If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the late
80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations since
the First Gulf War.

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one
can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound
bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than politics
to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that
Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.844e1d7c1ae2e7e90bbc8c284ef604be@108 1964749.nulluser.com...
jim-- wrote:

I suppose it is a bad thing, but certainly not on the level of a current
Senator killing a young lady named Mary Jo Kopechne then running away
from
the accident. Or perhaps not on the same level as a POTUS having oral
sex
with an intern.



Sins, indeed, but they pale in comparision to Presidunce Bush lying to
get us into a war with Iraq, and causing the deaths of thousands of
people, including many non-combatant civilians.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:32:27 +0000, John Smith wrote:

If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the
late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations
since the First Gulf War.

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no one
can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound
bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than
politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence
that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.

LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD. So far, his error
has cost us close to 700 American lives, 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and
$150 billion. Your choice, a liar or an incompetent.

What about the past presidents, including Bill Clinton and the majority of
congressman, including democrats and republicans who strongly believe Iraq
had WMD? Where all of them incompetent? Who is to blame for reducing our
intelligence in the field who could have provided the CIA, the NAS, Congress
and the president with better information? Whoever voted to reduce the
budget for these important resources are responsible for 9/11.

Even though we have not found WMD in Iraq, both Clinton and Bush both
believed Iraq was a stronghold for Terrorist Training.

from The Center for Cooperative Research:

According to US intelligence sources, Farouk Hijazi, the Iraqi
ambassador to Turkey, visits Afghanistan in late 1998 after US cruise
missiles are fired on al Qaeda training camps following the bombings of the
US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Hijazi, who is also a longtime
intelligence officer, meets Osama bin Laden in Kandahar and extends an offer
from Baghdad to provide refuge for him and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed
Omar. Bin Laden reportedly rejects the offer because he doesn't want his
organization dominated by Saddam Hussein. After the 9/11 attacks, proponents
of invading Iraq will claim the visit makes Hijazi a key link between Saddam
Hussein and al Qaeda. Hijazi will be captured by US troops in late April
2003 after the US/British invasion of Iraq begins. When interrogated by US
authorities, he will deny any Iraq-al-Qaeda ties. [Guardian, 2/16/99;
Associated Press, 9/27/01; Knight Ridder, 10/7/02; Associated Press,
4/25/03; USA Today, 7/13/03]
People and organizations involved: Farouk Hijaz, Mullah
Mohammed Omar, Osama bin Laden

Late 2001-May 2002

Jordanian Muslim militant Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi flees
Afghanistan and heads to Iran where he continues to run his terrorist
organization, al-Tawhid, using telephones and a network of couriers to
maintain contact with his operatives in Europe. Al Zarqawi's organization
establishes another poison and explosive training center camp in
northeastern Iraq in an area controlled by Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist group
opposed to Saddam Hussein. In May 2002, Zarqawi goes to Baghdad and has an
amputation performed on his leg, which had been injured when he was fleeing
US forces in Afghanistan. According to the Bush administration, Al Zarqawi
stays in Baghdad for two months, during which time some two dozen "al-Qaeda
affiliates" establish a base of operations in the city. The group presumably
"coordinate[s] the movement of people, money and supplies into and
throughout Iraq for his network." Then Zarqawi reportedly travels to the
Ansar al-Islam-controlled region in Northern Iraq, before eventually
returning to Iran. [Newsweek, 6/25/03; Knight Ridder Newspapers, 1/28/03;
Independent, 2/6/03] In an effort to justify military action against Iraq,
the Bush administration will later claim that Saddam Hussein is aware of Al
Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad and therefore is guilty of knowingly harboring
a terrorist (see September 26, 2002). The administration will also
allege-falsely-that Al Zarqawi is a senior al-Qaeda agent and that his visit
is evidence that Saddam's regime has ties to Osama bin Laden. [Newsweek,
6/25/03; Independent, 2/6/03; Guardian, 10/9/02 Sources: Shadi Abdallah] But
the administration never offers any conclusive evidence to support this
allegation. The claim is disputed by intelligence analysts in both
Washington and London. [Telegraph, 2/4/03]
People and organizations involved: Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi,
Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein Additional Info
Statements


Unnamed US Intelligence Officials
a.. "Some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan
went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received
medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with
planning for chemical and biological attacks." - October 7, 200 [White
House, 10/7/02]
b.. The intercepts provided no evidence that Al
Zarqawi was working with Saddam Hussein's or that he was working on a
terrorist operation. - July 2003 [Knight Ridder Newspapers, 10/7/02]
Unnamed US official
a.. "Because someone makes a telephone call from a
country, does not mean that the government of that country is complicit in
that. _ When we found out there was an al-Qaeda cell operating in Germany,
we didn't say 'we have to invade Germany, because the German government
supports al-Qaeda.' ... There was no evidence to indicate that the Iraqi
government knew about or was complicit in Zarqawi's activities." - July
2003 [United Press International, 7/23/03]


Commentaries


Jason Burke, London Observer
a.. "Al-Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq but was not, as
a thick sheaf of reports of interrogations of his close associates open on
my desk make clear, an ally of bin Laden. His group, al-Tawhid, was actually
set up in competition to that of the Saudi. To lump them together is either
a wilful misrepresentation or reveals profound ignorance about the nature of
modern Islamic militancy. Either way, there's no link there. Nor has any
evidence for one surfaced since the end of the war." - July 2003 [Observer,
7/27/03]







April

During a National Security Council deputy principals
meeting, Paul Wolfowitz is challenged by White House counterterrorism
advisor Richard Clarke after asserting that Iraq is involved in terrorism.
Recalling the meeting, Clarke tells The Guardian in a March 2004 interview:
"April was an initial discussion of terrorism policy writ large and at that
meeting I said we had to talk about al-Qaeda. And because it was terrorism
policy writ large [Paul] Wolfowitz said we have to talk about Iraqi
terrorism and I said that's interesting because there hasn't been any Iraqi
terrorism against the United States. There hasn't been any for 8 years. And
he said something derisive about how I shouldn't believe the CIA and FBI,
that they've been wrong. And I said if you know more than I know tell me
what it is, because I've been doing this for 8 years and I don't know about
any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the US since 1993. When I said let's
start talking about bin Laden, he said bin Laden couldn't possibly have
attacked the World Trade Center in '93. One little terrorist group like that
couldn't possibly have staged that operation. It must have been Iraq." [The
Guardian, 3/23/04]
People and organizations involved: Richard Clarke, Paul
Wolfowitz


from:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...=terroristTies







"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:32:27 +0000, John Smith wrote:

If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the
late 80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United
Nations
since the First Gulf War.

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no
one
can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound
bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than
politics to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same
intelligence
that Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.

LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD. So far, his error
has cost us close to 700 American lives, 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and
$150 billion. Your choice, a liar or an incompetent.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:09:35 +0000, John Smith wrote:

What about the past presidents, including Bill Clinton and the majority of
congressman, including democrats and republicans who strongly believe Iraq
had WMD? Where all of them incompetent?

If they had invaded Iraq, yes they would have been incompetent. There is
a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief. Before
one puts lives at risk, it is prudent to be sure. Going to war is not an
"Ooops, sorry!" proposition. To paraphrase, how would *you* ask a man to
be the last to die for a mistake?

"thunder" wrote in message

....There is
a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief.

Yes -- that difference is called "courage".


Before one puts lives at risk, it is prudent to be sure.

In a shooting war, one often does not have the luxury of being sure. You go
with the best intelligence available, and calculate risk. No one ever won a
war with a good defensive posture; a battle, perhaps, from time to time,
but not the war.

John Gaquin wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message

....There is
a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief.


Yes -- that difference is called "courage".

Not in Bush's case. In his case, it was pigheadedness, stupidity, and
politics.

In article , thunder wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:09:35 +0000, John Smith wrote:

What about the past presidents, including Bill Clinton and the majority of
congressman, including democrats and republicans who strongly believe Iraq
had WMD? Where all of them incompetent?

If they had invaded Iraq, yes they would have been incompetent. There is
a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief. Before
one puts lives at risk, it is prudent to be sure. Going to war is not an
"Ooops, sorry!" proposition. To paraphrase, how would *you* ask a man to
be the last to die for a mistake?

Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:59:55 +0000, Henry Blackmoore wrote:


Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.

LOL, and lying politicians? A rare breed, I suppose.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find 'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately, I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen until
Bush's 2nd term.

NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news

LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.


You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find 'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately, I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen until
Bush's 2nd term.




They are on a truck right now, being driven by a Halliburton employee, eh?