PDA

View Full Version : Newly Released Documents PROVE BUSH LIED LIED LIED



Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 11:56 AM
Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 04:24 PM EDT
New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims
“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon
By Jordan Michael Smith

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Let’s start there. In 2000 and 2001, the CIA began using Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Afghanistan. “The idea of using UAVs originated in April 2000 as a result of a request from the NSC’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism to the CIA and the Department of Defense to come up with new ideas to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan,” a 2004 document summarizes. The Pentagon approved the plan for surveillance purposes.

And yet, simultaneously, the CIA declared that budget concerns were forcing it to move its Counterterrorism Center/Osama bin Laden Unit from an “offensive” to a “defensive” posture. For the CIA, that meant trying to get Afghan tribal leaders and the Northern Alliance to kill or capture bin Laden, Elias-Sanborn says. “It was forced to be less of a kinetic operation,” she says. “It had to be only for surveillance, which was not what they considered an offensive posture.”

“Budget concerns … CT [counterterrorism] supplemental still at NSC-OMB [National Security Council – Office of Management and Budget] level,” an April 2000 document reads. “Need forward movement on supplemental soonest due to expected early recess due to conventions, campaigning and elections.” In addition, the Air Force told the CIA that if it lost a drone, the CIA would have to pay for it, which made the agency more reluctant to use the technology.

Still, the drone program began in September 2000. One drone swiftly twice observed an individual “most likely to have been Bin Laden.” But since the CIA only had permission to use the drones for intelligence gathering, it had no way to act on its findings. The agency submitted a proposal to the National Security Council staff in December 2000 that would have significantly expanded the program. “It was too late for the departing Clinton Administration to take action on this strategic request,” however. It wasn’t too late for the Bush administration, though. It just never did.

Former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has taken credit for the drone program that the Bush administration ignored. “Things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians,” she said in 2006. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.” Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove. “If the administration wanted to get it done, I’m sure they could have gotten it done,” says Elias-Sanborn.

Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”

For all the information the documents reveal, one huge matter is conspicuously absent: torture. There are nearly 50 CIA documents relating to such matters as the interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the intelligence gleaned from him, and yet “none of them were declassified at all,” notes Elias-Sanborn. “Certainly, the CIA has a stake in revealing what they did,” and they clearly do not want to reveal their complicity in war crimes.

One last thing is worth mentioning from the documents published today: Anyone with any doubt that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerous to the United States is contradicting U.S. intelligence. “Violence between Israelis and the Palestinians, moreover is making Sunni extremists more willing to participate in attacks against US or Israeli interests,” the CIA wrote in February 2001. It is not the only piece of information revealed by the new documents that will be deeply uncomfortable for the Bush administration and hawks across the country.



http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/





Newly Declassified Documents Show Bush Administration Looked For Excuse To Start War In Iraq In Nov. 2001
By Zaid Jilani on Sep 23, 2010 at 12:20 pm

The Bush administration has long maintained they had not decided to invade Iraq until the days before it actually began and that they did “everything” they could to “avoid war in Iraq.” President Bush even claimed that the “American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war.”

Yet there is evidence that the Bush administration, from its very early days, was actively plotting to go to war with the Arab country. From a British memo that noted that “Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme” to memoirs by administration members Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, there have been numerous disclosures that strongly suggest that the Bush administration was plotting a war against Iraq while recognizing it was not a threat to the United States.

Now, with the help of a Freedom of Information Act request, the National Security Archive has obtained a newly declassified document that details talking points that emerged from a meeting between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and CENTCOM Commander General Tommy Franks in November 2001.

The talking points mainly revolve around the logistical planning for a war in Iraq. They detail the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government by U.S. forces and make regime change the goal. Interestingly, they already mention U.S. forces “coming out of Afghanistan” to join the invasion of Iraq. Yet the most alarming part of the document is a bullet point titled, “How start?” (which is a discussion that actually appears after the planning of the entire war). The participants in the Rumsfeld-Frank meeting discussed possible ways to provoke a conflict with Iraq, including an attack by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish north, the U.S. discovering a “Saddam connection” to 9/11 or the anthrax attacks, or a dispute over WMD inspections. It appears from the language of the talking points that the Bush administration had already decided to go to war with Iraq and was looking for an opportunity to invade:




Another document obtained by the National Security Archive shows that the Bush State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research created an assessment of international support for a war against Iraq in December 2001. It noted that the “UK’s Blair would publicly support a US decision to bomb Iraq but would face considerable criticism.” It worried that going to war in Iraq could “bring radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign.” These fears appear to have been prescient, as in July 2005 British Muslim extremists apparently radicalized by the war in Iraq detonated bombs throughout London.



Gary Herstein says: “What makes this significant is that…it is ‘hard’ evidence, not subject to dismissal by attacking the author’s credibility.”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/09/23/120447/documents-bush-iraq-november/

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 12:15 PM
Newly Declassified Documents Show Bush Administration Looked For Excuse To Start War In Iraq In Nov. 2001

Yeah, it's worse than that.

At the very first National Security Counsel meeting, statutory member SecTreasury O'Neill has written that Bush told them his plan was to invade Iraq, and their job was to figure out how to make that happen. So, not just after 9/11, but about February/March '01. As in, immediately.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 12:23 PM
I just hope that the international community ramps up their determination to arrest Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, and hauls all of them before a war crimes tribunal!

I'll bet we'll never see any of them traveling outside the states.

That must frost all their a$$es, that they can't be wined annd dined by all of their Middle East Billionaire OIL cronies in exotic locations all around the world!

At the least, we can enjoy that one small punishment they must pay for what they have done, albiet far from enough to justify their freedom from chains and cells, or a firing squad.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 12:39 PM
They could still go to the oil countries, where they would not be apprehended by their crony dictators there, so long as they didn't make connections in non-controlled states.

The terrible tragedy, and execrable truth, of Bush was that he intentionally got us into war to become popular and a successful president. DID IT ON PURPOSE. As he told his biographer of record in the pre-election year of 1999, if I ever have a chance to have a war, I will take it, and then use that political capital of the inevitable rallying of the American people to a president in war time, as his father did not, to unfreeze the gridlock in Congress and pass through his agenda into law.

He was determined to have a war, one way or another, regardless of the consequences, which apparently, like a psycopath, he disregarded. He certainly never consulted with his SecState or SecDef ahead of his decision. He even told Pat Robertson there would be no American casualties, as God had told him.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 12:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They could still go to the oil countries, where they would not be apprehended by their crony dictators there, so long as they didn't make connections in non-controlled states.

The terrible tragedy, and execrable truth, of Bush was that he intentionally got us into war to become popular and a successful president. DID IT ON PURPOSE. As he told his biographer of record in the pre-election year of 1999, if I ever have a chance to have a war, I will take it, and then use that political capital of the inevitable rallying of the American people to a president in war time, as his father did not, to unfreeze the gridlock in Congress and pass through his agenda into law.

He was determined to have a war, one way or another, regardless of the consequences, which apparently, like a psycopath, he disregarded. He certainly never consulted with his SecState or SecDef ahead of his decision. He even told Pat Robertson there would be no American casualties, as God had told him. </div></div>

He should be held to account, for everything he has done. As they all should, along with all of the surviving Blank Check Repiglicans.

How can we have so many stupid people in this country, that would vote those lying thieves back into office!

I am still in shock, that Repigs are back in the majority, after what this country witnessed!

Given all of the insults those of us who said this all along, had to endure from the ignorant lemmings, the RW Kool Aid suckers from the famous spoon, you don't suppose they will want to chime in on these relevations, do you?

After being bashed and slandered, all through our years of fact finding, reading books, searching for the truth, posting and insisting that Bush lied our country into a war, and being slandered and insulted throughout, wioll we get an apology?

Posting about how he had enough information, and warnings, to prevent 9/11, yet failed to prevent 9/11, and now we know he intentionally let it happen, will the denials end?

Posting facts which proved Bush ignored all of the unprecedented warnings, outed a covert CIA Agent, politicized the DOJ, broke the FISA laws, broke the Geneva Conventions, cherry -picked intelligence to justify the illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, but, you don't suppose any of us from the left, who obviously were exactly correct, all along, will be getting any apologies, do you?

Naw, didn't think so either.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

G.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They could still go to the oil countries, where they would not be apprehended by their crony dictators there, so long as they didn't make connections in non-controlled states.

The terrible tragedy, and execrable truth, of Bush was that he intentionally got us into war to become popular and a successful president. DID IT ON PURPOSE. As he told his biographer of record in the pre-election year of 1999, if I ever have a chance to have a war, I will take it, and then use that political capital of the inevitable rallying of the American people to a president in war time, as his father did not, to unfreeze the gridlock in Congress and pass through his agenda into law.

He was determined to have a war, one way or another, regardless of the consequences, which apparently, like a psycopath, he disregarded. He certainly never consulted with his SecState or SecDef ahead of his decision. He even told Pat Robertson there would be no American casualties, as God had told him. </div></div>

I think Bush is a psychopath, along with most of his followers.

As the article states....


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>“What makes this significant is that…it is ‘hard’ evidence, not subject to dismissal by attacking the author’s credibility.”

</span>

They can't live in denial, this time. They will have to drop their big spoons, shut up, and grow up!


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>So now that there is undeniable proof, do we really want Romney, and the same NEOCON HAWKS behind him, running this government again?!!!!

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! </span> </span>
G.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2012, 02:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They could still go to the oil countries, where they would not be apprehended by their crony dictators there, so long as they didn't make connections in non-controlled states.

The terrible tragedy, and execrable truth, of Bush was that he intentionally got us into war to become popular and a successful president. DID IT ON PURPOSE. As he told his biographer of record in the pre-election year of 1999, if I ever have a chance to have a war, I will take it, and then use that political capital of the inevitable rallying of the American people to a president in war time, as his father did not, to unfreeze the gridlock in Congress and pass through his agenda into law.

He was determined to have a war, one way or another, regardless of the consequences, which apparently, like a psycopath, he disregarded. He certainly never consulted with his SecState or SecDef ahead of his decision. He even told Pat Robertson there would be no American casualties, as God had told him. </div></div>

I wonder how many people BUSH, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the NEOCONS MURDERED, to assuage their own, and Bush's own egomania?

G.

LWW
06-21-2012, 04:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The terrible tragedy, and execrable truth, of Bush was that he intentionally got us into war to become popular and a successful president. DID IT ON PURPOSE.</div></div>

It's shark jumping season again I see.

LWW
06-21-2012, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As he told his biographer of record in the pre-election year of 1999, if I ever have a chance to have a war, I will take it, and then use that political capital of the inevitable rallying of the American people to a president in war time, as his father did not, to unfreeze the gridlock in Congress and pass through his agenda into law.</div></div>

Got a source you would care to link to for a verification of this myth?

Of course you don't. This is where you link to something that tells a completely different story, but act as if it backs you up.

In fact, did you even read the pant load that te OP linked to?

Of course you didn't.

If you had you would realize that this is just another moon at crazy leftist hit piece blaming Bush for decisions ... which they pearly date as ... Made by te Clinton regime before the 2000 election even happened.

Why didn't Bush authorize Bin Laden's execution while Clinton was POTUS?

Are y'all truly that desperate ... or so brainwashed that you can't realize what an asinine question the author asks?

DiabloViejo
06-21-2012, 04:49 PM
Hah! It must have taken you an hour to come up with that brilliant reply. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
06-21-2012, 04:56 PM
Oh no, none of the cabal has ever risen to a level requiring that I break out my A game ... you have never even required my D game.

BTW did you read the linked article ... or are you also such a bot that you accept the notion that Bush was POTUS and calling the shots in 2000?

What is so hilariously funny is that cabal has denied for 22 years that Bin Laden was in the US's sites in 2000 ... now that a moonbat crazy fetish says it happened, adding the myth of Bush as the trigger man, you swallow the spoon fed lie with glee.

BTW ... moonbattery is a word, and articles such as this define it.

Nw, dance some more for us.

DiabloViejo
06-21-2012, 05:14 PM
"A" game? What "A" game? On your best day an Orangutang could display more intellect than you! Yeah, you're so great that you need to engage in narcissistic puffery and prancing to satisfy your demented ego. LOL! You really are a piece of work aren't you? Dude why don't you take your imaginary "A" game to the Special Olympics? You'd be right at home there! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

BTW, at the very first National Security Council meeting, statutory member Secretary of The Treasury O'Neill has written that Bush told them his plan was to invade Iraq, and their job was to figure out how to make that happen. So, not just after 9/11, but about February/March '01. As in, immediately.

OK you may now go pound sand. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
06-21-2012, 06:05 PM
Why are you wanting to change the subject from the fact that you were pimped ... again ... by a moonbat wielding a ladle of lies?

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 06:09 PM
Got a source you would care to link to for a verification of this myth?

Of course you don't. This is where you link to something that tells a completely different story, but act as if it backs you up.

You could find this with a Google search. It's from the guy credited with writing the campaign biography, 'A Charge to Keep.'

Stop embarrassing yourself by challenging these facts. Haven't you been drop-kicked 100 yards often enough yet to realize I do not bluff?

Over and over again, you demand links or citations. I give them, and you slink away into the darkness of the basement, without a word of apology, acceptance, denial, or anything. Sad, really.

Soflasnapper
06-21-2012, 06:35 PM
Got a source you would care to link to for a verification of this myth?

Of course you don't. This is where you link to something that tells a completely different story, but act as if it backs you up.

From a Google search on 'bush biographer bush planned war':

From Russ Baker (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer
by Russ Baker


HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.

In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush's ghostwriter after Bush's handlers concluded that the candidate's views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.

According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.

The revelations on Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.

[...]

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."

Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.

"I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. "He said, 'No I haven't, and I won't, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.' Brent would not have talked to him without the old man's okaying it." Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush's administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.

Herskowitz's revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush's pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe 's David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: "It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam's weapons stash," wrote Nyhan. 'I'd take 'em out,' [Bush] grinned cavalierly, 'take out the weapons of mass destruction�I'm surprised he's still there," said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.'s father�It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush's first big clinker. "

The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or na�ve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand. </div></div>

There is also the story of Condi Rice, still then the NSA, having Bush pop his head into a meeting she was holding. She said they were discussing Saddam Hussein, and he offered 'F*CK Saddam; I'm taking him out!!' to the startled group assembled.

When he was claiming to have no interest to go to war.

LWW
06-22-2012, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The terrible tragedy, and execrable truth, of Bush was that he intentionally got us into war to become popular and a successful president. DID IT ON PURPOSE. As he told his biographer of record in the pre-election year of 1999, if I ever have a chance to have a war, I will take it, and then use that political capital of the inevitable rallying of the American people to a president in war time, as his father did not, to unfreeze the gridlock in Congress and pass through his agenda into law.

He was determined to have a war, one way or another, regardless of the consequences, which apparently, like a psycopath, he disregarded. He certainly never consulted with his SecState or SecDef ahead of his decision. He even told Pat Robertson there would be no American casualties, as God had told him. </div></div>

Did I cal it or did I call it.

Now tell us about how Bush created the depression while FDR was POTUS.

Qtec
06-22-2012, 04:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did I cal it or did I call it. </div></div>

Yep, you called it and you called it <span style='font-size: 14pt'>WRONG!</span>

Not so long ago you were still claiming that Saddam had WMDs, a claim the article says has been totally debunked. You also claimed that the Downing St Memo,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.. a British memo that noted that “Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme” </div></div>

...was a fake!

You have been wrong on everything and now you have the nerve to claim you were right all the time.

Some of us are not Fox zombies. Some of us remember facts.


Q....... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif LOL

Gayle in MD
06-22-2012, 06:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did I cal it or did I call it. </div></div>

Yep, you called it and you called it <span style='font-size: 14pt'>WRONG!</span>

Not so long ago you were still claiming that Saddam had WMDs, a claim the article says has been totally debunked. You also claimed that the Downing St Memo,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.. a British memo that noted that “Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme” </div></div>

...was a fake!

You have been wrong on everything and now you have the nerve to claim you were right all the time.

Some of us are not Fox zombies. Some of us remember facts.


Q....... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif LOL </div></div>

The information is from the National Security Archive, information which Bush had deep sixed, for years, lol. Notice how loittle we are hearing about this recent release of these documents on the airwaves?

Link from the article....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm


Additionally, the information which obviously proves not only that Bush was a sickio egomaniac, lying POS, but also proves the idiocy and ignorance of the denying sheep.

Proves as well that the authors, of all of the books I have quoted on this forum, many of whom were administration insiders, were telling us the truth, all along.

Some righties are so buried in their own ignorance and BS, they are beyond being dug out of their own rot and stink. How do they get that spoon in their mouths when they never take their pacifiers out?
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

Did we really expect anything else from the right wing nutjobs?