Video: The obligatory “Iraqi journalist throws shoes at Bush” clip

Sorry Baxter Green, but others in Bush’s White House did admit after the war that the whole WMD issue was always iffy proof-wise, but it was decided to play it up anyway in an effort to persuade Americans to go to war in Iraq. We were deliberately misled by President Bush about WMDs, no doubt about it whatsoever. Hiatt’s just playing a mug’s game by going along with all the misleading intelligence that was deliberately stovepiped up as part of the strategery of “fixing the intelligence” around the decision by Bush to go to war in Iraq that was already made.

starfleet_dude on December 15, 2008 at 9:38 AM

You lay your pronouncements out here without backing them up.
your opinion is not important,the facts are.

The facts are that democrats,France,Germany,Britian,and the UN were in agreement that Saddam had WMD’s and the santions
were not working.

You have not shown any evidence to dispute the conclusions
of the investigations that I posted.Taking on quote here and there does not dispute the fact that democrats and Republicans all came to the same conclusions.
Bush did not lie.
How’s that impeachment going genius!!

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Saddam’s Dangerous Friends
What a Pentagon review of 600,000 Iraqi documents tells us.
by Stephen F. Hayes
03/24/2008, Volume 013, Issue 27

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:
Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a ‘de facto’ link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.”
Among the study’s other notable findings:

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden’s fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.
For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.
According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to “armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests.”

In the 1990s, Iraq’s military intelligence directorate trained and equipped “Sudanese fighters.”
In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered “financial and moral support” to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.
That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

Look at the conclusions about Saddam/al-qaeda that democratic majority came to in 2008:

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

And more sanity:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/still_more_journalistic_sanity.asp
Still More Journalistic Sanity on Iraq and al Qaeda

In the middle of a long and fascinating piece on his regrets about the Iraq War, former New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg, now with the Atlantic Monthly, discusses the new Institute for Defense Analyses report on Iraq and Terrorism. Unlike, virtually every other reporter, he appears to have read it. “Before the war,” he writes, “I believed that Saddam was a supporter of terrorist groups.”

The report on Saddam’s terrorist ties released last week by the Joint Forces Command confirms this (not that you would know it from the scant press coverage of the study). The study, citing captured Iraqi documents, indicates that Saddam’s regime supported various jihadist groups, including Ayman al-Zawahiri’s, and including Kurdish Islamist groups, about whom I have reported. But read the study for yourself; it’s actually quite an achievement of translation and analysis.

One of the biggest critics of the war was also one of the biggest supporters of the war.
All this whining, bitching and finger pointing can be done after any war and has been.There were many detractors to WW1 and WWII.They were found to be as useless and their accusations as baseless as the ones here.
If you believe the world was better off with Saddam,his use and pursuit of WMDs,sponsering and financing terrorism,and starting wars for power,you have the right.
But you won’t be looked at with any credibility when hard decisions are made on how to fight the jihadist are what it
takes to bring Freedom.

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” [all emphasis mine - admin]

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM

LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” he told the New Republic, anonymously. “They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly.”

Bush’s “16 Words” on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying
July 26, 2004
Updated: August 23, 2004
http://www.factcheck.org/print_bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Note the differences between the two points in contention. Wilson originally reported that no sale had been completed, which appears accurate. However, he then slyly and subtly changes the argument to claim that his report showed that no attempt had even been made by the Iraqis to trade for yellowcake — which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found out was false:

[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”

If you have a problem with the yellowcake/niger,then take it up with your international friends and Joe Wilson who made these claims.
The British still stand by their assessment.

If Saddam did not want to pursue his nuclear ambitions,than
what was he doing with tons of yellow cake.What was he doing with all that dual use equipment that was “supposed” to be for insecticide but Iraq is crawling with bugs.
What was that nuclear reactor for that the Israelis took out.

Why did Saddam say to his FBI interrogator before he was
executed:
“I was waiting for the UN inspectors to be done and the heat to wear off so that I could rebuild my weapons program.

The Duelfer report plainly shows that Saddam still maintained the dual use equipment and scientist to restart his weapons programs,having chemical and biological stockpiles within months.

All of this was against the UN sanctions.
He was not cooperating and disarming.
He was not following his surrender agreements.
10 years was enough.

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM

The Conclusions of “Every” investigative report done on the Bush Administration have been the same:
BUSH DID NOT LIE

Your pulling of quotes that have already been taken into consideration and found not to be valid is nothing but
mental masturbation.

If all of this was “true” and “known before the invasion of Iraq” then why haven’t you impeached the President with all of this hard evidence.A lot of the intelligence was found wrong “after” our invasion.There is a big difference.
To go back and use 20/20 hindsight as some kind of justification that we were lied into war is ridiculous.

It has been shown time and again that the worlds intelligence agencies including the UN Thought that Saddam still maintained his WMD program.
He chose not to comply with inspectors and played a stupid game of chicken.If he had complied and disarmed as per UN sanctions,than we would have known,but he did not.
10 years was long enough.

Democrats have had the power and majority to impeach.
Put up or shut up.

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM

You are wasting your time, he is getting all of his facts from AlterNet, a far left website started by the guy who made the “10 list”.
Starfleet_dude is a liberal troll, that uses one source for all of his information.
He does not care what you have to say…this is not a debate with him, he is a troll.

right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Exactly,but even these idiots cannot answer the fact of all
the conclusions of every intelligence report finding that Bush did not lie and the fact that the people who scream about this the loudest,have the power to do something if it
is true.And they don’t.

There is not better vindication of Bush than the actions of the democratic majority and Obama keeping Bush policies and
his appointees (Gates),keeping troops in Iraq,and having the power to impeach and not doing it.

All these claims and accusations and not one person found guilty in the Bush administration of any of them.

liberals just can’t believe their lying eyes.

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Here are some more people that agreed with France,Germany,Britain,the UN,and Bush:

“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.
Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001

“My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that’s presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

Wow!!!

That sure is some powerful mind control Bush possess to make the leaders of such super intelligent democrats say that about Saddam.

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

But..But..But I thought Saddam wasn’t a threat?
She’s a democrat,so she has to be right,being so super smart
and all.

“Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

And nobody knows better than “Burgler Burger”.He probably
has the documents hidden under his bed to prove this.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone [sic], basically without the Europeans behind us [sic]? Was that something we had to do?
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (Democrat, North Carolina): I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

Yes sir!!! What strong convictions the democrats had in going to Iraq,until it became messy and hard and they could score political points off of opposing it.

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM

“There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.”

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: “A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose”
February 6, 2003; Page B17

You tell them Joe,you being the bringer of all that is true
and wise to the democratic party.

BILL MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. “The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away.” You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.
BILL MOYERS: “The danger must be confronted.” You agree with that? “We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat.” You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
During an interview with Bill Moyers
February 28, 2003

Damn!!!!,Joe was all over taking Saddam out.

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

But…But…But Nancy,how can you say that when all your super intelligent supporters say sanctions were working?!!
The oil for food program was a raging success according to
the “hindsight 20/20″crew.

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on “Meet The Press”
November 17, 2002

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777

OHHH NOOO Nancy,say it’s not so!!!!

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:46 AM

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we’re clearly going to have to do something about it.”

Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on “Face The Nation”
September 29, 2002

No question at all according to the DNC chair.

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

Another top democratic leader under the EEEEEVIL!!!President
Bush’s spell.

“It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.”

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003

What a tremendous amount of support from the super intelligent democratic party.Did anyone see Bush holding a gun to his head to make him say this.

“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer — and Iraq is better — because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.”

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003

You tell them all about John,everybody knows how smart you are.

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

Holy Sh!t!!!,even the liberal lion was under Bush’s mind control powers.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing.”

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003

John quoting the UN resolutions.You tell them big daddy.

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

Come on Al,tell us the truth,did Bush make you say that?

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a “final reckoning” with Iraq, describing the country as a “virulent threat in a class by itself” and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.

“Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.”

The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a ‘Final Reckoning’ With Iraq
February 13, 2002

So Iraq was a threat.I mean you said it.Were you lying then
or are you lying now.

“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

Damn!!!sounds just like Bush.Must have got to him to.Pretty effective for such a “dumb” President.

“The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. …we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.”

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

But I thought the sanctions were working?Saddam would not try to hide anything.He was just mis-understood I guess.

“I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.”

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

Awwwwww come on Hans,that was for Botox injections.

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he’s using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he’ll use them more aggressively then.

Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”

Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002

WoW!!!!
Even Waxman says so.

Warnings of Iraq’s biological capability
The head of the U.N. weapons monitoring team for Iraq, Richard Butler, told CNN’s “Late Edition” on Sunday that Iraq has never fully disclosed its capability to make biological weapons.

Butler said Iraq’s capabilities to build a nuclear bomb had been reduced significantly but that the biological capabilities were still a “black hole.”
Based on the findings of recent U.N. weapons inspections, Butler said, Iraq might be able to produce a “significant quantity” of biological agents within about a week.

Yes,Clearly Bush did not have any support or reason to take out Saddam Hussein,It was all just a big conspiracy made up
of,the:
UN,France,Russia,Germany,Britain,CIA,Pentagon,Newspapers,television news,democrats,Republicans,and people in Saddam’s own government and intelligence agencies.

And Bush pulled off 9/11 too.

F–king idiots.

Baxter Greene on December 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM