Intelligence source codenamed "Curveball" admits lying about WMD

[drsmith1072]

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998

By Laurie Mylroie The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .
I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCT 31
II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION, SIGNED BY CLINTON OCT 21
III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, PRESS STATEMENT, OCT 31

Today is the 89th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the first
day without UNSCOM monitoring.

"Iraq News" is preparing an issue on Iraq's decision to suspend UNSCOM
monitoring. Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments
regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat,
namely to overthrow Saddam.

Link

How clever of Bush to convince Clinton to look for wmds in Iraq, years before he became President.

Now go back and look at the majority of responses made by republicans everytime clinton mentioned Iraq and WMDs and how it was all just "wagging the dog" to distract attention away from impeachment. LOL Funny how thr right tends to forget what they USED to believe when it becomes convenient for them to do so.

BTW how long was it after that that W decided to invade Iraq?? How many people claimed that containment worked before W CHOSE to invade??

I also find it funny that the right shifts to blames to democrats in congress over W choice and yet when a demcorat is president all you hear is how it's his watch so he is to blame. LOL

 

[grunt11b]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

Being that this is brought up constantly by the left, let me plug this little video in to show who really supported the whole WMD cause for the war in Iraq, and also who authorized Bush to go in. Don't act innocent you leftists dumbasses, it was your heroes who authorized it in the beginning. The Democrats needed this war to happen in order to gain power in 2006, they needed to be able to say that the GOP was war mongering when in fact they are the ones who authorized it to begin with. They knew if they turned on Bush half way through that the weak minded libs and the moderates would switch sides, and it worked.
But be ever so careful you fucken libs, dont ever say this is bush's war,because he could not have gone into it without the democrats approval in the house and senate, because the dems owned the house and senate at the time, you clusterfucks. Man up and take responsibility instead of trying to throw off the blame.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc[/ame]


If you wanna blame anyone, blame Clinton for not killing Bin laden during the two chances he had during his administration.

 

[grunt11b]

Also, who was that man at 2:03 in the video, he is one ugly dude!!

 

[hortysir]

Most Democrats voted against the war authorization. How many times do you need to be told that?

You guys that were 200% gung ho for the disaster that was the Iraq war, now want to blame it on the Democrats.

That's funny.

You can repeat it all you want.
Semantically, you're correct in your claim of a "majority".
A SLIM majority, however....

"More than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power........................

"There were the 21 Senate Democrats - along with one Republican and one Independent - who voted against the war resolution. And 126 of 207 House Democrats voted against the resolution as well."

Iraq: The Democrats' War


Just don't pretend that the democrats' hands are clean in this clusterfuck.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wow.
One may not have the right to re-write history......but your interpretation of history and obvious lack of political and military knowledge is disturbing seeing as you try to come across as someone who is in the know.

What happened is in the recent past. So, nobody has to review 50 year old archival records to recall that the disbanded Iraqi Army kept their weapons when they went home to find themselves with no income to support their families while the crime rate in the streets was soaring and the availability of electricity and clean water was wholly unreliable.

And I'm quite sure that people can remember that key industries, museums, and armories were left unguarded and were subsequently looted.

Who made the decisions about how many (how few) troops to send to Iraq? Who was in charge of post war Iraq? Who was in charge of the reconstruction? It was the administration.

No sir. We do not need to review 50 year old archived records.

You must have really enjoyed the Bush Years.....​

"In 1972, decades worth of official and unofficial Federal Bureau of Investigation records had been destroyed, upon the death of J. Edgar Hoover, by his longtime secretary. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 expanded such protection of historical records, by mandating that the records of former presidents would automatically become the property of the federal government upon his leaving the Oval Office, and then transferred to the Archivist of the United States, thereafter to be made available to the public after no more than 12 years.

Thus, the presidential papers of Ronald Reagan were due to be made public when George W. Bush took office in January 2001. However, in a White House memo dated March 23, 2001, the Counsel to the President conveyed the following to U.S Archivist John W. Carlin:

"Section 2(b) of Executive Order 12667, issued by former President Ronald Reagan on January 16, 1989, requires the Archivist of the United States to delay release of Presidential records at the instruction of the current President. On behalf of the President, I instruct you to extend for 90 days (until June 21, 2001) the time in which President Bush may claim a constitutionally based privilege over the Presidential records that former President Reagan, acting under Section 2204(a) of Title 4, has protected from disclosure for the 12 years since the end of his Presidency. This directive applies as well to the Vice Presidential records of former Vice President George H.W. Bush.

BUSHCO's Executive Order 13233​

What was George Bush trying to HIDE.....for his Daddy & Uncle DICK; The Cheney??????

 

[drsmith1072]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

And he found a President gullible enough to believe him, even when evidence told a different story. Over 5,000 dead US and many more Iraqis. Nearly a Trillion dollars spent on a lie.

There's something that's important to acknowledge here.

Skeptical US officials were NOT duped.

Bush and Cheney (along with numerous officials at the highest levels of the US Gov't like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others) WANTED to invade Iraq. Iraq was one of the first topics of conversation within days after Bush took office.

Consequently, there was no source on the planet who would have been considered too unreliable to site as evidence (proof, really) that Saddam had WMDs if that person came forward to say he did.

Jon (Yeah, that's the ticket) Lovitz could have made a guest appearance on SNL to say that Saddam had WMDs, and they probably would have played that video at the UN as supporting evidence.

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

Funny how the right loves to give "credit" to congress were W is concerned but when a democrat is CiC he is the only one to blame. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

'Most'. It was, therefore, a bipartisan effort.

And, for the record, using a large font, in bold, makes you look like an attention seeking whiner.

Congress Authorized Bush to go to war if necessary. It did not order him do do so

It was Bush's call to pull the trigger. It didn't take him long even though mounting evidence said there were no WMDs

Why mess up a chance for a good war?

Great point. Will the right address it?

Let's not forget that inspectors were on the ground doing their jobs when bush told them to leave because he chose to invade. Funny how the right doesn't see the contradiction of going against the UN under the pretense of enforcing UN resolutions. LOL The UN is invalid but we must enforce their resolutions. LOL

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Man admits to WMD lies that triggered Gulf War (The Guardian)

If you wanna blame anyone, blame Clinton for not killing Bin laden during the two chances he had during his administration.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......

Ya' really wanna bring-that-up, huh??

(You must be new, around here......)

*

​

 

[drsmith1072]

You are aware, are you not, that congress voted for this, right? It was a bipartisan effort.

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.

Definition of BIPARTISAN
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You misinterpret your own definition. bipartisan means that there is cooporation and agreement between the parties as a whole. a minority of democrats does not represent the party as a whole. So therefore there was not "cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties" or did you miss that??

 

[hortysir]

Another convenient, barely accurate "minority" claim...............

 

[Meister]

Wrong. Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.

Definition of BIPARTISAN
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <a bipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You misinterpret your own definition. bipartisan means that there is cooporation and agreement between the parties as a whole. a minority of democrats does not represent the party as a whole. So therefore there was not "cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties" or did you miss that??

What a bunch of bullshit, smitty. Please show where you found your definition of the word....please. Here's what I found and it doesn't sound anything like what your trying to pass off as a definition.
What your saying is that if a party is one vote short of a majority....it isn't bipartisan.
bi·par·ti·san
&#8194; &#8194;/ba&#618;&#712;p&#593;rt&#601;z&#601;n/ Show Spelled[bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn] Show IPA
&#8211;adjective
representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy.
Bipartisan | Define Bipartisan at Dictionary.com


If you wanted to state your opinion....that would be one thing, but to chastize another poster because it doesn't represent what YOU think it should? oh brother....

 

[Wicked Jester]

But although smaller in number than the ones who voted "nay," there were still MANY Democrats who voted "aye." Somewhere around 40%. so, you are the one who is wrong. It was indeed still a "bipartisan" vote even if more Dims voted against it rather than for it.



Bipartisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You misinterpret your own definition. bipartisan means that there is cooporation and agreement between the parties as a whole. a minority of democrats does not represent the party as a whole. So therefore there was not "cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties" or did you miss that??

What a bunch of bullshit, smitty. Please show where you found your definition of the word....please. Here's what I found and it doesn't sound anything like what your trying to pass off as a definition.
What your saying is that if a party is one vote short of a majority....it isn't bipartisan.
bi·par·ti·san
&#8194; &#8194;/ba&#618;&#712;p&#593;rt&#601;z&#601;n/ Show Spelled[bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn] Show IPA
–adjective
representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions: Government leaders hope to achieve a bipartisan foreign policy.
Bipartisan | Define Bipartisan at Dictionary.com


If you wanted to state your opinion....that would be one thing, but to chastize another poster because it doesn't represent what YOU think it should? oh brother....

And you expected otherwise, Meist?

LMAO!

 

[mdn2000]

I'm shocked and in awe of this revisionist history.

If I would blame the Democrats for anything there it would be not only losing focus, but helping fuel and undermine all efforts to succeed in the endeavor. You know, what you usually do.

Nonsense. The Executive Branch had full and complete control of the war effort since Bush, Rumsfeld, et al were the ones who were making ALL the decisions about the war and how it would be prosecuted. They were the ones who decided on how many troops were necessary for both the war and policing post-war Iraq. The chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army. The insurgency that followed was a direct result of those decisions. Likewise, the decision to take the focus off Afghanistan and invade Iraq was a decision that was wholly and solely made by Bush.

You don't get to rewrite history.

he chaos that ensued after the invasion when their was no Iraqi police force presence in the streets and no Iraqi Army units to keep law and order in the streets was a direct result of too few American troops and the Bush administration decision to disband the Iraqi Army

Correct me if I am wrong but does not dropping bombs on the Iraqi Army kill them, literally and physically disband the Army.

Its kind of ridiculous to think we would as the people in the right, on the side of Freedom and Liberty would not disband the people or army we had to fight against.

The whole idea is to destroy the Military and the will to fight, force surrender.

I guess we should of kept those secret police so they could of kept the torture chjambers up and running, would of saved a bit of embrassment and would actually define torture.

The mitstakes of war, had only the Democrats fought the war we would of seen a perfect war fought. If we look at how Clinton attacked Serbia we see how Liberal's fight, they target women and children and force the population to submit and then turn over the conquered people's country to the Moslems. But that is another story of history.

Anyhow, Iraq was given to us by the Democrats, it was the Democrats war, while the Democrats controlled the White House they actually were at war in Iraq, dropping bombs and killing people, eight years worth of war which Clinton left unresolved.

For the Liberal, for the Marxist, for the Liberal-Marxist, for the Progressive, for the Anarchist history only begins on specific dates, Iraq's history began in 2000 when Bush Jr. took office, before that, Saddam was busy raising Camels, in peace.

 

[rdean]

Col Wilkerson, spokesman for Colin Powell said it didn't matter what the evidence was, Bush and Cheney were hellbent on invading Iraq.

 

[KissMy]

This is even funnier:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

How quickly & conveniently you folks forget-about what he actually did.....

Gee.....no mention of War!!

You've gotta quit relying on Porky Limbaugh for your "quotes".

Yup, I remember... Bill Clinton Attacked Iraq. He bombed the piss out of Bagdad.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIOtn1wk5g&feature=player_embedded"]President WMDs Attack[/ame]

 

[Wicked Jester]

This is even funnier:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

How quickly & conveniently you folks forget-about what he actually did.....

Gee.....no mention of War!!

You've gotta quit relying on Porky Limbaugh for your "quotes".

Yup, I remember... Bill Clinton Attacked Iraq. He bombed the piss out of Bagdad.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIOtn1wk5g&feature=player_embedded"]President WMDs Attack[/ame]

Yep, lib's just can't handle the truth. But then, lib's can't handle their own lives so, expecting them to handle the truth is most definitely moot.

But hey, ya' gotta give the sorry lil' douchebags credit. They CAN spin and deflect their sorry lil' asses off with the best of 'em!

 

[KissMy]

Yep, lib's just can't handle the truth. But then, lib's can't handle their own lives so, expecting them to handle the truth is most definitely moot.

But hey, ya' gotta give the sorry lil' douchebags credit. They CAN spin and deflect their sorry lil' asses off with the best of 'em!

I know. The lying idiotic democrat douche-bags were crying G.W. Bush attacked Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his daddy G.H.W. Bush. Ooooops!!! Seems that was Bill Clinton who avenged Saddam's attempt kill G.H.W. Bush by bombing Iraq in 1993.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mpWa7wNr5M&feature=related"]Clinton Bombs Iraq 1993[/ame]

The lying idiotic democrat douche-bags were crying G.W. Bush had to go way back to the Reagan administration & dredge up the time when Saddam attacked his own citizens to justify his attack on Iraq. Ooooops!!! Wait, Didn't Bill Clinton launch an attack on Iraq again in 1996 for the same thing because Saddam attacked one of his own cities?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBCclD33wQU&feature=related"]Clinton Bombs Iraq again 1996[/ame]

The lying idiotic democrat douche-bags were screaming G.W. Bush can't attack Iraq because of their failure to comply with a UN resolution or because he might develop a bomb. Other countries have WMD's why not go after them? It is the UN's responsibility to enforce their resolutions on Iraq. Ooooops!!! Wait, Didn't Bill Clinton launch an attack on Iraq again in 1998 for the same thing because Saddam obstructed UN weapons inspections

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc"]Clinton Bombs Iraq again 1998[/ame]

The crazy moon-bat-shit thoughts swirling inside democrats dis-functional brains is truly unreal!!!

 

[Wicked Jester]

Yep, yep, yep, aaaaaaaaaaaand YEP!

 

[sparky]

Soooooo, we don't know who started the war or why, and we're still there with viable end in sight

And we're going to fight amongst ourselfs about it all incessantly, wonderful way to globally portray our lofty ideals folks

But i gotta ask, all partisanship aside, who's really making out in this decade long debacle ?

One would think the cows have come home enough to be counted by now.....

 

[CindyInKentucky]

Curve ball? Please! Bush was trying to figure out a way, any way, to invade Iraq and get Saddam in 1999. He was talking about then. He didn't need a curve ball to do it. All he needed was enough people to believe the half truths and lies, that he himself perpetuated, in order to make it happen. Still claiming it was the "Right" thing to do is, well, typical on his part. He's never admitted to making any of the monumental mistakes he made over 8 long years and he never will.