Fox's Kilmeade claimed Bush "never even said there's a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade falsely claimed that "the president of the United States never even said there's a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq," and that "[t]hat wasn't the premise for going in there." In fact, President Bush repeatedly said there was such a link, and that the United States should invade because Saddam might give his purported weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda.
On the August 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade falsely claimed that "the president of the United States never even said there's a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq," and that "[t]hat wasn't the premise for going in there." In fact, President Bush, and several other members of his administration, repeatedly said there was such a link, and that the United States should invade because Saddam might give his purported weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda, which could use them to attack the United States. Indeed, in an October 14, 2002, speech, Bush, after mentioning Iraq's purported weapons, declared that Saddam "is a man that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace, for the sake of our children's peace." Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also drew a link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. However, as Media Matters for America has noted, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in a September 2006 report that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support," and that "[n]o postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
As noted by the blog News Hounds, Kilmeade made the claim while discussing author Ron Suskind's report in his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism (Harper), that "[t]he White House had concocted a fake letter from [Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jahil] Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq -- thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda." According to Suskind, "the idea was to take the letter to Habbush [who had been "secretly resettled [] in Jordan" by the CIA] and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraq government stationary, to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media" (Page 371). Both former CIA Director George Tenet and the White House have denied Suskind's allegation.
Contrary to Kilmeade's suggestion that an Al Qaeda-Iraq link had not been part of the case for invading Iraq, Bush linked Al Qaeda to Iraq many times during the lead-up to the war. For example:
- From Bush's September 28, 2002, radio address to the nation:
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
Iraq has already used weapons of mass death against another country and against its own citizens. The Iraqi regime practices the rape of women as a method of intimidation, and the torture of dissenters and their children. And for more than a decade, that regime has answered Security Council resolutions with defiance and bad faith and deception.
We know that the Iraqi regime is led by a dangerous and brutal man. We know he is actively seeking the destructive technologies to match his hatred. And we know that he must be stopped. The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them -- and when they have fully materialized, it may be too late to protect ourselves and our allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator will have had the means to terrorize and dominate the region, and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.
- From Bush's October 7, 2002, speech:
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.
- From Bush's October 14, 2002, speech at the Thaddeus McCotter for Congress Dinner:
My job is not only to protect America today, but to anticipate problems, as well. And obviously I started a significant and important debate about Iraq. I did because I -- because I understand the threat of Iraq. This is a country that said he would have no weapons of mass destruction, and he does. This is a country that has defied the United Nations 11 straight years, 16 different resolutions. He's completely ignored the international body. This is a country who has made it clear he'd like to have a nuclear weapon. And when our inspectors -- or the inspectors went into the country right after the Gulf War, it was estimated that they were months away from having a nuclear weapon. This is a country that hates America, hates the people in the neighborhood. This is a country which has invaded two countries unprovoked. This is a country, the leadership of which has actually used weapons of mass destruction on its own people, on citizens who disagreed with him. This is a country who gassed its neighbor s. This is a dangerous man.
Prior to September the 11th, 2001, we thought two oceans would protect us. We thought we could kind of step back, and say, this may be somebody else's problem, in another part of the world, and we may or may deal with it. After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace, for the sake of our children's peace.
- From Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address:
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
- From a February 6, 2003, statement by Bush:
Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Bush also said that Iraq was a threat because it could provide Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, which the terrorist network could use to attack the United States:
- From Bush's September 25, 2002, press conference with Colombian president Alvaro Uribe:
Q: Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than Al Qaeda?
BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.
Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.
- From Bush's March 17, 2003, address to the nation:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
[...]
Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.
Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
Bush and Cheney have also linked the September 11 attacks to Saddam's Iraqi regime:
- In a March 21, 2003, letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and president pro tempore of the Senate announcing that he was invading Iraq, Bush stated that "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
- On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Cheney, in reference to Cheney's assertion to Russert five days after the September 11 attacks that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved, if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded that since "you and I last talked," it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Atta shortly before the attacks.
From the August 6 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CLAYTON MORRIS (guest co-host): Now here's a question for you: What's Number 14 right now on Amazon.com? Three guesses.
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): A new book.
MORRIS: Yeah.
CARLSON: A new book with a lot of assertions in it.
MORRIS: Yeah, a new controversial book by -- you either love him or you hate him, I guess, Ron Suskind, former Wall Street Journal reporter. There it is. The Way of the World is Number 14. It was released yesterday, and it's causing quite a bit of controversy, I guess.
KILMEADE: Yeah, the "story of truth and hope in an age of extremism." In this book contains a memo evidently that I guess the CIA was asked to write. There was supposedly a forgery to link Saddam Hussein to Mohamed Atta.
CARLSON: Now, wait a minute. Well, it's a little bit more severe than that. Suskind is alleging that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated, handwritten letter from the head of the Iraqi intelligence at the time to Saddam Hussein, basically in an effort to create a link between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. And why is that important? Because, of course, that would lead to the whole situation about why the war in Iraq is being fought. A lot of people saying that there is absolutely no truth to this whatever, including the former CIA director -- the director at the time -- George Tenet, who released a statement saying that this is seriously flawed.
MORRIS: Yeah, and he goes -- he says, "There was no such order from the White House to me, nor, to the best of my knowledge" -- he puts that in there -- "was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort." Raises some serious questions -- his book also goes on to talk about not only this forged letter -- here's the rest of Suskind's claims -- he says that "an operational link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, something the vice president's office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9-11 as a justification to invade Iraq." Among Suskind's other assertions, though, he says that they knew that they were never gonna find weapons of mass destruction in the country.
KILMEADE: Right.
MORRIS: And that was among also the forgeries or the pushing --
KILMEADE: Right.
MORRIS: -- and part of this propaganda campaign.
KILMEADE: So they knew the whole time as the -- we've been through this so many times before. It's amazing some more people are making money off it. So this book is 14 -- is 14 on Amazon. They never made an effort -- Ron Suskind never made an effort to contact any of the players here including George Tenet. So everyone denies it, [deputy press secretary] Tony Fratto of the White House denies it, obviously, everybody else denies it. But he's gonna make a lot of money on it.
So, I don't understand, because the president of the United States never even said there's a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That wasn't the premise for going in there. So, weapons of mass destruction, they never thought they'd have them? Don't we have [former Secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld, quoted by some of his greatest detractors, saying, "Check here, check there," and pulling his hair out that they weren't found there? Throughout George Tenet's book, he gives you the play-by-play of the search for weapons of mass destruction and how those hot sites turned out to be not so hot and how discouraged he was.
If oil was a motive - then why did the price of oil INCREASE during our "occupation" of Iraq? If anything it would have DECREASED due to our pumping and shipping oil to every refinery and then off to every retailer in the US, putting the price at the pump to under one dollar. And President Bush would have exclaimed "Cheap Gas is BACK!"
Yeah, because flooding the market with oil would be a great business move by Big Oil. If demand maintains and supply increases the price goes down and the fat cats make less money. The War has destabilized what was before a steady stream of relatively stable oil production, therby jacking up the price and making Cheney and his cronies millions in investment money, no bid contracts and war profiteering.
Duh
Take a look at Wal-Mart - their ability to sell items at a low price was what drove their profits.
And while we're talking about profits, and how Exxon posted record profits last quarter, can you tell us how much their EXPENSES were? And also, IIRC wasn't it Exxon who's planning on shutting down numerous gas stations? Why do that when you're experiencing RECORD PROFITS? If anything record profits has you expanding business so you can make more.
I can tell you they spent less than 1% of their profits on alternative energy research, but what does that matter? Profits are gross - expenses, so who cares what they spent?
BTW, do you really want to suggest that oil coming from a destabalized region should be cheaper? Risk is what is driving the price up, and until the risk resides oil will continue to be more expensive than it should be. You can thank speculators for that, BTW...
Take a look at Wal-Mart - their ability to sell items at a low price was what drove their profits.
Erm.............
No, l think you will find that that is what drove out their competition. Walmart's policy of charging less to people in bulk destroys local businesses who cannot compete. If they try to drop their prices to match Walmart they go under. Standard Operating Procedure for large company in a small store market.
How'd they get there?
By predition, plain and simple.
By abusive working conditions for employees.
By dictating to their suppliers in third world countries. Cutting the price they're wiling to pay manufacturers, who pass on pay cuts to the lowest paid workers on the planet.
Thank God for free markets and the global economy.
Ignore wussy. His weak arguments don't deserve the time of day, or anything else.
Don't forget all the "morphing" reasons for the dang invasion either.....
And repubs fell for every single one of them.
Take a look at Wal-Mart - their ability to sell items at a low price was what drove their profits.
Wal-Mart's buys their 70% of items from China, not from American companies. The items Wal-Mart buys from China come from factories where workers make pennies, work under inhuman conditions and create cheap and sometimes toxic products.
Rah Rah Wal-Mart and their profits
"And while we're talking about profits, and how Exxon posted record profits last quarter, can you tell us how much their EXPENSES were? "
What do their expenses have to do with it? Profit is income MINUS expenses. Exxon had record PROFITS, not record INCOME.
And while we're talking about profits, and how Exxon posted record profits last quarter, can you tell us how much their EXPENSES were?
You're an idiot. Profit is revenue minus expenses, and Exxon had record PROFIT.
You got that right, but he's also pretty good at distracting people from the issue being raised by the posting by Media Matters.
Neither characteristic is something to be proud of.
Apparently, conservatives/republicans in general, do not understand what "profit" means.
8-)
The price of oil has increased because a small cartel are making lots of money off of it and getting away with it because they know that the politicians in their pockets who they send "donations" to kindly looked the other way. Didn't Exxon just post the largest quarterly profits in US history last month? Shoudn't you really be making a statement about that? This was always about the oil. As soon as Saddam Hussain stated that he was going to trade Iraq's oil in Euro's instead of Dollars the balloon went up. If it was about removing vicious dangerous dictators who have committed genocide there would be a lage UN backed US presence in Darfur.
BTW the Aussie Rupert Murdoch was one of the poeple who said that oil would be less than $20 a barrell. Maybe you should direct your question to him.
Opps.......
That should read large UN backed US presence.
Sorry!!
Dawuss
The article asserts Bush "said" Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked. That doesn't prove or disprove the "real" reason(s) the U.S. invaded Iraq.
The fact that the price for gas has risen doesn't disprove the concept that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil. A goal can be pursued and not achieved. That doesn't mean the goal didn't exist.
And why do we spend millions of dollars a day in tax payer money for naval carrier groups to patrol the Persian Gulf?
Are they looking for al Qaeda?
Proving once again, we did not invade Iraq for oil
Proving once again that DaWuss is out for attention and distraction, not for any contribution to this site. That's been his behavior since he started posting and worked as a 'stooge' for Science101.
How was that a distraction? The article is about misinformation about why we invaded Iraq. My post reinforces the corrected information.
I mean, sure, we can talk about my least favorite subject (me) if you want, but that would be a distraction and a diversion to the main subject.
No, the issue is that Kilmeade lied about what Bush did, and what the Bush Administration did.
It's not about what the alternative is. Or about Exxon's oil profits, or about Walmart either.
The topic is Kilmeade lying. The issue is Kilmeade lying as an attempt to further the conservative agenda. Your claim that oil wasn't the reason for the invasion, and that this proves that, was another attempt to further the conservative agenda and had nothing to do with what the topic was.
Yo, Kilmeade, try googling your statement before you actually say it on air.
You're a uninformed idiot or you're purposely lying to protect Bush. Either way, you ended up looking foolish by telling falsehoods to the viewers.
Back on topic after DaWuss' misdirection....
Anyone in the Bush Administration speaks for Bush, and so not only do Bush's own comments count against him, but comments made by people in his adminstration count against him.
However Brian Kilmeade tried to cut Bush some slack by specifically saying "So, I don't understand, because the president of the United States never even said there's a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That wasn't the premise for going in there."
He didn't say "the Bush Administration" because he knew that was a lie. He said "the president" because he thought he could get away with that.
The issue is what did the Bush Administration, including Bush, said, and they said that it was an issue of WMD's being in the hands of someone who couldn't be trusted to use those WMD's himself or couldn't be trusted to not give them to some sinister terrorist like Osama bin Laden.
Far from the truth being that using WMD's wasn't the premise, it was the premise!
When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.
Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?
When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.
Two problems. Saddam didn't have any WMDs to give them. Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.
And you know what they say about assuming things.
Yes, you make an A$$ out of Uma Thurman.
(stolen from the next senator from the State of MN)
Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?
Do you think Gore would have acted on your fear-based assumption and conjecture?
When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.
Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?
What Al Gore would or wouldn't have done is 100% irrelevant to this discussion, Mr Wuss.
When it comes to national security, the Bush Administration preferred to put us a greater risk than at lesser risk. They didn't think about 'safe rather than sorry'. They didn't think at all, really. What they did was made us sorry, not safe.
Democrats would rather be safe than sorry. Republicans, not so much.
The Bush administration was the worst failure in history at the only thing republicans think government should do. And republicans are campaigning on national security!
Why does this party still exist?
"When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.
Would Al Gore have done things that much differently under the same circumstances?" - Dawuss
Jeeze, Dawuss, how can one person get so many things wrong in a mere two sentences? First off, given the same circumstances, Gore *would* have done things differently. Gore was/is a policy wonk, not a brain-cooked cowboy under the thumb of Cheney and his PNAC cohorts.
Gore most certainly would have been interested in putting the collar on bin Laden, but he would have brought the world in on it and not squandered the civilized world's outpouring of post 9/11 sympathy and support. Everyone would have worked as a team (quite likely a police team), and bin Laden would have no longer been freely circulating. Al-Qaeda would now be worth not much more than your average shriveled raisin.
But here's the *major* difference you didn't dare brook...if you are even capable of understanding it...
The circumstances would never have been the same. Period. You think bin Laden couldn't read U.S. politics? You think bin Laden didn't know at the time Gore is a policy wonk? You think bin Laden didn't have a high degree of certainty that under Bush, Iraq would be invaded as a consequence...thereby opening up a motivational and fertile recruiting ground in Iraq for al-Qaeda growth? Hell, PNAC tried to push Clinton into an Iraq invasion (from the archieve of the now defunct PNAC site: http://web.archive.org/web/20051125051423/www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm). Gore understood the way the world works (that's what wonks do) just as well as Clinton. Gore would have known there was no reason to go into Iraq, and that would have stayed bin-Laden's hand till the "right" administration was in place in the U.S. Bin-Laden needs animosity between Islam and the West/U.S.
But with Cowboy George and the PNAC posse in the house? Like an open can of tunafish just ready for the cat's tongue. "Board those planes, boys. It's time for God's Work to be done."
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/30/in-fighting-al-qaeda-bushs-global-war-on-terrorism-is-off-target.html
Just a week ago, a think tank, the Rand Corp, released a report that said regular old police actions are the best way to fight terrorism. No other country besides the USA (because of the Bush Administration) is still fighting 'a war on terror' like we are.
A terrorism study prepared for the Defense Department has some bad news for the Bush administration—and presents a sizable challenge for whoever is next in the Oval Office.
The current strategy for defeating al Qaeda has not been successful in diminishing the group's capabilities and is unlikely to do better without a shift in emphasis, the Rand Corp. study concludes.
Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."
So, who was it that was saying the Republicans want to be safe rather than sorry? Oh yeah, that rightie who tried to deny he was a rightie when he first appeared here with a new screen name and cooperated with Science101 to disrupt this site, DaWuss, said it. How can we possibly be safer rather than sorrier if Al Qaeda has not been weakened and they've made more attacks??????
What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world.
The report couldn't have been clearer in its refutation of one of the central tenets of the Bush administration's strategy against al Qaeda: the characterization of the conflict as a "global war." The administration has frequently attacked critics—especially Democrats—who say that counterterrorism should be built around law enforcement strategies.
But the 200-page Rand study suggests that using the label "global war" skews priorities and sends the wrong political message. "Almost all of our allies, from the Great Britain to Australia, have stopped using the concept of a "global war on terror," Jones told congressional staffers in a briefing on Tuesday, suggesting that "counterterrorism" should become the preferred nomenclature for operations against al Qaeda. "There are simply no battlefield solutions to this problem," he said.
Wow. No battlefield solutions to this problem, huh? That means that the Bush Administration wanted to raise our taxes and increase our deficit and starve other domestic programs and didn't care about killing thousands of American soldiers and maiming many more for NO GOOD REASON.
And we're the blind ones?
When it comes to National Security, we'd rather be safe than sorry. Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything.
Oh yeah, we're really safer now. Starting a war in a Muslim country that did not attack us, killing thousands of innocent Muslims and displacing thousands more. Oh yeah, that was a really smart thing to do.
The Pentagon study which shows Saddam Hussein had no link to Al Qaeda. http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf
"Had Saddam given WMDs to Al-Qaeda and used them on Americans, we'd be blaming President Bush for not doing anything."
What is with right-wingers and hypothetical questions? This did NOT happen, so why bring it up?
Yeah, they don't even know what real bacon is.
And they're getting way too close to our northern border.
DaWuss can't take full credit for his idea, I've heard it thrown around, and it's pretty adorable.
High oil prices prove that "we" didn't go in there for oil. A very conservative co-worker of mine, at the outset of the iraq invasion, mentioned how excited he was about liberating the Iraqi people, with the side dish of cheap oil we'd be getting.
When I stopped laughing, I gave him my take on it, which he dismissed as crazy.See, I was brainwashed into thinking we (average Americans) were going to pay for the invasion, but the people planning it probably had no intention of giving us a return on our investment, or sharing their profits.
He had already been laughing at me for buying a compact 4 cylinder pickup for my everyday driver at the onset of the Bush plague, as he'd bought a full-size 4wd V-8 to get to his office job.
That's one of those things that just baffles me. The cons that don't trust the government on anything (so they say) actually believe the most corrupt and corporate party is out there working for them.
The same guy now has a little sign he made, up on the wall of his office. It says "Hope is Not a Business Strategy". I've never bothered to ask him if it's a jab at Obama, but I'm guessing it translates as "Not learning from your mistakes Rocks!"
High oil prices prove that "we" didn't go in there for oil.
I'll believe we didn't go there for the oil when Cheney's secret energy meetings are made public.
I can just envision the meeting - energy execs, Cheney, etc., sitting around a large Middle East map, divvying up the oil fields. Why do you think he went to such extreme lengths to keep the details of this meeting from the public eye?
A bit off topic, but related -- How credible is that new book regarding the white house instruction to the CIA to draft a false memo about Iraq/al qaeda connection? I guess I'm a bit behind, and I saw only a little about it this morning on Morning Joe. What I mean is, is the book full of anonymous sources or does it contain actual names of people with first hand knowledge of the White House instructions?
I generally have little regard for books written contemporaneously about a white house administration, as I'm skeptical that they tell only half the story. But this one sounded interesting as hell. Anybody read it?
Haven't read it, so I cannot say what's in it. But this might interest you:
http://www.truthout.org/article/suskind-stands-by-white-house-wmd-forgery-claim
Proving once again, we did not invade Iraq for oil AND If oil was a motive - then why did the price of oil INCREASE during our "occupation" of Iraq?
DAWUSS??...are you just a typically uninformed wingnut or is this just a game you like to play with yourself???
let's just assume you don't have a clue(which you don't)....geopolitically, it was a benefit for the oilmen(companies, Bush, Cheney & the rest of the neocon boyscouts) to make this land grab---Saddam was a paper tiger who was contained by sanctions....Irag has the 2nd largest oil reserve on the frickin' planet, outside of Saudi Arabia, but maybe that's not enuf evidence for you.
By invading Iraq & creating private contracts to be sucked up by Bush's cronies....it created instability in the price of oil which in turn created higher prices(that's not the entire answer but I don't want to overload that small brain of yours with significant information)
So what will Obama do to lower the price of gas? What will McCain do? What will Congress do? Why isn't Congress doing anything now? The Republicans are in a lame-duck period in the White House, and the Democrats are in control of Congress, with an election breathing down their necks.
You do realize that republicans are essentially obstructing anything going through Congress currently right? Meaning, lots of things can get through the HOuse, but when they're brought up in the Senate, the republicans block, well, almost everything brought in my democrats. That's called obstructionism.
What can we do about high gas prices? Probably, nothing. As Obama has been saying, we need to reduce our dependence on oil. Period. You can do something yourself about high gas prices, and that's, reduce your consumption, and hence, save yourself some money.
Why is it the republicans who are allegedly the bastions of self dependence keep asking the government to do something about high gas prices?
Why is it the republicans who are allegedly the bastions of self dependence keep asking the government to do something about high gas prices?
And, in turn, why is it the republicans don't rely on their precious "free market philosophy" when it comes to oil/gas prices?
So what will Obama do to lower the price of gas? What will McCain do? What will Congress do? Why isn't Congress doing anything now? The Republicans are in a lame-duck period in the White House, and the Democrats are in control of Congress, with an election breathing down their necks.
More crapola from DaWuss that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Oh, and you've been proven wrong countless times in the last few days. Supposedly you're willing to admit your errors. You need to start doing that - it'll take you all day.
Lastly, there's an office poll to see how long you're going to continue posting under this screen name before you become the laughingstock of the place you work - you know, the paid rightie posters union # 42!
The truth is that the cons who put the con in congress blocked meaningful legislation that Democrats put forward. The cons blocked tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a ban on gasoline price-gouging, legislation to stop excessive speculation and a tax break paid for by a windfall-profits tax on big oil.
Anything the republicans disaprove of' they are able to block. This does not give them much in the way of control.
Perhaps they have shown insufficient creativity to manuver arround the republicans, but with 50 votes on a good day in the Senate does not make it past a presidential veto.
If, the document was NOT faked, then why would they possibly have needed Feith and his Special Intelligence Committee to look at "evidence" in a different "light"? To take intelligence and throw together "different" data and say this is why we need to attack Iraq.
Answer: They wouldnt have. They just would have presented the evidence as is, and said here, this is why we need to attack Iraq.
In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD -- as Habbush had foretold -- the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization."
-huffington post-
Yup, another Mission Accomplished by the famous Bush Admin.
and.........then I might add, why the outting of the agent who's husband declared the Niger yellowcake to be untrue also?
Gets a little sticky with all that icing on the cake doesn't it.
You can go read some excerpts from the book here.
http://www.progressivebookclub.com/pbc2/viewArticle.pbc?aid=3172
and sign up to get the book for $1.
What the frig is everyone arguing about? Those right-wingers have us chasing our tails again, and they are laughing! The Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq REQUIRED Bush to certify a link between Saddam and 9/11:
"Armed force against Iraq is consistent with"...actions against...nations...who...aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11," is what that sentence reads, with the lawyerly gobbledygook stripped out. In other words, Saddam "aided" 9/11.
Did he lie? Forgery or no forgery, on Sept. 18, 2003, on Meet the Press, Bush said:
–"No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
Stop the presses. Do not pass go. Either Saddam "aided" the attacks on 9/11, or he didn't. That right there requires a subpoena of the president, for something a heck of a lot more important than lipstick on underwear.
Fox-Logic Lesson #86 with Professor Phoebus Hannitus, to wit:
See I told ya, that lefty Susskind's book shows that they had to forge documents showing a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. See! that proves that the president never linked Al Qaeda with Iraq, see? I always knew there were WMD. Proof positive.
See? I told ya so!
hey jinxer--when did you bump your head--if this were true-the original gulf war would have driven oil prices up to $4.00 a gallon when Saddam torched all the wells and pumped oil into the gulf--and if you ask me -yeah I bumped my head -more control the I have --I would have nuc"ed Baagdad-taken control of the oill fields--the mullahs woulde be tied up up w/ dealing w/ a nuclear strike--the arabs shit there pants --these countries around 2000 yrrs before us -yet wehave been around 200 yrs -who has the highest stndrd of living???and were gonna depend on there generosity --fk that--worse case the soviets bitch--the french would bitch to bitch--the rest o the world will survive as usuasl due to america's generosity--is this a big deal??