Bush Authorized Plamegate Leak

[Jedi_Templar]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html

According to former Cheney aide "Scooter" Libbey, Bush ordered the identification leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Wow. Just fucking wow. Words cannot express how fucked up this is.

[GenocideAlive]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html

According to former Cheney aide "Scooter" Libbey, Bush ordered the identification leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Wow. Just fucking wow. Words cannot express how fucked up this is.
The guy being prosecuted for lying now claims the president told him to do it?

Jeez, this guy is some kind of genius. If you get caught lying and are going up the river, you might as well play into partisan politics to save yourself.

[Neo]

The guy being prosecuted for lying now claims the president told him to do it?

Jeez, this guy is some kind of genius. If you get caught lying and are going up the river, you might as well play into partisan politics to save yourself.
I might tend to agree with you if this was the only negative thing that bush might be involved in, but theres gotta be a limit to where he gets off... right?

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Isn't it a direct part of the code to follow all orders given...unless illegal?

No matter whom ordered it, they can't force you to break the law. It sounds to me like Scooter doesn't want to do hard time and is shoveling bullshit as fast as he can to win sympathy and allies.

Although it really does sound like he's being made a scapegoat.

[Desert_Eagle]

Isn't it a direct part of the code to follow all orders given...unless illegal?

No matter whom ordered it, they can't force you to break the law.

They can fire you, which is common in the Bush administration.

Do you approve of such tactics?

[GenocideAlive]

They can fire you, which is common in the Bush administration.
So...would you rather go to jail for 30 years or risk getting fired?

I'm not entirely sure that anything occuring in an Intelligence Agency is 100% true at any given juncture. After all, they're trying to protect our nation and our government, etc. Thus nothing they say can be entirely believed and nothing they say can be entirely reliable. It's the nature of the business.

[Jedi_Templar]

The guy being prosecuted for lying now claims the president told him to do it?

There's a disadvantage to a presidency filled with rats like Scooter Libbey- when the ship starts sinking, not only do they leave, they also tend to take pieces of the ship with them. In other words, little grains of truth seep out.

[GenocideAlive]

There's a disadvantage to a presidency filled with rats like Scooter Libbey- when the ship starts sinking, not only do they leave, they also tend to take pieces of the ship with them. In other words, little grains of truth seep out.
And you're so sure that the rats are suddenly the saints-that-would-never-lie now, right? After all, he has nothing to gain by saying so...it's always nice that we have people like you around that can immediately divine truth from fiction. :rolleyes:

Nice analogy btw...it totally made sense.

[B.A.Baracus]

When Bush came into office I thought he was the biggest dumbass we ever had. Now I know hes the smartest and most diobolical bastard we ever had.

[frazz]

Wow. If you break the law just blame it on bush. Everyobdy believes you because they already hate Bush. There's this thing called lying you guys.

[Kingscrab]

A) Scooter rats out the Pres. to save himself some jail time.
B) Supposedly Bush authorized the leak.

Why does this shock anyone? It was only a matter of time. *shrug*

[Nuts]

Damn it.

It is glaringly obvious that there is a shortage of reading glasses in these forums. Either that, or some of you should take a few classes in reading comprehension. There is nothing in the Libby testimony that indicates Bush authorized the divulging of Plame's name nor her position with the CIA. It's simply not there.

The allegation, if true, would basically amount to the President authorizing the declassification of pre-war intelligence relating to the impending invasion of Iraq. Whether or not this is a punishable act is up for debate. But to create a thread (yes, I'm looking at you JT) under a false premise, simply for the sake of saying "nanny nanny boo boo" is irresponsible. This is yet another case of bandwagon mob mentality run amok.

If this allegation is found to be true (remember, Libby has lied before,) this will have a profound affect on my admiration for our President. I have no room for hypocritical politicians and the President is not exempt in this case.

[Dark_Magneto]

We'll have to see if it pans out. But if indeed it does, I expect the apologist rhetoric that we've been experiencing on the behalf of this administration (which has had more breaking scandals than any other, go figure) to be kept to a minimum.

[GenocideAlive]

(which has had more breaking scandals than any other, go figure)
Care to back that little snippet up?

[Desert_Eagle]

So...would you rather go to jail for 30 years or risk getting fired?

I couldn't tell you unless I were in that position. You know like coming out and telling the truth that the president told you to take an illegal action, then getting fired, and being smeared by conservative idiots calling you a liar because you have no proof.

I'm not entirely sure that anything occuring in an Intelligence Agency is 100% true at any given juncture. After all, they're trying to protect our nation and our government, etc. Thus nothing they say can be entirely believed and nothing they say can be entirely reliable. It's the nature of the business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Or like, you know, planning terrorist attacks on the United States. That kind of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra

Or selling guns, ammunitions, and explosives to terrorists, then using that money to fund brutal dictators in South America.

Your right, we can never be too sure, which is why we should abolish the CIA. The CIA represents a greater threat to our freedom the terrorist could ever wish to.

And you're so sure that the rats are suddenly the saints-that-would-never-lie now, right? After all, he has nothing to gain by saying so...it's always nice that we have people like you around that can immediately divine truth from fiction.

Well people often tell the truth once they realize the people they are trying to protect have stabbed them in the back.


Wow. If you break the law just blame it on bush. Everyobdy believes you because they already hate Bush. There's this thing called lying you guys.

How do we know Bush isn't lying?


A) Scooter rats out the Pres. to save himself some jail time.
B) Supposedly Bush authorized the leak.

Why does this shock anyone? It was only a matter of time.

It doesn't shock me that Bush authorized the leak one bit.

If this allegation is found to be true (remember, Libby has lied before,) this will have a profound affect on my admiration for our President. I have no room for hypocritical politicians and the President is not exempt in this case.

Well Bush had lied before why doesn't that affect your admiration?

The allegation, if true, would basically amount to the President authorizing the declassification of pre-war intelligence relating to the impending invasion of Iraq. Whether or not this is a punishable act is up for debate. But to create a thread (yes, I'm looking at you JT) under a false premise, simply for the sake of saying "nanny nanny boo boo" is irresponsible. This is yet another case of bandwagon mob mentality run amok.

It's debatable whether or not it's legal for someone to release the names of CIA agents? Tell that to the people who have been convicted of it.

[GenocideAlive]

I couldn't tell you unless I were in that position. You know like coming out and telling the truth that the president told you to take an illegal action, then getting fired, and being smeared by conservative idiots calling you a liar because you have no proof.
Why are you calling conservatives idiots? Do you really think it's appropriate to sit in an "Intellectual" forum and make sweeping generalizations like that? Or perhaps you fail to recognize this forum's purpose and intent.
How do we know Bush isn't lying?
Again with the demanding of negative proof. If you make an assertion the burden of proof lays in your court, not in your opponent's court to disprove it. Running around demanding people disprove your various libelous accusations or face your words being benedicted as "truth" is asinine and pointless.

[Nuts]

Well Bush had lied before why doesn't that affect your admiration?
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you're implying that Bush lied about our rationale for going to Iraq. And while I would love to explain this for the umpteenth time, I think we both know that your refusal to pay any attention to the events leading up to the invasion would prove to be a futile argument. Absent any impeachment and subsequent removal from office, you haven't any credible evidence to suggest that Bush lied at any point regarding the pretense for our invasion of Iraq. I understand that it's considered hip and cool to sport bumper stickers that proclaim "Bush Lied Soldiers Died" and "Impeach Bush," but at the end of the day, it's a meaningless box of slogans. So until you can corroborate your assertion with some bona fide evidence, I suggest you take a page from your own book and refrain from utilizing this very tired http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

It's debatable whether or not it's legal for someone to release the names of CIA agents? Tell that to the people who have been convicted of it.
Color me confused, perhaps you failed to read my post. I can't be certain, but normally a reply would indicate that you comprehended the prior post and therefore intend to substantiate your position. Is it possible that you have no position?

Perhaps you'll pay closer attention if I bold the text.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby made no mention that Bush authorized the disclosure of the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame. Period.

Word to your mother, yo.

Edit: Desert Eagle, please do everyone a favor, please learn to use the quote system properly. It's in your best interest if you can attribute quotes to the proper people, otherwise our readers and contributors will quickly lose interest finding that they have to sift through the entire thread to determine the author of each quote.
.
.

[Desert_Eagle]

Why are you calling conservatives idiots? Do you really think it's appropriate to sit in an "Intellectual" forum and make sweeping generalizations like that? Or perhaps you fail to recognize this forum's purpose and intent.

I said conservative idiots. One can be a conservative and not an idiot, and vice versa. I am specifically talking about conservative idiots because it's less likely that liberal idiots would call him a liar.

Again with the demanding of negative proof. If you make an assertion the burden of proof lays in your court, not in your opponent's court to disprove it. Running around demanding people disprove your various libelous accusations or face your words being benedicted as "truth" is asinine and pointless.

Bush has lied in the past though, and has a vested interest in lying.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you're implying that Bush lied about our rationale for going to Iraq. And while I would love to explain this for the umpteenth time, I think we both know that your refusal to pay any attention to the events leading up to the invasion would prove to be a futile argument. Absent any impeachment and subsequent removal from office, you haven't any credible evidence to suggest that Bush lied at any point regarding the pretense for our invasion of Iraq. I understand that it's considered hip and cool to sport bumper stickers that proclaim "Bush Lied Soldiers Died" and "Impeach Bush," but at the end of the day, it's a meaningless box of slogans. So until you can corroborate your assertion with some bona fide evidence, I suggest you take a page from your own book and refrain from utilizing this very tired http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

Bush lied about the wiretapping program. He also lied about the "extensive collaborative ties" with Al Qaeda and the lie that the evidence was overwhelming.

Color me confused, perhaps you failed to read my post. I can't be certain, but normally a reply would indicate that you comprehended the prior post and therefore intend to substantiate your position. Is it possible that you have no position?

Perhaps you'll pay closer attention if I bold the text.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby made no mention that Bush authorized the disclosure of the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame. Period.

Word to your mother, yo.

The allegation, if true, would basically amount to the President authorizing the declassification of pre-war intelligence relating to the impending invasion of Iraq. Whether or not this is a punishable act is up for debate.

Note the qualifier.

[Nuts]

The allegation, if true, would basically amount to the President authorizing the declassification of pre-war intelligence relating to the impending invasion of Iraq. Whether or not this is a punishable act is up for debate.

It's debatable whether or not it's legal for someone to release the names of CIA agents?

Color me confused, perhaps you failed to read my post......
Lewis "Scooter" Libby made no mention that Bush authorized the disclosure of the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame. Period.

Note the qualifier.

Is it just me or are you failing to make sense on an elementary level? I'll allow you an opportunity to clarify, correct or rescind your position before I continue to lambaste your argument.

.
.

Bush lied about the wiretapping program. He also lied about the "extensive collaborative ties" with Al Qaeda and the lie that the evidence was overwhelming.
It is my understanding that he admitted that he was wiretapping, the question at the moment is whether or not this was illegal. Isn't this the subject of one of you other threads? Secondly, the "extensive collaborative ties" with Al Qaeda was based on intelligence which appeared to have merit. In fact, recent information is showing that there were negotiations between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the invasion. Again, you have a paragraph of rhetoric with nothing to substantiate your assertion.

lie (lī)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

[Desert_Eagle]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

You said:

"The allegation, if true, would basically amount to the President authorizing the declassification of pre-war intelligence relating to the impending invasion of Iraq. Whether or not this is a punishable act is up for debate.

Note the qualifier."

I don't get what your saying. Are you saying he did and didn't authorize the action?

Secondly, the "extensive collaborative ties" with Al Qaeda was based on intelligence which appeared to have merit. In fact, recent information is showing that there were negotiations between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the invasion. Again, you have a paragraph of rhetoric with nothing to substantiate your assertion.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks. [9] [10] This was also the conclusion of various U.S. government agencies that investigated the issue, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions and found that they were justifiable.

In addition, Bush received on 21 September 2001 a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any collaborative relationship between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda. [11] Despite all of this information, polls have shown that many Americans continue to persist in the false belief that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, although the number who continue to do so has been slowly declining. [12][13][14] This discrepancy has been attributed to the way in which the U.S. mainstream media presented facts and opinion regarding the "war on terror." [15][16][17]


Of course, what is the NSA, FBI, CIA, and DIA compared to ambiguous and questionable hand picked reports? But Nuts doesn't see anything wrong with fixing the intelligence around the war, so long as there exist some kind of document (no matter how unreliable) which might suggest some kind of relationship.

It is my understanding that he admitted that he was wiretapping, the question at the moment is whether or not this was illegal. Isn't this the subject of one of you other threads?
lie (lī)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

What would you say if it were shown to you that president Bush did indeed lie about the nature of wiretapping terrorist phones?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/07/whitehouse.leak/index.html

Honestly Nuts and everyone else, I don't see how you can still trust anything this administration says. They are notorious for spin-doctoring and bullshitting. The only time they tell the truth about controversial issues is when they are backed into a corner from lying so much.

Wikipedia is an unreliable source? I'd love to see you apply that same standard to the Bush Administration.

[Neo]

Wikipedia is an unreliable source? I'd love to see you apply that same standard to the Bush Administration.

Word.

Such a bad role I am being as a moderator, but really, this needs to be quoted.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

You just compared Wikipedia to the Bush Administration. :rolleyes:

I'd like to applaud you, but when anybody with an Internet Connection can edit the Bush Administration's policies you have a basis. Otherwise, you two look great jacking off to each other's hatespeech. Oh wait, I meant "fallacy of equivocation" and "appeal to spite". :rolleyes:

[Nuts]

I don't get what your saying. Are you saying he did and didn't authorize the action?

Read my lips, Libby said nothing about Plame. Therefore, as far as we know, Bush never authorized the leaking of Plame's name nor her position. Do you not understand this or are you being intentionally dense in an effort to avoid the truth?

The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
You appear to be arguing with yourself here. Nobody is taking the opposing side on this subject. I simply said that the evidence at the time indicated a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq. You're grasping at hindsight in an attempt to prove your case, which doesn't seem to be working very well for you.

While it's not any "collaborative relationship" there are many reports from credible sources that indicate links between Al Qaeda and Iraq were quite common.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051125568646
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3634481

Damn, looky there, we got sum real dagum sources! So sorry Wikipedia, I left you out.

Of course, what is the NSA, FBI, CIA, and DIA compared to ambiguous and questionable hand picked reports? But Nuts doesn't see anything wrong with fixing the intelligence around the war, so long as there exist some kind of document (no matter how unreliable) which might suggest some kind of relationship.
Never mind that the rationale for war was not an Al Qaeda - Iraq connection. Never mind that there is no impeachment proceedings against the President for this glaringly obvious dereliction of duty. Never mind that the only sources to make these claims are left-wing blogs and a few Democratic loons in Congress.

What would you say if it were shown to you that president Bush did indeed lie about the nature of wiretapping terrorist phones?
I would say that you're grasping at straws. Until this debacle is properly investigated, we live in a country where we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Posting a developing story in an effort to prove that Bush has lied seems a tad bit desperate. Can't you find anything else? If President Bush is found to have lied, I expect Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. Until that time, you have nothing but an empty accusation.

Honestly Nuts and everyone else, I don't see how you can still trust anything this administration says. They are notorious for spin-doctoring and bullshitting. The only time they tell the truth about controversial issues is when they are backed into a corner from lying so much.

So far, you've only strengthened my convictions by posting like some schizo paranoid delusional who's afraid that GWB is going to break down your door and steal your soul. The more people like you that occupy space on our planet, the more I will tend to align myself with the Conservative movement. There are people in these very forums that are capable of holding a completely opposite viewpoint, yet they substantiate it with logic and reasoning that supports their beliefs, not their condemnations. Nobody will ever convince me to see their viewpoint by condemning my own. Can't you see this?

Wikipedia is an unreliable source? I'd love to see you apply that same standard to the Bush Administration.
Until the contributors of Wikipedia have access to every foreign leader in the world, the combined efforts of the CIA, NSA and FBI, and the ear of Congress and the Supreme Court, then yes, I dare say that there isn't a single comparison between your precious Wikipedia and the Bush administration. Perhaps you can create a bumper sticker with that cute slogan. It seems to work for the rest of your group. By the way, how is Ms. Sheehan these days?

[Neo]

Until the contributors of Wikipedia have access to every foreign leader in the world, the combined efforts of the CIA, NSA and FBI, and the ear of Congress and the Supreme Court, then yes, I dare say that there isn't a single comparison between your precious Wikipedia and the Bush administration. Perhaps you can create a bumper sticker with that cute slogan. It seems to work for the rest of your group. By the way, how is Ms. Sheehan these days?

I think the point with that remark was because of all the bullshit that the Bush adminsitration has said over the years (where are the WMDs?) or even more recently (thousands of mistakes in Iraq!?) and even ignoring things like the 9/11 commission (we aren't really any safer or more prepared!)

The point was that everyone is so eager to condemn wikipedia as a source, when if you held up Bush and Company to similar standards then you run into problems.

...busy... wish I could add more, oh well.

-Neo

[Nickodemus]

Damn it.

It is glaringly obvious that there is a shortage of reading glasses in these forums. Either that, or some of you should take a few classes in reading comprehension. There is nothing in the Libby testimony that indicates Bush authorized the divulging of Plame's name nor her position with the CIA. It's simply not there.

The allegation, if true, would basically amount to the President authorizing the declassification of pre-war intelligence relating to the impending invasion of Iraq. Whether or not this is a punishable act is up for debate. But to create a thread (yes, I'm looking at you JT) under a false premise, simply for the sake of saying "nanny nanny boo boo" is irresponsible. This is yet another case of bandwagon mob mentality run amok.

If this allegation is found to be true (remember, Libby has lied before,) this will have a profound affect on my admiration for our President. I have no room for hypocritical politicians and the President is not exempt in this case.


Wait a minute?? you admire HIM???? and admit it??? wow. I admire you NUTS. Although i still think you are nuts....

[Nuts]

Admiration comes in varying levels, and yes, I have a level of admiration for GWB. It doesn't mean that I agree with him on every issue. I admire many people whom I disagree with often, several on this very forum.

If you want specifics, I admire GWB's convictions to do what he feels is right instead of what the latest polls indicate. Right or wrong, I believe that he believes he is doing what is best for the country. This is one of the most admirable traits any person can maintain. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not his beliefs sync up with their own.

For the record, I haven't enough fingers to count the issues in which I disagree with our President. But come election time, I vote for the lesser of all evils.

[Neo]

...I believe that he believes he is doing what is best for the country.

But is it? Every dictator throughout history believed what they were doing was right.

Not that I am comparing Bush to a dictator, since that would be giving him to much credit, personally I think he is just a figure head -- a pawn even.

It may have been enough for a leader to believe what he was doing was right -- if it was his own country he was worried about. But his decisions are effecting the world!

What he believes shouldn't come into play for whats right! Would it be to much for him to possibly crawl out of the bubble hes in and step into the real world?

Most of the world hates us, or at the least, wouldn't shrug if we were blown off the face of the planet, and Bush think thats worth it to 'fight the war on terror' ?

Don't get me wrong, fighting to free the people of Iraq is a worthy goal... But where does it end? It began in Afagahnistan (anyone heard anything about them lately? I haven't)... its in Iraq now, where to after? Iran? Syria? Are we going to cause the death of another 35k civilians (not to mention lose our own sons, husbands, or fathers) to oust a small group of people?

If so many countries hate us, then why the fuck don't we just leave the entire world alone? Its not our job (nor should it) be to police the globe. But as soon as we did, we'd be getting bitched at for not doing something, Rock, Hard Place.

At the least, it would be nice if the next country we invade we didn't have to go in under false pretenses. Just come out and tell the world the truth. Lieing about WMDs to invade Iraq -- did we really need to? "We are going to go blow shit up and piss off more terrorists!" (ok that wasn't serious...) even "We are going to go dispose of an evil regime and free the people!" would be great (even if that isn't totally true).

-Neo

[Desert_Eagle]

Read my lips, Libby said nothing about Plame. Therefore, as far as we know, Bush never authorized the leaking of Plame's name nor her position. Do you not understand this or are you being intentionally dense in an effort to avoid the truth?

Didn't he say Bush authorized the releasing of recently de-classified information which contained her name, or am I missing something?

You appear to be arguing with yourself here. Nobody is taking the opposing side on this subject. I simply said that the evidence at the time indicated a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq. You're grasping at hindsight in an attempt to prove your case, which doesn't seem to be working very well for you.

Are you joking Nuts? You are clearly applying a double standard of evidence to protect your worldview. Just read what you posted. Most of this has been refuted anyways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_Al_Qaeda


Osama bin Laden's expressed hostility to Saddam's regime, critical assessment of evidence from the Iraqi National Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Congress) (the source of most of the claims of cooperation between the two) as well as the paucity of evidence for the alleged links, particularly for any substantial collaboration, have led most journalists and intelligence analysts not associated with or supporters of the Bush administration to dismiss the claimed links.

Robert Pape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape)'s exhaustive study of suicide terrorism found that "al-Qaeda's transnational suicide terrorists have come overwhelmingly from America's closest allies in the Muslim world and not at all from the Muslim regimes that the U.S. State Department considers 'state sponsors of terrorism'." [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_Al_Qaeda#_note-1) Pape notes that no al-Qaeda suicide attackers came from Iraq. Daniel Byman's study of state sponsorship of terrorism similarly did not list Iraq as a significant state sponsor, and called the al-Qaeda connection "a rationale that before the war was strained and after it seems an ever-weaker reed." [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_Al_Qaeda#_note-2) The conclusion of counterterrorism experts such as Rohan Gunaratna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohan_Gunaratna), Bruce Hoffman (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Hoffman&action=edit), Jason Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Burke), and Daniel Benjamin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Benjamin) has been that there is no evidence that suggests any collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. That was also the conclusion of specific investigations by the National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Council), the Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) and the 9/11 Commission, among others. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence) reviewed the CIA's investigation and concluded that the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of collaboration was justified.

While it is doubtful that Saddam was involved in September 11, members of his government did have contacts with al-Qaeda over the years; however, many of the links, as will be seen below, are not considered by experts and analysts as convincing evidence of a collaborative relationship. Former Counterterrorism Czar Richard A. Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke) writes, "[t]he simple fact is that lots of people, particularly in the Middle East, pass along many rumors and they end up being recorded and filed by U.S. intelligence agencies in raw reports. That does not make them 'intelligence'. Intelligence involves analysis of raw reports, not merely their enumeration or weighing them by the pound. Analysis, in turn, involves finding independent means of corroborating the reports. Did al-Qaeda agents ever talk to Iraqi agents? I would be startled if they had not. I would also be startled if American, Israeli, Iranian, British, or Jordanian agents had somehow failed to talk to al-Qaeda or Iraqi agents. Talking to each other is what intelligence agents do, often under assumed identities or 'false flags,' looking for information or possible defectors." [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_Al_Qaeda#_note-3)

While it's not any "collaborative relationship" there are many reports from credible sources that indicate links between Al Qaeda and Iraq were quite common.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051125568646
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3634481

Damn, looky there, we got sum real dagum sources! So sorry Wikipedia, I left you out.

1. Wikipedia is a compendium of sources. When wikipedia states a claim citing abcnews as it's source, is it also invalid? What if they cite thestar, is that invalid?

2. You don't even recognize the sheer audacity in citing documents released that were released in 2006 as "evidence at the time indicating a tie." Evidence by 2003 clearly demonstrated a lack of any unusual relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The majority concensus at the time by most counter-terrorism experts was that no collaborative relationship existed, and Bush was apparently aware of this fact but decided to fix the intelligence around the war.

3. The shaky claims themselves aren't even anything out of the ordinary. Spies meet with terrorists all the time, in fact it would be unusual if they didn't. How else are they supposed to gather intelligence?

4. "The Pentagon has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy." So wikipedia is an invalid source but these documents are not? By what standard of reasoning, the double one?

The report of the U.S. 9/11 Commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has already concluded that bin Laden met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in late 1994 or early 1995. The document ABC referenced suggests for the first time that the contacts were personally approved by Saddam, ABC said.

Never mind that the rationale for war was not an Al Qaeda - Iraq connection. Never mind that there is no impeachment proceedings against the President for this glaringly obvious dereliction of duty. Never mind that the only sources to make these claims are left-wing blogs and a few Democratic loons in Congress.

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." He stated evidence for the tie was "overwhelming."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."
In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Bush describing his Iraq war rationale:



We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. 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. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html


If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.

Trying to suggest that Saddam is a terrorist and Iraq is a terrorist state.

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction, as well.

Of course we can spin this and pretend like the president is not using his oratory skills to paint a connection in peoples minds with Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully.

Um, no he didn't train and finance Al Qaeda, thats obviously bullshit.

Hutch, I think, first of all, it's hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there's an enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom and we're not changing. And, therefore, so long as there's a terrorist network like al Qaeda, and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them -- we're at war.

And so I -- you know, obviously, I've thought long and hard about the use of troops. I think about it all the time. It is my responsibility to commit the troops. I believe we'll prevail -- I know we'll prevail. And out of that disarmament of Saddam will come a better world, particularly for the people who live in Iraq.

But no, he's wasn't talking about Saddam when he said "willing to fund them [Al Qaeda], finance them, and equip them." He's just sayin. Na mean?

He just sayin yo.

I would say that you're grasping at straws. Until this debacle is properly investigated, we live in a country where we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Posting a developing story in an effort to prove that Bush has lied seems a tad bit desperate. Can't you find anything else? If President Bush is found to have lied, I expect Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings. Until that time, you have nothing but an empty accusation.

Nuts, I asked you specifically how it would affect your "admiration of president Bush" if it were shown to you that President Bush lied/mislead the public about the nature of the wiretapping program. Since we know you are going to shift the goal post to protect your worldview, the question must be answered before evidence is provided.

Of course, we know your more primarily interested in protecting your worldview than finding out the truth. Your position is basically "well if they don't impeach him then he didn't lie because if he lied he would certainly get impeached." Forget the fact that Karl Rove threatened to blacklist any senator who voted for an impeachment proceeding. Forget the fact that the administration and most republicans are against even investigating the issue. None of this is unusual to Nuts.

So far, you've only strengthened my convictions by posting like some schizo paranoid delusional who's afraid that GWB is going to break down your door and steal your soul. The more people like you that occupy space on our planet, the more I will tend to align myself with the Conservative movement. There are people in these very forums that are capable of holding a completely opposite viewpoint, yet they substantiate it with logic and reasoning that supports their beliefs, not their condemnations. Nobody will ever convince me to see their viewpoint by condemning my own. Can't you see this?

Ok...

I'm paranoid, delusional, and schizo because I believe George Bush is going to break down my door and steal my soul. Oh wait, no I don't.

Until the contributors of Wikipedia have access to every foreign leader in the world, the combined efforts of the CIA, NSA and FBI, and the ear of Congress and the Supreme Court, then yes, I dare say that there isn't a single comparison between your precious Wikipedia and the Bush administration. Perhaps you can create a bumper sticker with that cute slogan. It seems to work for the rest of your group. By the way, how is Ms. Sheehan these days?

1. I don't know I have never met Ms. Sheehan.

2. The only differance being that wikipedia would not be able to conceal information which contradicted some alleged vested interest they would have in doing so (there is none with wikipedia, can't say the same for Bush). You know like how when the CIA, NSA, and FBI are telling wikipedia that there is no threat but wikipedia decides to fire those officials who say there is no threat and don't even bother to mention them or their testimonies in the article. Wikipedia also wouldn't be able to make a case with a few questionable documents and sources versus a mountain of evidence which contradicted those few questionable documents.

Admiration comes in varying levels, and yes, I have a level of admiration for GWB. It doesn't mean that I agree with him on every issue. I admire many people whom I disagree with often, several on this very forum.

If you want specifics, I admire GWB's convictions to do what he feels is right instead of what the latest polls indicate. Right or wrong, I believe that he believes he is doing what is best for the country. This is one of the most admirable traits any person can

All dictators believe what they are doing is right. I don't see how that is such a strong quality. It's like what the daily show said:

"The thing I like about president Bush is that no matter how the situation or facts change, his opinion remains the same."

[Nuts]

Didn't he say Bush authorized the releasing of recently de-classified information which contained her name, or am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing alot. Plame's name was never mentioned in the testimony, period. End of story, you're wrong, I'm right.

Are you joking Nuts? You are clearly applying a double standard of evidence to protect your worldview. Just read what you posted. Most of this has been refuted anyways
Two of those three links are from 2 weeks ago. Are you telling me that they have been debunked in the course of 14 days? Or did you just fail to read the articles again and jump to conclusions like normal?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_Al_Qaeda
Listen to me carefully. Wikipedia is not and never will be a viable source for accurate information on polarizing subjects such as politics or religion. You cannot have an accurate accounting of any situation where there are to diametrically opposing viewpoints. Do you not understand this?

1. Wikipedia is a compendium of sources. When wikipedia states a claim citing abcnews as it's source, is it also invalid? What if they cite thestar, is that invalid?
Wikipedia rarely cites sources. If this information is so easily obtained, why not post links from members of Reuters or the AP. I would be much more impressed if you actually did some homework instead of cutting and pasting the rhetoric on Wikipedia.

You don't even recognize the sheer audacity in citing documents released that were released in 2006 as "evidence at the time indicating a tie."
I'm uncertain why you feel the need to prove something here. You'll get no debate from me on this issue, so it seems you're simply assuming that I'll take the opposing side of the debate. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of arguing.

I said, "Nobody is taking the opposing side on this subject. I simply said that the evidence at the time indicated a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq." Meaning, evidence that was presented indicated a link. The fact that most of this evidence has been debunked is a disappointing turn of events, but it's most assuredly nothing new. Much of our pre-war intelligence was incorrect and most world leaders came to similar conclusions (i.e. United Nations Resolution 1441 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement ).)

It's obvious that you're using hindsight to condemn the administration, so why does your condemnation not reach out to members of Congress, or the United Nations Security Council that came to their own conclusions based on erroneous information compiled throughout the world community. The fact of the matter is that Iraq played a excellent game of deception and to this day we still do not know what capabilities were at hand in the Iraqi government. The mere idea that Russia may have been subverting our operational efforts lends more credence to the possibility that Iraq was playing us for fools the entire time. We may never know the entirety of what capabilities Iraq possessed.

4. "The Pentagon has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy." So wikipedia is an invalid source but these documents are not? By what standard of reasoning, the double one?
I've explained myself repeatedly. If you can't comprehend the difference between a legitimate news gathering operation and a user-edited news blog, then I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss on the matter.

Nuts, I asked you specifically how it would affect your "admiration of president Bush" if it were shown to you that President Bush lied/mislead the public about the nature of the wiretapping program. Since we know you are going to shift the goal post to protect your worldview, the question must be answered before evidence is provided.
I answered your question, not once, but twice in this thread. Grandstanding a bit are we?
"If President Bush is found to have lied, I expect Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings."
"If this allegation is found to be true (remember, Libby has lied before,) this will have a profound affect on my admiration for our President. I have no room for hypocritical politicians and the President is not exempt in this case."

Of course, we know your more primarily interested in protecting your worldview than finding out the truth. Your position is basically "well if they don't impeach him then he didn't lie because if he lied he would certainly get impeached." Forget the fact that Karl Rove threatened to blacklist any senator who voted for an impeachment proceeding. Forget the fact that the administration and most republicans are against even investigating the issue. None of this is unusual to Nuts.
The Congress managed to impeach Clinton over a blow-job and the subsequent lie. Do you really think that the Democrats wouldn't have acted already had they had something solid? Oh wait, black helicopters would swoop from the skies and take their families, is that it?

All dictators believe what they are doing is right. I don't see how that is such a strong quality.
As do all leaders of the world. The quality can be evil or good depending on the end result. Your attempt to minimize this trait shows a lack of character in your own. Would you prefer a President that consults the public opinion polls for every decision he/she makes? Sure you would.

It's like what the daily show said:

"The thing I like about president Bush is that no matter how the situation or facts change, his opinion remains the same."

Annnnnd we're done. There's no better indicator about a person's political nature than their admiration for John Stewart, the king of political slander under the guise of comedy.
I'll save you the trouble of a reply by admitting my own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edit: I going to refrain from posting any further on this matter. I came into this thread to correct an erroneous assumption. I have accomplished what I set out to do, with the exception of Desert Eagle's inability to comprehend the testimony. I'm uncertain why this thread has digressed to a condemnation of the war on Iraq and the Bush Administration, but it's tiresome. There are other active threads that are carrying these exact same themes and I see no reason to continue this one since it seems to have gone horrible astray from the original intent.

[Desert_Eagle]

Two of those three links are from 2 weeks ago. Are you telling me that they have been debunked in the course of 14 days? Or did you just fail to read the articles again and jump to conclusions like normal?

See my point. Your not even aware of the fact that most of this information has been released already. We already knew about the Sudan contact, that has been common knowledge for years now. Have you read the 9/11 comission report? I have.

The Operation Iraqi Freedom documents [source of most of the claims] have the explicit disclaimer that the authenticity is completely unverified as are any translations.

This is old news Nuts, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article on Saddam an Al Qaeda, instead of you know, poisoning the well. You might learn something new.

Listen to me carefully. Wikipedia is not and never will be a viable source for accurate information on polarizing subjects such as politics or religion. You cannot have an accurate accounting of any situation where there are to diametrically opposing viewpoints. Do you not understand this?

Begin your refutation of the wikipedia sources then. Oh wait, there isn't exactly any specific fact which you are calling into question here, your simply poisoning the well. It's easier to discredit a source at face value instead of reading it and trying to find a factual inaccuracy (if one exists).

You have no rationale basis for stating that anything contained within that article is false. None at all. Pure unfounded speculation. You claim the article contains some kind of inaccuracy, prove it.

Wikipedia rarely cites sources. If this information is so easily obtained, why not post links from members of Reuters or the AP. I would be much more impressed if you actually did some homework instead of cutting and pasting the rhetoric on Wikipedia.

1. False
2. Again, wikipedia is a compendium of sources. If there is a specific fact or claim which is not supported by the link, it will say "citation needed." Otherwise, they is a link to the source. Instead of copying and pasting the various sources, I will link you to wikipedia, where you may read up on the sources and determine their validity. That is of course, if you even bother to read the article, which you most certainly have not.

I'm uncertain why you feel the need to prove something here. You'll get no debate from me on this issue, so it seems you're simply assuming that I'll take the opposing side of the debate. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of arguing.

I said, "Nobody is taking the opposing side on this subject. I simply said that the evidence at the time indicated a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq." Meaning, evidence that was presented indicated a link. The fact that most of this evidence has been debunked is a disappointing turn of events, but it's most assuredly nothing new. Much of our pre-war intelligence was incorrect and most world leaders came to similar conclusions (i.e. United Nations Resolution 1441 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement).)

No, Nuts, the evidence at the time did not indicate any kind of unusual relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The fixed, ambiguous, and hand-picked little evidence which did indicate such a tie contradicted the majority concensus of the intelligence community. But I guess counter-terrorism Czars like Richard Clarke are less trustworthy than ambiguous, unverified reports from the field.

You know like when the intelligence community is telling him that there really is no collaborative relationship and he decides to fire those who are telling him that, there seems to be a problem there.

It's obvious that you're using hindsight to condemn the administration, so why does your condemnation not reach out to members of Congress, or the United Nations Security Council that came to their own conclusions based on erroneous information compiled throughout the world community. The fact of the matter is that Iraq played a excellent game of deception and to this day we still do not know what capabilities were at hand in the Iraqi government. The mere idea that Russia may have been subverting our operational efforts lends more credence to the possibility that Iraq was playing us for fools the entire time. We may never know the entirety of what capabilities Iraq possessed.


Please don't give me that bullshit about the Security Council agreeing with the Iraq war. Why do you think nobody wanted to move in until the security council passed a resolution authorizing force? Why were the security council members opposed to the war?

This all makes sense to Nuts because he cites resolution 1441. Forget the fact that the security council was clearly opposed to the war (otherwise they would have authorized force and went in with us).

And Bush was fixing the intelligence around the war. Ever heard of the downing street memo?

I've explained myself repeatedly. If you can't comprehend the difference between a legitimate news gathering operation and a user-edited news blog, then I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss on the matter.

I guess not. Your claim is that a cadre of documents which have the disclaimer "The US government has not verified the authenticity or factual accuracy of these documents, nor any translations when available" are a valid source but wikipedia (which uses many of the same sources you claim to be valid) is not a valid source even when you have not listed a single inaccuracy regarding the article in question.

I'm calling bullshit on you Nuts. You say there is something wrong with the article, I say thats bullshit. You have no proof, therefore I am right by default. Prove it or confirm the fact that you are full of shit.

I answered your question, not once, but twice in this thread. Grandstanding a bit are we?
"If President Bush is found to have lied, I expect Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings."
"If this allegation is found to be true (remember, Libby has lied before,) this will have a profound affect on my admiration for our President. I have no room for hypocritical politicians and the President is not exempt in this case."

Great. Just don't shift the goalpost.

“Finally, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that protect our civil liberties. The Patriot Act was written with clear safeguards to ensure the law is applied fairly. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”--President George Bush, June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio


“A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order. Now, we've used things like roving wiretaps on drug dealers before. Roving wiretaps mean you change your cell phone. And yet, we weren't able to use roving wiretaps on terrorists. And so what the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America.”
--President George Bush, July 14, 2004, in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin


“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
--President George Bush, April 20, 2004, in Buffalo, New York

So what do you have to say about those lies Nuts?
*Goal post shift time! We need to move it up a few yards.

The Congress managed to impeach Clinton over a blow-job and the subsequent lie. Do you really think that the Democrats wouldn't have acted already had they had something solid? Oh wait, black helicopters would swoop from the skies and take their families, is that it?

No, not that straw man again. I've explained to you the nature of Karl Roves blacklisting any senator who votes to censure president Bush.

As do all leaders of the world. The quality can be evil or good depending on the end result. Your attempt to minimize this trait shows a lack of character in your own. Would you prefer a President that consults the public opinion polls for every decision he/she makes? Sure you would.

OF COURSE I WOULD. Such is the nature of being a democratic leader

Annnnnd we're done. There's no better indicator about a person's political nature than their admiration for John Stewart, the king of political slander under the guise of comedy.
I'll save you the trouble of a reply by admitting my own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edit: I going to refrain from posting any further on this matter. I came into this thread to correct an erroneous assumption. I have accomplished what I set out to do, with the exception of Desert Eagle's inability to comprehend the testimony. I'm uncertain why this thread has digressed to a condemnation of the war on Iraq and the Bush Administration, but it's tiresome. There are other active threads that are carrying these exact same themes and I see no reason to continue this one since it seems to have gone horrible astray from the original intent.

Cya~