Gore, right?

August 8, Bush was presented with a memo that told him Bin Laden was determined to attack the US by flying planes into buildings....how much more warning would you need if you were President?

Now you're simply lying. At a minimum you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

Ok, the PDR was presented to Bush. No timeline, no specific threat, no specific anything.

What was Bush supposed to do with this all-important "warning?"

You have nothing...

[Felix]

Now you're simply lying. At a minimum you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
Ok, the PDR was presented to Bush. No timeline, no specific threat, no specific anything.
What was Bush supposed to do with this all-important "warning?"
You have nothing...

You're right, the memo actually said "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"

What was he supposed to do? Oh, I don't know, how about listening to the one guy that probably had more insight into Al Queda than any living soul at the time-Richard Clarke....

Here, you can read about the ineptitude of the Bush administration in this article

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Clarke,Richard.shtml

[JMak]

You're right, the memo actually said "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"

Yet, despite knowing this you still insisted that Bush had clear forewarning

What was he supposed to do? Oh, I don't know, how about listening to the one guy that probably had more insight into Al Queda than any living soul at the time-Richard Clarke....

Even if Bush ignored Clarke, Bush was still getting the info from...Tenet. Clarke admitted this in his own book Against All Enemies. Besides, Clarke was warning about the severity of the threat posed by AQ, not what to do about it. And even when Clarke proposed something, those proposals were listended to...as they were in the Clinton administration and rejected there, too. But Bush did implement some of Clarke's ideas as Clarke noted in that same book, like increasing antiterror activities in Uzbekistan. Clarke even acknowledged that Bush was frustrated about merely swatting at flies, i.e., Bush wanted to do more.

So, I'm not sure why you're hanging your hat on Clarke.

Did you, like Clarke, support missile attacks against AQ camps in Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Of course not, right? Cuz Afghanistan hadn't attacked us and all, right?

My goodness....you're a freaking joke.

H

ere, you can read about the ineptitude of the Bush administration in this article

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Clarke,Richard.shtml

No thanks. I am already well aware of Bush's ineptitude and shortcomings. The difference is that my criticisms are far more legit and reasonable relative to your foolish carping.

[LTS TRN 2]

Look, weasel, the charge against Cheney is not about what the intelligence agencies were providing, but how he and his ilk selectively manipulated those offerings in the direct service of fomenting a war.

Charge already addressed and disproven. Interesting, though, you fools were not calling for Clinton's head when he and his advisers arrived at the very same conclusions as BushCo.

Moreover, is the clear record of smearing and undermining those intelligence sources which contradicted his fear mongering surge to attack.

Clear record? Sorry, I'm not a truther so I don't peruse the bottomless depths of the internets trolling for such garbage.

The proper method of analyzing intelligence includes objectively weighing the all sides--and then determining the validity of the respective sources.

You don't know wtf you're talking about. You're not an intelligence analyst and none that I have read has ever described the process as such. Besides, intelligence ain't about all sides of anything. It's about analyszing imperfect and incomplete information and relies on the subjective abilities of the analysts to fill in the blanks and render their guesses, errr, estimates. And it is a proper role of the POTUS and his advisers to review those guesses and apply their own subjective lens to them.

Quite the opposite occurred with Cheney and Feith, etc., as the intelligence to which they gave credence was laughable, while the competent sources were dismissed.

So intel sources are not classified as competent or incompetent? No, clown, they're reliable or not and intel analysts use their subjectivity to determine reliability.

So, quit your tedious niggling and get a fucking clue.

Right. Any disagreement with the you is mere tedious niggling. No room in the world to disagree with a clutz like you.

You've neither addressed nor disproven anything concerning Cheney and PNAC's OBVIOUS manipulation of fake data as well as the OBVIOUS intimidation and smearing of legitimate intelligence. Britain is currently opening an investigation into the exact charges that have been painfully obvious since 2002.

Your snippy parsing actually says nothing about how and why we got into this catastrophic situation. You have no actual take.

[Diogenes]

And in other breaking news...

There is still no link between Hitler and Pearl Harbor.

[Terry in Crapchester]

And in other breaking news...

There is still no link between Hitler and Pearl Harbor.

Except for the fact that he declared war on the U.S. immediately after the U.S. declared war on Japan, in response to Pearl Harbor.

Tell me, when did Saddam Hussein declare war on the U.S.?

[Diogenes]

And in other breaking news...

There is still no link between Hitler and Pearl Harbor.

Except for the fact that he declared war on the U.S. immediately after the U.S. declared war on Japan, in response to Pearl Harbor.

Tell me, when did Saddam Hussein declare war on the U.S.?

Try waging war. As in shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone.

[JMak]

Try waging war. As in shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone.

I would have just said violation of the terms and conditions of the ceasefire agreement ending the first Gulf War.

But, while there are fools who are totally invested in using the UN to resolve international disputes, those same fools reject the notion that violating those resolutions should have any practical consequence whatsoever.

[LTS TRN 2]

"Practical consequences"?....Like a full-scale invasion that results in a catastrophic increase in terrorism and instability throughout the region? That sort of "practical consequence"? Look, weasel, your inane niggling and squirming of technicalities is tedious at best. After all, don't those same international U.N. resolutions expressly proscribe illegal nuclear weapons? So..why aren't we invading Israel? You're a silly little bitch indeed.

[JMak]

"Practical consequences"?....Like a full-scale invasion that results in a catastrophic increase in terrorism and instability throughout the region? That sort of "practical consequence"? Look, weasel, your inane niggling and squirming of technicalities is tedious at best. After all, don't those same international U.N. resolutions expressly proscribe illegal nuclear weapons? So..why aren't we invading Israel? You're a silly little bitch indeed.

Hey. clown, up until that point it was clear that Iraq had no intention of even complying with UN resolutions enforcing the ceasefire...even with economic sanctions.

And, what UN resolutions are you referring to regarding nukes? Your word has about the same level of credibility as Baghdad Bob.

[LTS TRN 2]

"Up until that point?" What's that supposed to mean? That it was somehow necessary? As usual you don't have an actual take--unless it's that of a child. As for the totally illegal nature of Israel's nukes, etc.

In 1976 Congress passed the Symington Amendment. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended by the Symington Amendment and the Glenn Amendment of 1977, prohibits U.S. military assistance to nations that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel has refused to sign the NPT and for very good reason – it would be in breach of the treaty as it is a nuclear weapons power.


Of course you've got no take on this either. Go soak your head.

[JMak]

"Up until that point?" What's that supposed to mean?

Uh, well, ten years violating the ceasefire agreement and the UN resolutions enforcing that agreement, including economic sanctions...up to that point, Iraq had consistently demonstrated that it would not comply.

WTF are you thinking, turd?

Of course you've got no take on this either. Go soak your head.

Nice work completely diverting from your own argument.

Did you not ask, "After all, don't those same international U.N. resolutions expressly proscribe illegal nuclear weapons? So..why aren't we invading Israel?"

I responded by asking which resolutions you were referring to.

You cite a confgressional statute prohibiting US foreign aid to some nations.

What that has to do with UN resolutions or invading Israel, well...again, wtf are you thinking?

Yet, you felt compelled to argue I have no take...

[LTS TRN 2]

Look, weasel, you're presumably insisting that because Iraq wasn't dotting every "i" or crossing every "t" that we had no choice but to engage in a catastrophic invasion? This is tedious and completely disingenuous. As for the gross double standard of Israel being armed to the tits with illegal nukes, where is your same legalistic approach? The basic U.S. policy I cite is only one of many international laws and treaties that have been routinely dismissed by the Special Apartheid state--and its abettors in the U.S. Step up with some actual analysis, not just tedious niggling.

[Diogenes]

Look, weasel, you're presumably insisting that because Germany wasn't dotting every "i" or crossing every "t" that we had no choice but to engage in a catastrophic invasion? This is tedious and completely disingenuous...

Sin,

Neville Chamberlain, 1936.

[LTS TRN 2]

Look, weasel, you're presumably insisting that because Iraq wasn't dotting every "i" or crossing every "t" that we had no choice but to engage in a catastrophic invasion?

Yes, precisely. What are we to make of the fact that he consistently refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire agreement to dismantle his weapons programs under our direct supervision?

What is the logical conclusion to draw from that behavior?

You're precisely agreeing to a catastrophic invasion. It figures. You're done.

[JMak]

Look, weasel, you're presumably insisting that because Iraq wasn't dotting every "i" or crossing every "t" that we had no choice but to engage in a catastrophic invasion? This is tedious and completely disingenuous. As for the gross double standard of Israel being armed to the tits with illegal nukes, where is your same legalistic approach? The basic U.S. policy I cite is only one of many international laws and treaties that have been routinely dismissed by the Special Apartheid state--and its abettors in the U.S. Step up with some actual analysis, not just tedious niggling.

~Sheesh~

I didn't argue that an invasion was warranted simply because of some technical difficulties complying with those UN resolutions. That you treat Iraq's serial noncompliance as merely not dotting the i's and the t's certainly demonstrates that you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

The basic US policy you cite has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial questions about the US invading Israel. So, you wanna get back on track or continue to divert from your original tardlaration?

And how can Israel dismiss US policy regarding whether the US will provide foreign financial aid?? That doesn't even make sense.

[JMak]

Look, weasel, you're presumably insisting that because Iraq wasn't dotting every "i" or crossing every "t" that we had no choice but to engage in a catastrophic invasion?

Yes, precisely. What are we to make of the fact that he consistently refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire agreement to dismantle his weapons programs under our direct supervision?

What is the logical conclusion to draw from that behavior?

You're precisely agreeing to a catastrophic invasion. It figures. You're done.

No, dummy...he's correctly noting that the invasion was not premised on Iraq's mere technical difficulties crossing t's and dotting i's but how serial transgressions of 16 UN resolutions.

Moron.

[smackaholic]

sure thing.....give me one example of any other time in our history where we INVADED a soverign nation that had never attacked us....

Nazi germany.

What do I win?

[smackaholic]

That you treat Iraq's serial noncompliance as merely not dotting the i's and the t's certainly demonstrates that you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

Pretty much every post turd's ever made does the same.

[JMak]

sure thing.....give me one example of any other time in our history where we INVADED a soverign nation that had never attacked us....

Nazi germany.

What do I win?

I intentionally left out the obvious one on my prior list...I wonder where Felix has wandered off to? Maybe he's trying to find his ass...

Hey, Felix, here's a hint...you're wearing it.

[Felix]

Nazi germany.

wrong answer-Hitler declared war against the United States...jesus, talk about apples and bags of hammers

I wonder where Felix has wandered off to?

Right here wondering why the United States selectively enforces UN resolutions against other nations....lemme see, how many UN resolutions are there against Israel and why haven't we invaded them for violating all of the resolutions passed against them?

[Felix]

lemme see, how many UN resolutions are there against Israel and why haven't we invaded them for violating all of the resolutions passed against them?

Because General Assembly resolutions aren't enforceable, you ignorant, sack-fondling dipshit.

Now now, you know the Security Council has passed numerous resolutions against Israel.....Security Council Resolution No. 446 ring a bell?

[JMak]

wrong answer-Hitler declared war against the United States...jesus, talk about apples and bags of hammers

Uh, kinda moving the goalposts, no? Did you not early request that we, "give me one example of any other time in our history where we INVADED a soverign nation that had never attacked us...."???????

Yeah, Germany declared war...but it had no attacked us which was the basis of your above question.

You may simply apologize for shifting the goal posts and move on or you can continue putting yourself on display as a liar.

Right here wondering why the United States selectively enforces UN resolutions against other nations....lemme see, how many UN resolutions are there against Israel and why haven't we invaded them for violating all of the resolutions passed against them?

Tired. Retreaded. Lefty. Talking point.

First, there's an important difference between Article VII and Article V and VI resolutions . Not the least of which is that the Article V GA resolutions targeting Israel simply reflects the anti-semitic attitudes of the majority of GA members. Notice that while Israel is targeted by the GA we see no similar GA resolutions condemning the palestinians or their enablers in Syria, Egypt or Iran for their daily terror attacks. Kinda undermines the importance of those GA resolutions against Israel, no?

Second, enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq was enforcing the ceasefire agreement that Iraq signed with the US ending the first Gulf War. A single instance of violating that ceasefire automatically triggers resumption of hostilities. The US needn't at all pursued additional UN resolutions or approval to enforce that ceasefire.

Lastly, the enforcement of that ceasefire agreement was one of four different factors cited as the justification for regime change (along with wmd and wmd programs, terrorism, and human right violations. A single factor alone prolly doesn't trigger regime change, but all four as presented as a single case for regime change was a reasonable case. You tards love breaking apart the argument into separare components and then cherry-pick one and run the rubbish you did above about selectivity. F@#$ off!

[LTS TRN 2]

Wrong again, weasel. The only gripe the West had with Saddam that it could in any way prove was that of human rights violations. Yeah, he was a dictator. But notice how the desperate neocons were so quick to refer to the Kurds as "Saddam's own people," etc., when everyone--especially the Kurds--insist they are a totally different people. You do recall that when these same Kurds demanded sovereignty in the aftermath of WWI that Winston Churchill personally ordered them gassed (from Sopwith Camels)?

Whether or not some technicalities could be arranged to appear to justify a military response against Iraq, the obvious--and uncontested--facts are that Cheney and neocons (and these folks were prominently represented in the group PNAC--look 'em up) arranged, cherry-picked, manipulated, distorted, and manufactured paltry intelligence to fit their predetermined plan of attack. Period.

There is no dispute.

What you're quibbling about remains a mystery. It's irrelevant!!

What does matter is how fucked up the situation is--and how do we somehow begin to rectify it. That's all. So please stop wasting your time and ours with your tedious right-wing radio schpiel. Really.

[JMak]

There is no dispute.

The Senate select Committee on Intelligence would dispute your comments.

Carry on, truther.

[LTS TRN 2]

psssst... you're done.

[JMak]

psssst... you're done.

Not quite, sissy.

Now, isn't your girl waiting for you to get her all tarted up for her date tonight? Be sure to take your time painting her nails so Daryl doesn't smack you upside your empty head.

I understand that being a cuckold gives you all kinds of time to wander the 'spiracy sites what with her out with her boyfriends 5 nights a week and you locked up in your chastity belt. You get no attention at home so you seek it her by posting inane 'spiacies and anti-semitic trash.

Now run along. If she ain't ready for her date you'll end up servicing her real man, again.

[LTS TRN 2]

Riiight....and this is...? you're attempt at personal smack? You're inane O'Reilly nonsense politics having sputtered out somewhere over oblivion?

Sure, weasel, good job with those witty barbs. Whatever.