WMD's destroyed ten years ago, and more bad poll results for Bush on Iraq requests

[GaWd]

I’m thinking Clark Kent

I’m thinking Democratic Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark. Retired General Wesley Clark, the former NATO Commander. The Rhoades scholar.

Sam

[shelbo]

*Originally posted by Jeff Olsen *
**
Who’s Clark? Clark Kent? Joe Clark? **

Gen. Wesley Clark. Former Supreme Commander of NATO. First in his class at West Point. Rhodes scholar. Announced yesterday that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

[Muldoon_s_Squishiness]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Thinking maybe they’re setting up Cheney to take the fall. White House came out and said they had no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, in effect distancing themselves from his remarks on Sunday. Uh oh. **

Actually, I heard that one likely possibility is for Cheney to take over as Scretary of State and have either Powell or Condaleeza Rice as Vice President going into the election.

[Jonathan_Chance]

No chance. Barring health reasons it’ll be Bush/Cheney 2004. I’m betting Powell bows out and writes a book while joining a think tank after the election and Rice moves over to SecState.

[Jack_Batty]

Wow. That seems like it would be a really bad idea for the Republicans … switching things around like that midstream.

Idunno. It almost seems that if they were planning a severe move like that, they might as well say “fuck it” and just nominate Powell outright.

[pantom]

Rice has been maneuvering for VP. Part of setting up a Rice/Hillary confrontation in 2008.
Meantime, someone owes an apology to Scott Ritter, who had this right all along, and was vilified by the pieces of shit at Fox News - and those who believe those useless propagandists for the government - for saying what turned out to be the truth. Had he been believed, we could have avoided this whole mess.

[elucidator]

Its the Asshole Cassandra Syndrome. The guy is grating, aggressive and self-righteous as all get out. Made him an easy target. But, yeppers, he had the goods. I couldn’t stand him, but I more or less believed him.

Secretary of Defense Ritter?

[Sublight]

*Originally posted by wring *
**link??? **

Bush: No evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 attacks

“WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 – disputing an idea held by many Americans.”

It does contain a bit of doublespeak from Rice and Cheney, though.

[elucidator]

Clark and Hillary. Karl Rove wakes up screaming.

[sailor]

*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF *
So Bush et al. made him declare Saddam in material breach of the resolution. That’s what you’re saying, right? Otherwise, you’re full of crap. If Blix knew they didn’t exist, how could he declare Saddam in material breach, since that was the substance of the resolution? He didn’t know squat, he thought they were there, and he said so to the Security Council. Now he’s playing CYA after the fact because his credibility is just as shot as Bush’s.

Don’t try to blow smoke up my ass. It’s a beautiful, and obvious example of revisionist history.

No, I believe YOU are the one distorting the facts. I do not recall Blix saying at any time that Saddam Hussein did have all those WMD that the USA was saying. I remember him saying Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors and demanding more time to continue with the inspection program.

Please show me cites proving what you say because UNSCR 1441 does not make any assertions as to what WMD Saddam Hussein did or did not have and it just demands cooperation from him with the inspectors.

It was president Bush who declared the whole UN and Blix “irrelevant” and refused to allow any more time for inspections as Blix and the UN demanded. The USA went to war with the opposition of Blix and the UN.

[elf6c]

Thanks to everyone who responded to Airman Doors, USAF.

Airman Doors, USAF I was not ignoring your post- my cat is sick so its off to the Vet, the wife is trying to fly back from Chicago to Virginia but we are smack in the path of Isabel. Sigh . . .

BTW, Airman Doors, USAF speaking of revisionist history what reasons were provided before, during and then after, then 2 months after, then 4 months after, and now for this war that we couldn’t wait for the UN or are allies for?

Oh that’s right, it keeps changing. But I am sure we will find those WMD’s.

Looks like those Al Queda 9-11 ties were bogus- gee I am shocked. :dubious:

I will return when I have the time to post up some more Cites for you. In the mean time others seem to have put some interesting ones for your review.

Good luck to the rest of the North Carolina - Virginia Dopers!!

[elf6c]

Looks like those Al Queda 9-11 ties were bogus- gee I am shocked.

I meant ties to the Iraqi government. Sorry.

Off to the vet.

[World_Eater]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/17/sprj.irq.bush.ap/index.html

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the president said. But he also said, “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11” attacks.

Actually there is “plenty of question” about his ties.
:rolleyes:

The president’s comment was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.

Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.”

Who the fuck are these 70 percent? How blind and stupid can one be?

[Mtgman]

Stand up, look around. Count ten people. Pick seven at random. Odds are you’ll find several.

Enjoy,
Steven

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**Stand up, look around. Count ten people. Pick seven at random. Odds are you’ll find several.

Enjoy,
Steven **

That’s what doesn’t make sense. I’m surrounded by ten people right now, and we all think SH had nothing to do with with 9/11. In fact, every person I know feels that way.

[elf6c]

Cat had blocked up nether regions (now unblocked) and a minor infection related to that we think (he was running a temp). So after a painful pummeling of my Amex I should be able to pick him up in an 1/2 hour. YEAH!

---

More from Blix today:

Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

Blix compared London and Washington to medieval witch-hunters, saying they convinced themselves on the basis of evidence which was later discredited, including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

. . .
“What in a way stands accused is the culture of spin, the culture of hyping… Advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms that we don’t quite believe in, but we expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility,” he said.

And for those discussing revisionsit history:

Before ordering the invasion that toppled Saddam, President Bush (news - web sites) talked of an imminent threat posed by Iraqi weapons as a prime justification for war.

Blair put Saddam’s alleged weapons program at the heart of his case for supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March.

But five months after Saddam’s overthrow, no banned weapons have been found.

. . .

Blix’s comments have been echoed by his successor Demetrius Perricos, who told Reuters it was becoming “more and more difficult to believe stocks (of WMD) were there” in Iraq.

Speaking of unsavory:

WASHINGTON—U.S. President George W. Bush conceded for the first time yesterday that the United States had no evidence indicating Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Bush made the comment in a brief encounter with reporters at the White House, an apparent bid to answer critics who have accused him of linking the Iraq war and the terrorist attacks to justify an ongoing occupation, which is responsible for mounting American deaths and draining an economy already mired in deficit.

“We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11,” Bush said.

But he said he had no doubt that the deposed Iraqi president had ties to Al Qaeda, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden. Bush has let the perception that Saddam was somehow involved in the attacks fester for many months, most recently in his televised address to the nation on Sept. 7.

…

It appears to be a concerted effort by the Bush administration to move away from links they have always hinted at, without offering any evidence.

In a television interview Tuesday night, Rice said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in “a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.”

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1063836612213&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

and see:

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3463293

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

Bush Reports No Evidence of Hussein Tie to 9/11 (Published 2003)

Looks like Cheney rans his mount a little too much-- from the NYTimes link:

Mr. Cheney, on “Meet the Press” on NBC-TV, was asked about polls that showed that a majority of Americans believed that Mr. Hussein had been involved in the attacks.

“I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection,” said Mr. Cheney, who leads the hawkish wing of the Bush administration. Asked whether the connection existed, Mr. Cheney said, “We don’t know.”

He described Mr. Hussein’s reported connections to Al Qaeda, connections that American intelligence analysts say were not very deep.

Mr. Bush, asked by a reporter today about that statement, said, “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th,” a far more definitive statement than the vice president’s.

[casdave]

“We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11,” Bush said.

But he said he had no doubt that the deposed Iraqi president had ties to Al Qaeda,

The way these two statements operate in the same briefing is almost like the police saying

‘We know he didi it we just don’t have the proof’

If Bush wants to link Hussain to terrorist networks, then why does he not make greater noises in public about Saudi links with Al Qaeda which are undeniable, given the proponderance of Saudis in 7/11 and Bin Laden who is a Saudi.

US complaints about terrorism look like gross hypocrisy given the support the it has given to terrorists in the past.

Even now we have an enquiry in the UK where the nuclear procurement threat from Niger is treated as believable by UK intellignece and government and has been thouroughly debunked by the CIA amongst others including the AEA.

The 45 minutes readiness was another lie, differant governments telling differant lies about the same thing for the same ends.

If the US and UK had stated that Hussain was an evil person whose inhuman regime needed to be demolished at least it would have been the truth, and maybe morally defensible.
Now the rest of the world looks on with concern at two nations that have been part of the bedrock of freedom and stability and wonder where we are taking ourselves off to.

[World_Eater]

You know that al qaeda was responsible for your cat right?

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Alas, I know people who think Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 trades were connected.

It was spring and yet another peace march was going by. One of my coworkers looked out the window and said with disgust “They didn’t lose anybody in the WTC. They just don’t know.”

I told her first of all, that there’s no indication Iraq was involved in 9/11. Second of all, that losing someone to a terrorist attack doesn’t mean you cannot be against the war. Third of all, I was going to have to kill her for being stupid.

Well, not that third part.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

*Originally posted by casdave *
If Bush wants to link Hussain to terrorist networks, then why does he not make greater noises in public about Saudi links with Al Qaeda which are undeniable, given the proponderance of Saudis in 7/11 and Bin Laden who is a Saudi.

Finally! Someone else realizes that 7-11 is a terrorist organization bent on taking over the world. Vindicated at last! But one thing confuses me. I thought it was a preponderance of Indians in 7-11s.