Palin is a heroin or on it

[Poe]

What a statesman he was.  Look out Jefferson and Lincoln.


Don't be sheep, nothing's changed.

[RIVERS]

What a statesman he was.  Look out Jefferson and Lincoln.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w_bylg-Jjz8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w_bylg-Jjz8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Don't be sheep, nothing's changed.

'Poe'?...could you do me a favor and set your OTF Franchise team line-up.?

You have been remiss.

April 30th I believe.

Thanks.

[Rick]

Chalabi
Chalabi was already loaded before his "intel" was used by Colin Powell to prove Saddam had WMDs. He didn't want money, he wanted Saddam gone. While the use of his fabrications was a mistake, it is hardly a case of Bush paying somebody off.

The morons in the White House came into power with a vendetta
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/cron.html
The US government had been trying to keep Saddam from using devastating weapons since he attacked Iran. It is ridiculous to believe that Bush was the only President who wanted Hussein gone.

Shipping weapons out before we got there? To whom?  With our satellites why weren't they caught?
Some went to Syria. Some were buried in Western Iraq. Some were destroyed on site. This was all caught on tape or documented via firsthand testimony. It's hard to miss huge convoys of trucks. We don't know what was in them but the assumption that these trucks, shipping out sometimes minutes before UN inspectors arrived at the suspect sites, contained prohibited materiel seems highly likely.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7658.doc.htm
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1673944/posts?page=110
You would think this would have been front-page news.

Why is Obama not given the same amount of faultlessness?
I'll ask you to show me one instance where the national media or a majority of public opinion has come down unfairly against Obama, but I feel like it will only be educational. That has categorically never happened.

They really don't want a bill to pass.
That's a little vague, Rick. Some more info would be nice.

Chalabi was long considered an excellent source for inside information on Iraq. Throughout the build-up to the 2003 war, he was paid $335,000 monthly by the Pentagon for providing intelligence. Additional sums paid by the State Department to the INC exceeded $33 million, according to a US General Accounting office report in 2004. State Department officials, concerned about these expenditures, conducted an audit of Chalabi's group in early 2001.
On 19 May 2004, The U.S. announced that effective in July 2004 Chalabi's INC would no longer receive its $335,000 monthly allowance. In dawn raids the next morning, Iraqi police and American troops surrounded Chalabi's headquarters and home in Baghdad, arrested two of his aides, and searched the premises. US officials now suspected something that apparently never occurred to them before the war: that Chalabi, who isn't an American, was not entirely loyal to the American side. Insiders say he was illicitly funneling information on American plans to the Iranian government, while helping the US form its Iraq policy and plan its Iraq war.
From Bush's Treasury secretary:
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill.

From the Washington Times:  In 2007, President George W. Bush teamed with Senate Democrats and some Republicans to try to pass a bill on immigration reform, and rewrote the rules for legal immigration and provided money for some border security.

The bill lost on an unusual majority filibuster that saw 15 Democrats and one independent join 37 Republicans in blocking the measure.

Bush immediately dropped the WMD rhetoric as soon as we had invaded.  What are weapons of mass destruction?  That was the gotcha, that's how he deceived the American people.  The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" immediately conjures the thought of nuclear weapons.  But there was no evidence of that.  He knew that, that's why he tried to fabricate some and outed a CIA agent as punishment to her husband for calling him on it.

Now if we're talking about chemical and biological weapons, yeah, he had those.  We know he did cause we have the receipts for them.  The biological agents came from NIH in Bethesda, MD, my man.  They were part of a program to send the raw ingredients for vaccinations to 'friendly' third world nations.

Bush fabricated evidence and outed a CIA agent? No. Wilson's report actually led the Senate (as well as reasonable people) to believe that Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Iraq had the technology and the scientific expertise to build nuclear weapons, and Hussein was looking to buy. Now, Hicks is right; Iraq was not close to being a direct threat to us. But Iraq's status as a terrorist haven, as well as Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons, would have been a direct threat to Middle Eastern stability.

And Bush didn't "out" Plame. There is no proof of that, nor was there any reason for him to do so.

Where the chemical weapons came from
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Chalabi's charge, the Iraqi National Congress, was paid to provide intel. Most of his intel was fabricated, and some of it was used to support Colin Powell's case for war.

You wrote that Bush paid Chalabi to lie to support his case for war. This is technically correct, but the implication that Bush knew Chalabi was lying and paid him for his trouble is false. Chalabi wanted Saddam gone. Chalabi lied so that we would overthrow Saddam and he could assume the presidency. After it was revealed that he'd lied, he said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter what was said, all that matters is that Saddam is overthrown." He didn't want or need US money.

"Go find me a way to [overthrow Saddam]" had been the tone of our relations with Iraq since the Gulf War. W probably assumed that after ten years of hostility he didn't have to go over the reasons for Hussein's removal. Treasury Secretary O'Neill was probably complicit in funding Chalabi's INC, whose expressed purpose was to overthrow Saddam, which we'd been doing since 1992.

[RIVERS]

Bush fabricated evidence and outed a CIA agent? No. Wilson's report actually led the Senate (as well as reasonable people) to believe that Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Iraq had the technology and the scientific expertise to build nuclear weapons, and Hussein was looking to buy. Now, Hicks is right; Iraq was not close to being a direct threat to us. But Iraq's status as a terrorist haven, as well as Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons, would have been a direct threat to Middle Eastern stability.

And Bush didn't "out" Plame. There is no proof of that, nor was there any reason for him to do so.

Where the chemical weapons came from
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Now come-on 'Tsiz'---Bush didn't directly 'out' Plame?, but his Chief of Staff and certainly Dick Cheney did. It was pay-back for the Novek piece the was published about all the lies of WMD's...and it ended with the only Man of Honor in the Administration resigning...No, not Bushes former Chief of Staff---I'm talking about Colin Powell.

There was never anything close to WMD's in Iraq..it's been proven over and over...don't perpetuate proven lies---lies to his Secretary of State ...THAT"S HIGH LEVEL LYING.  He resigned his office as an honorable man, used as a TOKEN before the United Nations, set-up as a fool, used as a token player, by an Administration that KNEW the real facts.

Please stop denying the truth that we all know today...there was nothing in Iraq that ever PROVED otherwise.

[RIVERS]

Chalabi's charge, the Iraqi National Congress, was paid to provide intel. Most of his intel was fabricated, and some of it was used to support Colin Powell's case for war.

You wrote that Bush paid Chalabi to lie to support his case for war. This is technically correct, but the implication that Bush knew Chalabi was lying and paid him for his trouble is false. Chalabi wanted Saddam gone. Chalabi lied so that we would overthrow Saddam and he could assume the presidency. After it was revealed that he'd lied, he said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter what was said, all that matters is that Saddam is overthrown." He didn't want or need US money.

"Go find me a way to [overthrow Saddam]" had been the tone of our relations with Iraq since the Gulf War. W probably assumed that after ten years of hostility he didn't have to go over the reasons for Hussein's removal. Treasury Secretary O'Neill was probably complicit in funding Chalabi's INC, whose expressed purpose was to overthrow Saddam, which we'd been doing since 1992.

Oh Please...WHAT A BUNCH OF BS.

Whatever lies Chalabi had were quite convenient to a pre-set Bush agenda...They just worked the Chababi lies to fit thier own misguided BS.


Even if you think I'm wrong?...well it would be pretty fucking irresponsible to base intellegence and war on the word of Chablis.

EITHER WAY?...Bush was irresponsible and reckless. And his eagerness to bed-down with Chabalabi just proves that.

Bush is going to rely on intelligence of an Iraqi???...is THAT YOUR AND HIS EXCUSE???

That's fucked-up.  Second or third in line...Iraqi., oil guy..."let's trust his him".

George Bush was the dumbest hick I've ever seen in a position of responsibility....He was a President?...just goes to show ya. Anyone can become one.

[Poe]

Bush fabricated evidence and outed a CIA agent? No. Wilson's report actually led the Senate (as well as reasonable people) to believe that Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Iraq had the technology and the scientific expertise to build nuclear weapons, and Hussein was looking to buy. Now, Hicks is right; Iraq was not close to being a direct threat to us. But Iraq's status as a terrorist haven, as well as Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons, would have been a direct threat to Middle Eastern stability.

And Bush didn't "out" Plame. There is no proof of that, nor was there any reason for him to do so.

Where the chemical weapons came from
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Yes, I knew about the German connection for the chemical weapons.  That's why I specifically mentioned the biological weapons whose source materials have receipts currently sitting in the records building at NIH and in the GSA.

Iraq was a threat to it's neighbors.  Iraq was not MORE of a threat to it's neighbors than Iran or North Korea.

Russia is a threat to it's neighbors.

Iraq was NOT a terrorist haven.  Draw a distinction between political disagreement and evil.  Those who oppose the way you think are not automatically evil.  Saddam Hussein would have killed Al Qaeda members on site.  He viewed them as a threat.  If there really was a list of people Hussein wanted dead you can rest assured that Osama bin Laden was on it.  Just maybe not as high on the list as George Sr.

Bush didn't out Plame, Reagan didn't know about the weapons and North really couldn't recall.  We have a saying in the IT world: once is an anomaly, twice is a coincidence, three or more is a pattern.

[Poe]

Now come-on 'Tsiz'---Bush didn't directly 'out' Plame?, but his Chief of Staff and certainly Dick Cheney did. It was pay-back for the Novek piece the was published about all the lies of WMD's...and it ended with the only Man of Honor in the Administration resigning...No, not Bushes former Chief of Staff---I'm talking about Colin Powell.

There was never anything close to WMD's in Iraq..it's been proven over and over...don't perpetuate proven lies---lies to his Secretary of State ...THAT"S HIGH LEVEL LYING.  He resigned his office as an honorable man, used as a TOKEN before the United Nations, set-up as a fool, used as a token player, by an Administration that KNEW the real facts.

Please stop denying the truth that we all know today...there was nothing in Iraq that ever PROVED otherwise.

I believe Powell knew the truth too.  He had intricate knowledge of the inner dealings of Hussein's government.  I think he finally had enough of a bad situation and quit.

The only truly honorable member of the Bush administration was Tom Ridge.  He stepped down as soon as he started learning the truth about the administration.  Ask him, he won't talk about it.  He doesn't have anything to say about the Bush administration which in DC means he has nothing good to say but doesn't want ostracized from his own party.

[RIVERS]

One more freakin' thing 'Tsiz'-

Over 4,200 US service men and women have died in this war. THEY ARE DEAD, gone forever. 4,200 young vibrant lives stolen from thier loved ones. For a 'war' that has been, and forever-will be based on a personal vendetta at worst, bad intelligence at best. Either way?...who was Commander in Chief. I want to point fingers and place blame on the person responsible. Please don't keep 'excusing' thier arrogance and stupidity and folly here.

Over 30,000 wounded fellow Americans...all for an agenda that was forwarded under an umbrella of 'Democracy' and protection from 'Al-Qaeda'. We had no right to invade Iraq under the rules established by United Nations agreement (unless trickery was involved....even then, it's a dubious call).

Please...PLEASE, do not defend the mistakes of the Bush Administration. It just will make me terribly sad, and infuriatingly mad.

4,200 YOUNG FOLKS DEAD.

30,000 YOUNG SOULS SEVERELY WOUNDED.


BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT

I think the past have RAPED the future enough...stop excusing them.

[Rick]

Chalabi's charge, the Iraqi National Congress, was paid to provide intel. Most of his intel was fabricated, and some of it was used to support Colin Powell's case for war.

You wrote that Bush paid Chalabi to lie to support his case for war. This is technically correct, but the implication that Bush knew Chalabi was lying and paid him for his trouble is false. Chalabi wanted Saddam gone. Chalabi lied so that we would overthrow Saddam and he could assume the presidency. After it was revealed that he'd lied, he said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter what was said, all that matters is that Saddam is overthrown." He didn't want or need US money.

"Go find me a way to [overthrow Saddam]" had been the tone of our relations with Iraq since the Gulf War. W probably assumed that after ten years of hostility he didn't have to go over the reasons for Hussein's removal. Treasury Secretary O'Neill was probably complicit in funding Chalabi's INC, whose expressed purpose was to overthrow Saddam, which we'd been doing since 1992.

Are you reading from Karl Rove's old press releases?  You are saying everything that has been proven false could have a bit of truth in it, so it's true.  How can you disargree with those of us who said Bush was a moron during his term in office, and now that we give him credit for having some intelligence, you say he was a moron and knew nothing?  You make absolutely no sense..."it is technically true that Bush paid Chalabi to lie to support his case for war, but it's false Bush knew Chalabi was lying"?  What a huge super tanker load of horse shit.  At first I thought you were serious.  Now, I think you've been drinking Rove Kool-Aid.

[RIVERS]

I believe Powell knew the truth too.  He had intricate knowledge of the inner dealings of Hussein's government.  I think he finally had enough of a bad situation and quit.

The only truly honorable member of the Bush administration was Tom Ridge.  He stepped down as soon as he started learning the truth about the administration.  Ask him, he won't talk about it.  He doesn't have anything to say about the Bush administration which in DC means he has nothing good to say but doesn't want ostracized from his own party.

Powell was used...I don't think he knew. He wasn't interested in the political workings of Suddam's government...remember, he was a General that really was never interested in Political workings. That's why he was the perfect 'foil' in the whole play. Mr Cheney was working the political and espionage end...Powell was more of a figure-head that they used as Secretary of State to deliver messages to foreign Ambassadorships, then to the UN.

[RIVERS]

I believe Powell knew the truth too.  He had intricate knowledge of the inner dealings of Hussein's government.  I think he finally had enough of a bad situation and quit.

The only truly honorable member of the Bush administration was Tom Ridge.  He stepped down as soon as he started learning the truth about the administration.  Ask him, he won't talk about it.  He doesn't have anything to say about the Bush administration which in DC means he has nothing good to say but doesn't want ostracized from his own party.

I honestly think Powell was the 'tragic figure' of 'Act 4-Scene -1'.

He was apolitical, if I recall. He was a respected General, but best of all for Bush-Cheney?...he was a Black man who had the respect of Democrats and Republicans AND he had credibility from the World-press.

What better person to be used in a propaganda campaign than a respected person that is naive to politics?...it was a perfect set-up!!!!

(Cheney snickers in the corner of the room)

[RIVERS]

Chalabi's charge, the Iraqi National Congress, was paid to provide intel. Most of his intel was fabricated, and some of it was used to support Colin Powell's case for war.

You wrote that Bush paid Chalabi to lie to support his case for war. This is technically correct, but the implication that Bush knew Chalabi was lying and paid him for his trouble is false. Chalabi wanted Saddam gone. Chalabi lied so that we would overthrow Saddam and he could assume the presidency. After it was revealed that he'd lied, he said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter what was said, all that matters is that Saddam is overthrown." He didn't want or need US money.

"Go find me a way to [overthrow Saddam]" had been the tone of our relations with Iraq since the Gulf War. W probably assumed that after ten years of hostility he didn't have to go over the reasons for Hussein's removal. Treasury Secretary O'Neill was probably complicit in funding Chalabi's INC, whose expressed purpose was to overthrow Saddam, which we'd been doing since 1992.

Let's assume that everything you just typed was true.


What does that say about George Bush?

It says he was an incompetent fool that was duped by a 3rd in line hopeful for the Iraqi Leadership.

Do you really believe that trash?...I don't.

It was a calculated....systematic...assembley...of lies a to go to war with Iraq.


The most infuriating thing?...is that folks won't admit how stupid and unable to plan ahead the 'leaders' of our Country were.

I will not forgive them for friends that are dead...I will not forgive them for not taking War seriously.

No, I will not forgive them for People weeping at night, knowing thier loved ones will not come home...or will come home with horrific injuries.

No, I will not forgive...I will not forget.

[RIVERS]

Bush fabricated evidence and outed a CIA agent? No. Wilson's report actually led the Senate (as well as reasonable people) to believe that Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Iraq had the technology and the scientific expertise to build nuclear weapons, and Hussein was looking to buy. Now, Hicks is right; Iraq was not close to being a direct threat to us. But Iraq's status as a terrorist haven, as well as Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons, would have been a direct threat to Middle Eastern stability.

And Bush didn't "out" Plame. There is no proof of that, nor was there any reason for him to do so.

Where the chemical weapons came from
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Please...there reasons for doing so was defamation and embarrassment...but they actually broke National Security protocol in doing so. (They had a good laugh, they should have been charged with espionage).

Nothing in the report that Suddam HAD anything...had the expertise? PERHAPS. Willingness to purchase?..PERHAPS.

HE HAD NOTHING...YOU KNOW IT. I KNOW IT. BUSH KNEW IT.   

I want to buy a NUCLEAR WEAPON TOO...that doesn't make me a threat to the US....until I have a threat to the US.

A "Terrorist haven"--gee where have I heard that before.


'A nest of Al-Qaeda'..is that next "t-Siz"?