Pledge Allegiance to the Flag....

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ken , what I believe to be true is this ....notice the dates.



http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...9/06/bush_wmd/


Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

Now you need to watch for tell-tale phrases in news reports, like "former CIA officers and “unidentified sources”. For if any of this was the truth you can bet your ass that Congress would have had impeachment charges drafted and served up faster then the speed of light given their love for the President. The fact that not a single article of impeachment has been advanced on these issues leads one of reasonable mind to believe that either none of this is true or that it was embellished in such a manner as to be considered nothing more then the ravings of disgruntled employees and of no merit.

Again all you have are innuendos of alleged bad acts published in a news article that if they could hold up to any scrutiny they would have led to Congressional action. The lack of action tells the real story.

Don't believe everything you read or hear from the media. They have been known to be generators of lies themselves.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Giantone

PsyOps,I accept that but that does'nt have a thing to do with the fact Bush made up reasons to go to war.He lied,he was told there were no more weapons of MD and he ignored it.

You accept what? That Saddam is the one that lied and misled us into believing he was still armed? No you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be calling Bush the liar.

The IAEA said there were no WMD were the inspectors; yet they were still demanding to go in for more inspections. Why would they feel a need to do this if there were none there? I’ll tell you why… No one believed them. Why? Because Saddam was still making himself look like he was armed.

The UNSC didn't still felt it was necessary to unanimously ratify UNR 1441. Who manipulated the facts to deceive the UNSC? Who deceived Congress when they had the same intel Bush had? Are you going to tell me Bush single-handedly duped everyone? There were some in the international intel community telling Bush Saddam was still armed and there were some that didn’t believe he was. Bush had to chose who to believe. Given world events he had to err on the side of caution. It turns out he was wrong. Not lied; WRONG! There’s a difference.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Now you need to watch for tell-tale phrases in news reports, like "former CIA officers and “unidentified sources”. For if any of this was the truth you can bet your ass that Congress would have had impeachment charges drafted and served up faster then the speed of light given their love for the President. The fact that not a single article of impeachment has been advanced on these issues leads one of reasonable mind to believe that either none of this is true or that it was embellished in such a manner as to be considered nothing more then the ravings of disgruntled employees and of no merit.

Again all you have are innuendos of alleged bad acts published in a news article that if they could hold up to any scrutiny they would have led to Congressional action. The lack of action tells the real story.

Don't believe everything you read or hear from the media. They have been known to be generators of lies themselves.

But wasn't there all the hype about doing just that prior and shortly after the dems taking control of Congress.

[Giantone]

Who manipulated the facts to deceive the UNSC? Who deceived Congress when they had the same intel Bush had? Are you going to tell me Bush single-handedly duped everyone?

Yes..........



"Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD. "

[Baja28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes..........

"Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD. "

You need to pack your ass up and go back to Berkley. Or sit on your roof and wait for Hale-Bop to pluck you off.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

But wasn't there all the hype about doing just that prior and shortly after the dems taking control of Congress.

Hype yes, action no. What does that lead one to believe?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes..........

The dumbest president to ever set foot in the WH duped the entire world into believing Saddam was armed? You border on BDS my friend.

Edit: The "dumbest president" line was ... just in case...

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Hype yes, action no. What does that lead one to believe?

The real liars are the democrats for misleading Americans into believing Bush was the liar. A whole lotta lyin' going on.

Hey, if they can use it, so can I. Right?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The dumbest president to ever set foot in the WH duped the entire world into believing Saddam was armed? You border on BDS my friend.

Hell no,he had help.......................VP.



Were you trying to cover up your own reliance on misinformation about Iraqi W.M.D. by blaming the C.I.A. and anybody else within range, like Mr. Wilson?

More than anybody, Mr. Vice President, you made the argument in the run-up to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And one senses, in the indictment and the trial testimony, that by the early summer of 2003, there was panic in your office that the W.M.D. had failed to materialize.

So when Ambassador Wilson came forward, you seem to have been infuriated. You tried to blame the C.I.A., and then your office tried to discredit Mr. Wilson by arguing that he had simply enjoyed a junket arranged by his wife.

Robert Grenier, a C.I.A. official, told the court that he thought the White House was “trying to avoid responsibility for positions that they took with regard to the truth about whether or not Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.” So did this all arise from an attempted cover-up?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Hell no,he had help.......................VP.



Were you trying to cover up your own reliance on misinformation about Iraqi W.M.D. by blaming the C.I.A. and anybody else within range, like Mr. Wilson?

More than anybody, Mr. Vice President, you made the argument in the run-up to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And one senses, in the indictment and the trial testimony, that by the early summer of 2003, there was panic in your office that the W.M.D. had failed to materialize.

So when Ambassador Wilson came forward, you seem to have been infuriated. You tried to blame the C.I.A., and then your office tried to discredit Mr. Wilson by arguing that he had simply enjoyed a junket arranged by his wife.

Robert Grenier, a C.I.A. official, told the court that he thought the White House was “trying to avoid responsibility for positions that they took with regard to the truth about whether or not Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.” So did this all arise from an attempted cover-up?

Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Feinstein, Ms. Milulski, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Kerry you sent president Clinton a letter in 1998 stating the following:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Why did you fabricate the facts in order for the president to dredge up a war against Iraq? You had to know the intel was faulty. Right?

And Ms. Albright you also stated the following in 1998:

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."

Can you explain how you could possibly come to such a conclusion when it was obvious that there were no WMD in Iraq?

And Mr. Berger also made the same false statement about Iraq’s WMD in 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Can you explain this lie? We'll get to the top secret documents, related tot this subject, you stole later.

And Mr, Ritter, you are an expert and have first-hand experience in the inspection of Iraq’s WMD programs. Can you explain how you could come to state such a lie in 1998? I mean knowing what we know today:

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."

And President Clinton, can you please explain to us how you could make such a false statement in 1998:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

First question is: Why didn’t you respond? Second question is: How could you possibly not know this was a false statement? Can we guess that you knew it was false and it was your intent to pass this false intel to the next president for him to act on in order to deflect the problem off of you?

Before we continue with the impeachment process with President Bush and Vice President Cheney we have to have answers to these fundamental questions. Why did you all lie about Iraq's WMD and perpetuate this lie to President Bush?

Is it possible ladies and gentlemen that FBI agent George Piro’s report is right; that it was Saddam who misled us into believing he was armed? Or it is just your agenda to shed responsibility off yourselves in order to gain political points and regain power back into our government; because you knew this was a popular war in the beginning which was bad news for the democrats? Are none of you interested in telling the truth about what you knew rather who to blame?