Libby Indicted

[sissy-boy]

I love it! You post a Reuters news article as a source that clearly states that there wasn't a connection between Saddam & Al Quaeda THEN you dispute your own source with nonsense about a CIA plot yet you provide nothing at all to back up your bogus claims! Amazing!

Your post reads like one of those made up Fox News Channel stories where they use the convenient term "Some might say" but never provide a source or for that matter the truth.

You post a creditable source and then you dispute your own source with made up nonsense not supported by one fact! WOW! :funny

HAHAA!! You have a VERY valid point and it's SO disturbing the way Fox does that, they make themselves judge & jury and strong-arm their stupid listeners to believe ANYTHING they want. It truly IS a war on the free press and journalism as we know it. Yet people still blindly turn on the talking heads, eating crap and accepting that it sux.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think a lot of people are simply watching networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC have been brainwashed by Bush & Rupert Murdocks war on journalism. And you and me know that they call them 'PROGRAMS' for a REASON. It only took them a few months of carefully written addresses and 'programming' selecting words like 'the terrorists' when describing IRAQ and 'Just like 9/11', or 'the terrorists who attacked us' -- and the entire nation actually BELIEVED that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11!! There's millions of Americans that STILL believe that outright LIE and will even reference the LIES that caused them to be decieved in the first place when arguing that Al Qaeda had ANYTHING to do with Iraq, when in fact they were so completely different if Al Qaeda even truly exists that is. I wouldn't put a THING past these guys.

And even after the GOP is all indicted I'll still be worried because the REAL 'TERRORISTS' are the cops among us: The CIA, the FBI, the Secret Police, Scotland Yard, the DEA, the ATF, the WTO. THOSE are the ones that are raging the REAL wars that are being fought every single day. Wars against our freedoms, our liberties and our PRIVACY. Mail is being x-rayed, phones are being tapped, the internet is not secure, there's surveillance camera's in every school, church, supermarket, liquor store, bodega, burger joint, bank and coming soon to every street corner and dashboard near you.

And hopefully the "REAL terrorists" will get you and stop your stupid conspiracy theories...:roll:

 

[RightinNYC]

They weren't in Iraq until at least a year after we'd been there, and I don't believe a WORD of what I hear on the news these days. Why should we?? If I want to hear 'fair and balanced' I look at Al Jazeera or ANY other world news org other than the US news -- with the exception of maybe the DAILY SHOW and it's a REALLY sad f'd up day when you've got to go to the freakin' COMEDY channel to get any REAL news.

Even the BBC is not great, though it's certainly a LOT better than many of the US propaganda rackets.

And with that statement you've solidified yourself as a complete fringejob.

 

[Navy Pride]

Of course. I'm pleased that you asked.

As always citations available upon request.

The Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger the Bush administration feared destroying Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

GWB described Zarqawi as the best evidence of a meaningful connection between Saddam and UbL.

So are yousaying if we had gotten Zarqawi then the war in Iraq would have been over?

 

[sissy-boy]

And hopefully the "REAL terrorists" will get you and stop your stupid conspiracy theories...:roll:

The really sad thing about your post is that you are so robotically driven that you would (like any of Saddam's loyal minions) not believe that Bush was guilty even when he's sitting in Gitmo while female Marine's hold a 'thumbs up' while he's sitting on the floor naked and bound.

 

[Archon]

So are yousaying if we had gotten Zarqawi then the war in Iraq would have been over?

Perhaps the implication was that it may had never escalated for the worse. Yet another political ploy which clearly shows Bush's lack of concern for the well being of our troops. No casualty or war is bigger than his political pride. He's USDA certifiable Mad Cowboy.

 

[RightinNYC]

The really sad thing about your post is that you are so robotically driven that you would (like any of Saddam's loyal minions) not believe that Bush was guilty even when he's sitting in Gitmo while female Marine's hold a 'thumbs up' while he's sitting on the floor naked and bound.

Hahahahaha, have a bit of an overload there with the mixed metaphors, cap'n?

Wanna give that one another go?:lol:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What we know now, we didn’t know then. The evidence seemed to point in that direction.

We knew then what we know now.

According to the CIA, the US Intel Community has kept the same assessment that it had pre-war re the operational and collaborative relationship between aQ and Hussein.
To wit:

Intelligence and analysis on Iraq: Issues for the Intelligence Community (text pdf)
(scanned pdf)p11

In the case of al-Qa'ida, the constant stream of questions aimed at finding links between Saddam and the terrorist network caused analysts take what they termed a “purposely aggressive approach” in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links. Despite the pressure, however, the Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed.
​

All that's changed is the general public's awareness of the lack of evidence for such a relationship between aQ and Hussein.

Saddam knew everything that happened in the country and nothing was done without his approval.

Omniscient he is not. Apparently, Zarqawi is thought to have travelled under some guises when he went to get his leg amputated, (and then miraculaously re-attached for the Berg video etc).
Consider that there were numerous anti-Baathist movements throughout the country. Even if Hussein knew of these groups general activities, he must not have been able to stop them.

I think it is very likely the Administration thought there was a connection.

Your contention's that Team Bush was acting as if Hussein and al-Qaida had an operational or collaborative connections?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

No one can say for sure that he did or didn’t support Al-Qaeda.

That's true. No one can say for sure that there's no Bigfoot either.
However, when making decisions we must go with the best information available. As of yet, despite the best, "exhaustive" and "repetitive" efforts of the US Intel Community and Team Bush minions, there is still not enough evidence to show an operational and collaborative relationship between aQ and Hussein.

There are some who think the CIA had hard feelings toward Bush after he called for reform in the department after 9-ll. They say it is just as likely the CIA misled the administration to make them look bad. I don't think we will ever know the truth of it all.

It would have been more than just the CIA. There're more than a dozen agencies in the US Intel Community. [The CIA is just the coordinating branch (more or less).] It would had to have been the entire set of agencies in US Intel Community.
If the entire US Intel Community has the sorts of issues w/ an Admin that would prompt a conspiracy amongst them to commit fraud against the American people, I think that's prob'ly a big red flag against that Admin.

But you know, just like I tell your fellow conspiracists who think that Team Bush perpetrated 9-11, after you bring me some evidence of such a conspiracy, we can discuss it.
Until then, we should abide by Ockham's Razor and keep testing the simpler theories first.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Then the Libby indictment, this is what we hear from the Left(And Simon) - "The CIA is an exemplary organization that is above reproach, always honest, and never political...We must believe everything they say."....

You're paraphrasing is a heap more generous in its praise of the CIA et al than I have been.
The case I've been making is that the CIA/US Intel Community are the experts on the kinds of issues that surround the GWoT, OIF, WMD proliferation, terrorism etc.
Given that they are the experts and authorities on such issues why shouldn't their assessments be treated as such?
So far, no one has tried to make the case that Team Bush is more authoritative than the US Intel Community in these affairs. Until someone does so convincingly, it would seem that due diligence on the part of Team Bush would have required them to consult repeatedly and at length w/ the US Intel Community. If they did their due diligence, then they knew that what they were pimping wasn't kosher. If they didn't do their due diligence, then they are incompentent or negligent.

If you have a better, more authoritative source re GWoT, OIF, WMD proliferation, terrorism etc than the US Intel Communit, please share it.
​

As long as the US Intel Community remain the source for such info, I'll continue to cite them. If there's something better, I'd be happy to use it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So are you saying if we had gotten Zarqawi then the war in Iraq would have been over?

I'm not saying that at all.
There were possibilities that the "al-Qaida friendly" presence in Iraq could have been eliminated before the war even began. Team Bush chose not to do so. In choosing not to do so, they were able to preserve their "best case" for Hussein and al-Qaida ties.
If they had chosen to take out Zarqawi, it may well have weakened the case for invading Iraq because it would have eliminated their strongest evidence of a meaningful aQ-Hussein connection.

 

[sissy-boy]

Hahahahaha, have a bit of an overload there with the mixed metaphors, cap'n?

Wanna give that one another go?:lol:

haha!

Well, how about him sitting in a corner naked and bound with his own thumb up his butt and a german shepard held barking at his face.

 

[Red State Sage]

If you have a better, more authoritative source re GWoT, OIF, WMD proliferation, terrorism etc than the US Intel Communit, please share it.

How about the Director of the CIA telling the president that WMD's in Iraq are a "slam dunk". Your source told the preseident they were there. I'm sure in this case, accroding to you, the CIA was wrong, but you can't have it both ways.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you have a better, more authoritative source re GWoT, OIF, WMD proliferation, terrorism etc than the US Intel Communit, please share it.

How about the Director of the CIA telling the president that WMD's in Iraq are a "slam dunk". Your source told the preseident they were there. I'm sure in this case, accroding to you, the CIA was wrong, but you can't have it both ways.

What exactly are you trying to get at here?
Are you debating the straw man that the entirety of the US Intel Community is perfect and flawless?

Can you offer a source that is more reliable on these issues than the US Intel Community, or not?
​

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm not saying that at all.
There were possibilities that the "al-Qaida friendly" presence in Iraq could have been eliminated before the war even began. Team Bush chose not to do so. In choosing not to do so, they were able to preserve their "best case" for Hussein and al-Qaida ties.
If they had chosen to take out Zarqawi, it may well have weakened the case for invading Iraq because it would have eliminated their strongest evidence of a meaningful aQ-Hussein connection.

Well I am glad Saddam is out of the picture and we don't have to worry about him using WOMD or giving them to someone else to use.........

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well I am glad Saddam is out of the picture and we don't have to worry about him using WOMD or giving them to someone else to use.........

Of course you are.

 

[Binary_Digit]

If you have a better, more authoritative source re GWoT, OIF, WMD proliferation, terrorism etc than the US Intel Communit, please share it.

How about the Director of the CIA telling the president that WMD's in Iraq are a "slam dunk". Your source told the preseident they were there. I'm sure in this case, accroding to you, the CIA was wrong, but you can't have it both ways.

George Tenet has refused to confirm that he said this. And he resigned. So I think it's likely that he did tell Bush it's a slam dunk, but now realizes he was wrong.

 

[Navy Pride]

Getting back on topic, I will go on record to say that Mr Libby will never spend 1 day in jail....He will either be acquitted or pardoned by the president......

If Clinton can pardon a crook like Mark Rich then the President can sure Pardon Mr Libby.........

 

[sissy-boy]

If you have a better, more authoritative source re GWoT, OIF, WMD proliferation, terrorism etc than the US Intel Communit, please share it.

How about the Director of the CIA telling the president that WMD's in Iraq are a "slam dunk". Your source told the preseident they were there. I'm sure in this case, accroding to you, the CIA was wrong, but you can't have it both ways.

The CIA has knew that Iraq had not had a single WMD since they were destroyed back in '92. And that is what the inspectors had already discovered before Bush suddently decided to go to war when they figured the BILLIONS of $ to be made by painting the desert red with the blood of innocent men women and children. It's just a good thing that they haven't figured out a way to turn CORPSES into FUEL yet, because then we'd REALLY be in trouble.

 

[sissy-boy]

Well I am glad Saddam is out of the picture and we don't have to worry about him using WOMD or giving them to someone else to use.........

Or even the big bad wolf for that matter. Or the son of Frankenstein.