Well, Kevvie, playing mind games with libtards is much easier than shooting fish in a barrel, don’t ya think? It really takes very little effort and the results are so spectacular.

You can go home now, your cage is clean.

Regards,
Peter H.

Checkmate.

Regards,
Peter H.

PS – One more question for you to ponder, Kevvie – if McClellan’s book had been all glowing praise, would you still have believed it? Be honest – I know it’s a stretch for you libtards to deal with the truth.

Seems you all need a punching bag because you simply cannot stand the fact that someone who worked for Bush and the administration has come out with some truth about what’s going on in the White House. It knocks down the walls of lies and propaganda the American public have been subjected to for nearly 8 years. You’ve nothing to express but righteous indignation, because it’s all out there now and he can’t be dismissed so easily as you do to your critics on this site.

30 & 40: Really laughing now………what hypocrisy.

I’m normally against taking money away from people who earned it,

Soros has no problem with it.

Here’s LGF on the publishing company:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30118_The_Soros-McClellan_Connection

I’m normally against taking money away from people who earned it, but can we make an exception for George Soros?

http://www.waranddecision.com/docLib/20080403_TheCaseforAction.pdf

It’s 10 pages long.

This is the section called Iraq’s Ties to Al Qaeda. I’m pasting from a PDF document, so some of the characters are garbled

Iraq’s Ties to al Oaida
-1-Presence in Baghdad of Zat-qawi, a high level a1 Qaida planner, is
evidence of ties to Bin Laden. Ridiculous to assume that Zarqawi’s being in
Baghdad doesn’t prove anything, on grounds that Iraqi authorities may not
have known of his presence.

+Why would Zarqawi pick a police state like Iraq to go to, if he didn’t
have reason to believe he would be protected there? Many places to go
where police surveillance is less thorough than in Baghdad.

+ Zubaida recently told his interrogators that, in internal a1 Qaida
deliberations, Zarqawi had advocated closer ties to Iraq. Zarqawi was
also a co-founder of Jund al-Islam, a radical Islamist group now ‘
operating in northern Iraq (name is now Ansar al-Islam).

In addition, numerous contacts over past decade between senior Iraqi
and a1 Qaida officials, including there ai-e many intelligence reports
showing connections between Iraq and a1 Qaida, over a decade.
Faruq Hijazi, a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Saddam’s inner circle, is
reported to have personally met with UBL several times

Cooperation between Iraq and aI Qaida key areas: bombmaking
assistance, operational training, facilitation ail6 possibly in the area of
chemical and biological weapons.

+ Following a UBL request in the mid- 1 930s, Iraqi intelligence
dispatched its top bombmaker to Khartoum to provide assistance
making barometric and letter bombs

Iraq has espedited the travel of several indivudals assocationed with a1
Qaida and provided needed travel documentation

According to detainee Ibn Sliaykll al-Libi, a1 Qaida sent an operative, Abu
Abdullah a]-Iraqi to Iraq several times between 1997-2000 to seek chemical
and biological weapons training and assistance –

The argument that Saddani and bin Laden won’t cooperate, because one is
secular and tlie other Islamist, is ridiculous. On that argument, Stalin and
Hitler couldn’t have cooperated in dividing Poland in 1939.

- Iran will almost certainly have a nuclear weapon sometime within the
next five years, and that will change the balance in the region notably.

- Somebody, whether Iran, Iraq, orUsama Bin Laden, could take out the
royal family in one or more of the Gulf states and change the regime and
the balance, perhaps inviting Iranian or Traqi troops in to protect them.

Clearly, the Amb-Israeli situation makes it more difficult to take strong action,
but it is at least questionable to assume that our ability to act will improve by
waiting. It is possible that Saddam’s options will increase with time, while ours
could decrease. We certainly need to consider the effects of the Arab-Israeli
situation on U.S. Iraq policy. We also need to consider the reverse effects. A
major success with Iraq would enhance U.S. credibility and influence throughout
the region.

Vhy don’t we get some smart people to take this memo, rip it apart and refashion
it into an appropriate paper for discussion at an early Principals Committee
meeting?

-END-

While it is important, indeed necessary. that we confront the no-fly zone issues,
the NFZs are only a piece of a set of broader Iraqi policy issues. It is the broader
subject of Iraq that merits the attention of the Administration.

There are people in the Administration who can come up \’lith a variety of more
nuanced options. However, for the sake of beginning the discussion, here are
some possibilities:

- The U.S. can ran. up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is
killed or captured. W~ can try to tlgure out a way to keep an eye on
Saddam Hussein ‘5 aggressiveness against his neighbors from a distance.

- We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don’t work over extended
periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam “in
the box,” when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and
is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his
neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests-namely developing WMD
and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in
the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly
have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.

- A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a
reappraisal and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust
policy. \Ve would have to assert strong leadership and convince them that
we will see the project through and not leave them later to face a provoked,
but still incumbent, Saddam. The risks of a serious regime-change policy
must be weighed against the certainly of the danger of an increasingly bold
and nuclear-armed Sad dam in the near future.

- A third possibihty perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with
Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever
reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the
United States and the West and might be willing to make some
accommodation. Opening a dialogue with Saddam would be an
astonishing departure for the USG, although I did it for President Reagan
the mid-1980s. It would win praise from cel1ain quarters, but might cause
friends, especially those in the region, to question our strength, steadiness
and judgment. And the likelihood of Saddam making and respecting an
acceptable accommodation of our interests over a long period may be
small.

- There ought to be a way for the U.S. to not be at loggerheads with both of
the t\\’o most pO\vcrful nations in the Gulf— Iran and Iraq-when the two
of them do not like each other, are firing at each other and have groups in
their respective countries that are hostile to the other side. The particularly
unfortunate circumstances of Iraq being governed by Sad dam and Iran
being govemed by the clerics have suspended the standard rule that “my
enemy’s enemy is my friend.” If Saddam’s regime were ousted, we would
have a much-improved position in the region and elsewhere.

http://www.waranddecision.com/docLib/20080403_RumsfeldmemoIraq.pdf

This is one of the first documents from the Bush admin. It’s from 27 Jul 2001 from Rumsfeld to Rice, Cheney , Powell

I recommend we have a Principals Committee meeting on Iraq, to be followed by a National Security Council meeting.

Background

We have discussed Iraq on a number of occasions. The discussions have been
inconclusive. Several things have evolved in the intervening period:

- Sanctions are being limited in a way that cannot weaken Saddam Hussein.
He undid the UN~inspectiol1s in the 1990s and is working now to further
undo the~sanctions and th~o-fly zones. He appears to believe he is
getting stronger.· His general behavior and relationships with his neighbors
suggest he is riding higher than a year ago.

- The routes into and out of Iraq seem to be increasing. One has to assume
the volume and mix of materials he desires are increasing.

-We have had a series of coalition air incidents, which, thus far, have not
resulted in the shooting down of a coalition plane, but this is an
increasingly likely danger. The recent firings demonstrate two things:
• a greater degree of Iraqi aggressiveness; and, even more important,
• what appears to be significantly improved Iraqi air defense
capability, coupled with a reduction in U.S. ability to know what
they are doing-partly because of their improved fiber optic
linkages.

Proposal

\Ve have a number of options with respect to the northern and southern no~t1y
zones. They include:

- Continue current U.S. course, with the distinct possibility that a coalition
plane will be shot down and the crew either killed or captured in the period
immediately ahead. If some importLlnt U.S. interest is being accomplished
by the flights, it is well worth the risk. If not, it isn’t.

- Undertake a fairly significant U.S. strike against Iraq’s tiber optic links,
radars, SAM sites and perhaps some asymmetrical strategic assets that
would impose a more-thanJtit-for-tat cost on Saddam for his endangennent
of our pilots. A number of the currently proposed targets are near
Baghdad. flitting them would result in a great deal of attention on CNN,
accusations that Iraqi civilians were killed and strong~potentlally
explosive-public expressions of consternation from our moderate Arab
friends in the region, even more so than was the case during the last major
strike in February.

- Finally, the U.S. could either discontinue or significantly reduce the
number of flights in the northern and southern zones. However, if we seek
to l1rnit the risk to coalition aircraft by C\ltting back on the number andlor
locations of patrols, Iraqi air defenses win continue to improve, which will
further add to the risk and create increased pressure to limit the patrols still
further or to stop them altogether.

Salman Pak
Ramzi Yousef
Harold Baer

Go and learn…

Would you feel confident pinning all of your hopes for success and survival (while fu*king over all of your friends/colleagues in the process) on people like KEVIN? Seriously. KEVIN.

ROFL

Saddam Hussein… is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But, I must admit, that is not an actual Bush quote. It’s a quote from Barack Hussein Obama. You know… that genius. Was Obama also a liar? LOL

Sadr , Al Qaeda and the Democrats have asked us to withdraw and, Ta Da, we haven’t done it. When the democratic government of Iran asks us to withdraw, we will withdraw. Ergo: no lie.

Saddam Hussein was openly funding suicide bombers, providing safe haven for terrorists, ignoring the endless UN Resolutions to behave and on the best information gathered by the Clinton administration over 8 years, had WMD’s. He was given the choice to cooperate with the War on Terrorism and obey the UN Resolutions or be toppled. The rest is history.

9/11 was the cause of the War on Terrorism. If Bush ever tied the events of 9/11 to Iraq, I have never seen nor heard it. Can you cite it? (Of course not. This is a very tired KOS kids fairy tail.) The connection between 9/11 and Iraq is revealed above.

Who didn’t anticipate the devastation of Katrina? Mississippi and Alabama took the FEMA help in advance and they threw themselves right into the reconstruction. All the non English speaking minorities in New Orleans were smart enough to leave in advance. School Bus Nagin sat on his evacuation plan and let the buses flood. Amtrack offered extra trains for evacuation and when they were not answered, they got their equipment out of New Orleans. Bush called the governor and the mayor well into the night offereing the FEMA and military help. They decided to wait and see. The President can not overstep the state and local governments if no disaster exists. The disaster was the blind politics of the the Mayor and the Governor. Nice try, but no cigar.

Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Oh. So….how…do…you…know? Jimmy Carter send you a candygram or something? It will be so funny, funny, funny when Iran finally shows the world that it has been deep underground making jelly beans.

Good thing you went to bed, pal, because your brain must have been really taxed with these old hatebushpoints.

A lie is when a person knows the truth and willingly tells the lie instead. Little lies are like when Hillary ran from the sniper fire after landing in the war zone or having some mysterious appearance by the Rose Law Firm billing records in the White House solarium. Or Obama’s growing list of familiy (white side) memories. Big lies are things like: ‘I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski,…….”

I want to make this all so much easier for you. Give me just ONE lie that Bush told. One that you can clearly prove. C’mon, show the sucker up for what you say he is. I can’t get the bar any lower.

#1: We Will Withdraw From Iraq If Asked.
#2: Iraq Presents An Imminent Threat/Has WMDs.
#3: There is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
#4: We could not have anticipated the devastation of Katrina.
#5: Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Dan, I think you misunderstood heliotrope’s question. He asked for LIES, told by President BUSH. You’ve mixed truths told by President Bush with lies told by Democrats. Let’s review.

#1 – True.
#2 – A lie of DEMOCRATS. Senator Rockefeller (Democrat) was the one going around saying Saddam would have WMD stockpiles. Bush and Blair specifically said that Saddam was not, repeat NOT, an imminent threat.
#3 – Depends what connection you mean. Saddam was a supporter of many kinds of international terrorism. Bush said that. He never said Saddam was involved in 9-11 directly; only Democrats have said that (perhaps as a straw man).
#4 – What does this even mean? Nagin and Bianco, both Democrats, told Bush to NOT declare a state of emergency.
#5 – True (and I hope you never have to find out).

So Dan, work on those reading comprehension skills. heliotrope asked you for BUSH LIES. OK? Not a third-grader’s mixture of Bush truths / Democrat lies.