If you ever saw “The Royal Tenenbaums”, you will recall the scene where Royal is confronted by Chaz (Ben Stiller) in a lawyers office about stealing bonds from his safety deposit box, and all Royal can do is shrug and laugh stupidly….classic gesture of stupid laughing (Gene Hackman was so perfect for this). That’s how I picture Joe Wilson right now.
Peter Hughessays
And I bet you anything that the MSM will not cover this development.
Regards,
Peter H.
David Tsays
Yeah. It’s a good thing Rove, Cheney and Bush outed Ms. Plame. This justifies everything. Now, the Bush administration can be seen for the success that it is.
Peter Hughessays
#3 – “It’s a good thing Rove, Cheney and Bush outed Ms. Plame.”
Liar. Even the jury testimony never showed this to be the case. And besides, how could Valerie Plame get “outed” when (a) she was only an administrative person at the CIA, (b) was listed in “Who’s Who in DC” along with her husband and (c) offered to send Joe Wilson to Niger in the first place.
Match, set, game. You lose. Thank you for playing.
You forgot to mention, Pete, that it was liberal state department tool Richard Armitage who disclosed to the press that Valerie Plame picked her husband to go to Niger to discuss Saddam’s attempt tp buy uranium… despite the fact that Joe Wilson knew nothing about yellow-cake, nothing about Niger, his entire trip consisted of sipping tea beside a hotel swimming pool and talking with officials of the Niger government… who confirmed that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake.
It gets tiresome confronting the left-wing myths about Valerie Plame, but somebody’s gotta stick up for the truth.
Gene in Pennsylvaniasays
Good one Peter. Heard a tv thing with young voters today who were just constantly whining about how “horrible” today’s economy was. So horrible that they were all going to vote, couldn’t wait to vote this year. The MSM let’s young people go wander thru their lives thinking this 5% unemployment, 2% inflation, and 6% interest rates as being horrific. No education, not sense of perspective. Same with the yellow cake from Iraq. Without Bush 43, it would be N Korea, Iran and Iraq as a tripple threat. Especially with a Pres Kerry Gore or Clinton 42.
After Plame was transferred back to CIA headquarters in the mid-1990s, she continued to pass herself off as a private energy consultant. But the first CIA veteran noted: “You never let a true NOC go into an official facility. You don’t drive into headquarters with your car, ever.”
A senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that Plame “may not be alone in that category, so I don’t want to suggest she was the only one. But it would be a fair assumption that a true-blue NOC is not someone who has a headquarters job at any point or an embassy job at any point.”
In short, Plame Girl was claiming that no one could possibly know she worked for the CIA — when she was driving her car into CIA headquarters every day.
Valerie Plame was a secret agent the way Boy George was a closet case.
EDinTampasays
Now how can this be? I totally believed Joe Wilson and Val and all the left regarding this story. I refuse to believe this, this is another made up Bush lie. It has to be, Joe and Val are the most honest, innocent, she testified under oath, Joe is my hero for… I am having a sick head ache now. Will take a valium and sleep this nightmare through.
Clintsays
Sigh.
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a country with some sort of institutions that conveyed important and relevant information like this to the general public?
ThatGayConservativesays
Yeah. It’s a good thing Rove, Cheney and Bush outed Ms. Plame.
Yet another in a long list of liberal lies that went right down the shit hole. Now they have a “messiah” proffering more.
U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
I’m a little confused, Dan. How does this yellow-cake, that we knew about since 1991, tie into Wilson?
KevinQCsays
Well Jody, it certainly means he had an interest in the stuff, and lends weight to the claims he was trying to obtain more. Remember, everyone from Britain and France to Russia and China thought he was still working on his nuke program. Except the brilliant and omniscient Joe Wilson that is.
That Saddam didn’t get his paws on more uranium is probably just sheer luck considering the incompetent and corrupt way the UN managed its sanctions. Just imagine if Saddam were still in power and had by now convinced the UN to lift the sanctions all together?
And Kevin, you forgot to add, that on debriefing dishonest Joe upon his return from Niger, the CIA thought Wilson’s information lent credence to those who thought Saddam Hussein was trying to get yellowcake from that African nation.
Recall, that Wilson made no written report. Any written report made from his mission would have been made by those CIA debriefers.
Well Jody, it certainly means he had an interest in the stuff, and lends weight to the claims he was trying to obtain more…
I still don’t follow. You are saying that because he already had stuff that he could convert to weapons grade material this obviously means he wanted more stuff to convert to weapons grade material?
Why doesn’t it mean, or isn’t equally as likely to mean, that he didn’t need to buy any more material, as he already had plenty to make bombs with?
What will blow your mind even more is the video I have on my website (the bottom-most video).. which is a 1999 ABC News story about how Iraq and Al Qaeda were courting each other, and interested in acquiring and using nuclear weapons.
Click on my name to go to the my site.
This text is a commentary about the video and is with the video at the ultimate source, Powerline Blog:
The original ABC News report you linked to was from January 1999, I believe, and not 2000. The report was similar to numerous accounts in the worldwide press following Operation Desert Fox. That Clinton-ordered air campaign lasted from December 16 to December 19, 1998. Its purpose was to degrade Saddam’s WMD and intelligence capabilities. Reports from more recent years indicate that the campaign nearly plunged Saddam’s regime into chaos. In any event, Saddam’s response was telling. Just two days after Operation Desert Fox ended he dispatched one of his top intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. As I and others have written, Hijazi was no low-level flunky. He was one of Saddam’s most trusted goons and was responsible for overseeing a good deal of the regime’s terrorist and other covert activities. It was this meeting that led to widespread reporting on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I collected a bunch of these reports, including the ABC News report, in “The Four-Day War.” Another, earlier piece also discusses Saddam’s conspicuous response to Operation Desert Fox.
The consensus in the media then was that there was a relationship between the two and that Saddam’s regime was very willing to work with al Qaeda against their common foe: America. And vice versa. Indeed, the reporting indicated that they had been working together even long before Operation Desert Fox.
The reports from late 1998 and early 1999 are tough for naysayers to explain away for a variety of reasons, but that hasn’t stopped them from trying. For example, last year’s Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda (the report was written, primarily, by a former John Kerry for President campaigner) unhesitatingly cited Hijazi’s testimony, in which he claimed that he did not meet with bin Laden again after a lone incident in the mid 1990’s. The Senate Intelligence report did not cite any of the voluminous reporting, by ABC News and other outlets, following the meeting in December 1998. Obviously, that reporting demonstrates Hijazi is a liar. I asked the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff about this after the report came out. They said they didn’t have any evidence that contradicted Hijazi’s testimony and that is why they cited it unquestioningly. I think that is a good demonstration of the ignorance or bias or both that clouds this issue.
Of course, at the same time that the worldwide media was reporting all of this, various CIA and National Security Council officials were watching as well. Thus, Richard Clarke worried in February 1999 about bin Laden’s possible “boogie to Baghdad.” A month earlier he defended intelligence tying Saddam’s VX nerve gas program to a suspected al Qaeda front company in Sudan. Michael Scheuer also at one time found it convenient to cite some of this evidence. In his original 2002 edition of Through Our Enemies’ Eyes he approvingly cited several of the media’s late 1998/early 1999 accounts. Of course, they both now pretend none of this really means anything.
Such is the state of affairs in today’s Washington establishment.
Peter Hughessays
#19 – And who was president in 1999? And why was he not concerned so much with Iraq and al-Qaeda? Oh yes…something about a stained blue dress and impeachment proceedings. Got it.
The claim that Clinton didn’t recognize the terrorist threats, or didn’t do anything against Bin Laden is demonstrably false.
In fact, during his presidency, Clinton took both political and direct action against terrorism, including Bin Laden. Actions which were often opposed by Republicans, either directly or indirectly. And, Bin Laden wasn’t directly tied to any terrorist attacks against US interests until the bombing of the Cole, which occurred with only 3 months left in the Clinton Whitehouse, and even then, Bin Laden’s involvement didn’t come to light until Bush was in office.
There is also well documented evidence the Bush was well aware of the threat Bin laden represented and Terrorism posed, as well as having information regarding their plans to attack on US Soil, and didn’t do anything.
OK, now for the reality of Clinton’s counter-terrorism record:
When American embassies in Africa were bombed by al Qaeda Clinton did… nothing.
When the Khobar Towers were bombed, Clinton did… nothing.
When the USS Cole was bombed, Clinton did … nothing.
Clinton’s total response to terrorism: sending cruise missiles against an aspirin factory and a long-abandoned training camp to distract the media when he got in trouble on other matters.
Not to mention, the Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden by the government of Sudan, and refused.
And while Clinton did nothing, al Qaeda trained pilots in the USA to take off but not to land, and no one knew anything about it because the Clinton administration as a matter of policy (Jamie Gorelick) did not allow the CIA and the FBI to share counter-terrorism information.
Meanwhile, Clinton systematically gutted America’s military and intelligence capabilities. Among other things, refusing to engage as intelligence operatives people who were even suspected of human rights violations… even if such people might have valuable intelligence.
Clinton’s apologists can lie and spin all they want, but the reality is, Clinton was too busy using the Oval Office as his own personal ‘Gentlemen’s Club’ to pay much attention to global terrorism.
Peter Hughessays
#21 – So using your logic, Henry, if (God forbid) there is a terrorist attack in the last quarter of this year, then GWB is not responsible for preventing it or pursuing the alleged perps.
After all, in your assertion, it will not be his fault since the same thing happened to the USS Cole, “which occurred with only 3 months left in the Clinton Whitehouse [sic]” and therefore not really Slick Willie’s responsibility. It is just to be handed off to his successor.
OK, now for the reality of Clinton’s counter-terrorism record
Right, he should have invaded Iraq. That would have solved everything.
Is Clinton criticism free? No (nor, it should be pointed out, are Bush I or Reagan). Did he do more than Bush – certainly. Did the GOP oppose Clinton in almost all he did? Certainly.
The GOP opposed Clinton’s request to modify FISA to allow them to track persons, rather than individual phones, removing the provision (and others) from the anti-terrorism bill Clinton supported. (Now, the GOP argues that Bush doesn’t even need subpoenas).
Clinton increased funding for anti-terrorism by billions of dollars. The GOP spent that day examining a dress for semen.
Clinton attacked Iraqi nuclear sites. GOP accused him of doing it for political reasons.
By the way, Bush complimented the DOJ for the investigation into the Khobar Towers attack. The investigation began under Clinton.
Under Clinton, they were also to bring some of the Africa bombing suspects to trial and convict them. How many people has Bush convicted?
Clinton must have been very proud of anti-terrorism efforts. That must be why he sent Sandy Berger into the national archives to steal classified documents dealing with… Clinton’s anti-terrorism efforts.
I don’t care how much Clinton increased funding. So Val Plame got a bonus some year. Big whoop. All that money is wasted unless intelligence agencies can share information, which the Clinton administration went to great lengths to prevent.
And I’m not impressed that Bush gave a “you’re doing a heck of a job, brownie,” on the Khobar Towers investigation.
Clinton’s launching of cruise missiles into Iraq in 1996 were not directed against Iraqi nuclear facilities but against Iraq’s air defense infrastructure. Coincidentally, Clinton’s poll numbers went up in the aftermath of the strike. Clinton did not strike Iraq again until December 1998 (during impeachment proceedings, just a coincidence I’m sure). Targets included industrial facilities, infrastructure, and command and control facilities, not nuclear installations. Besides which, dead terrorists can’t be pardoned… like the 16 FALN terrorists Clinton pardoned on his way out of the Oval Office. (Notably, Clinton invoked ‘Executive Privilege’ to hide document relating to the pardon of FALN terrorists.)
Of course, the Clinton apologists want us to believe that the fact that Clinton’s cruise missiles attacks just happened to take place on the very same day he was deposed for lying under oath and again during his impeachment trial was just an amazing coincidence and had nothing to do with distracting the press.
How many people has Bush convicted?
Who cares. I’d rather have terrorists dead then imprisoned. Like the Cole-terror-bombing conspirators who just happened to ‘escape’ from Yemeni prison.
Peter Hughessays
#24 – “How many people has Bush convicted?”
There is a prime example of what is wrong with the left, besides having some serious ignorance regarding prosecution of wartime criminals. The president doesn’t “convict” anyone in wartime; the armed forces do. (If that were the case, then how many Japs and Nazis did FDR “convict,” smartass?)
These bleeding heart libtards see people who wish to exterminate us and want to treat them to all the comforts of a democracy – innocence before guilt, free attorneys and habeus corpus. So if (God forbid) they get freed on a legal technicality, they can go free…and try 9/11 again.
We on the Right see these animals for what they are – bloodthirsty, scheming, conniving anti-Semites and anti-Westerners who cannot be reasoned with, who have not advanced their culture beyond the 7th century AD, who try to use our own people against us (just read DK or HuffPo for a view of the “enemy from within”), and have a sympathetic ear from the MSM, CAIR and at least one Democrat presidential candidate.
Sorry, but I’d rather shoot first and ask questions later. The time you spend trying to “reason” with an Islamofascist is enough time for him to kill you.
That Clinton established a ‘wall’ between the agencies is another right-wing fantasy. First of wall, the elements of the ‘alleged’ wall was something in effect well before Clinton took office, dating back to the early 80s.
The purpose of the ‘wall’ memo was to clarify the policies which were already in effect: There were avenues open to counter-intelligent investigations that, if used in criminal investigations, would not be admissible and which would / could effect the successfully criminal prosecution. The ‘Wall’ memo was one which clarified (not prohibted) the sharing of information so that materials used in the criminal case would meet constitutional muster.
The ‘Wall’ was not between all the intelligence agencies, rather it was internal to the DOJ / FBI, between the FBI counter-intelligence arm and the FBI criminal division.
Also worth noting was that AG Ashcroft also kept the ‘wall’ up when he took over, which he stated in a memo in August 2001.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Under Bush, U.S. forces have dispatched tens of thousands of terrorists to their 72 virgins / raisins, and al Qaeda is suffering an historic defeat, such that even Muslims are starting to reject them as losers (see link provided at #16). That is better for U.S. security than Clinton’s (non-)efforts. Let’s hope the next President, be he McCain or Obama, doesn’t blow the gains.
The president doesn’t “convict†anyone in wartime
Actually, the president never convicts anyone, ever. Clinton didn’t convict anyone eithier, but under hos presidence his DOJ was able to. My point as you well know was to ask, under Bush’s president, how many convictions were managed. You get points for making a straw man, though.
Clinton didn’t convict anyone eithier, but under hos presidence his DOJ was able to
Yeah, all 18 of them, or whatever it was. Result: Thousands of American deaths with USS Cole and 9-11. As Andy McCarthy’s book makes clear… read it. (McCarthy was the prosecutor who obtained those Clinton-era convictions.)
ILoveCapitalismsays
Clinton didn’t convict anyone eithier, but under hos presidence his DOJ was able to
Yeah, all 18 of them, or whatever it was. Result: Thousands of American deaths with USS Cole and 9-11.
P.S. The issue is this: “I wonder what joe wilson has to say about this?” (About the fact that Bush put some large quantity of yellowcake out of Baathist / terrorist reach) People engaged in straw men and distractions, like you Henry, really should not accuse others.
I’m referring to Desert Fox attack on Iraq and the Monica Lewinski missile attacks on Sudan,Afghanistan.
He sent massive ordinance in single instances with no follow-up.. so the attacks themselves only managed to motivate our enemies to work smarter against us.
This manifested itself in the Taliban finally giving up all reservations and partnering with Al Qaeda, as well Iraq increasing its subversion against the UN system, US/UK fighter patrols, and its direct support to terrorism as well as courting Al Qaeda.
People engaged in straw men and distractions, like you Henry, really should not accuse others.
What straw man did I set up?
Yes, the original post was about Wilson, which led to discussions of Wilson, then Plame, then Clinton. I didn’t bring the discussion here, am just replying to what others have said.
Henry, somehow I knew this post would get quite a thread going. Created more an exchange than posts in which I put considerably less thought.
ILoveCapitalismsays
What straw man did I set up?
Oh, please. Are you really that blind to yourself? I count several straw men (i.e., exaggerations or implied misrepresentations of others’ arguments, designed to make you look clever to yourself) in #24 alone.
As for the many distractions from GPW’s original topic:
I didn’t bring the discussion here, am just replying to what others have said.
What a phony disclaimer of responsibility. But please note: I have made no objection at all to our collectively going off-topic. I am not chiding you, or me or anyone, for it. I have only noted your hypocrisy in chiding people for it (#29).
By the way, Bush complimented the DOJ for the investigation into the Khobar Towers attack. The investigation began under Clinton.
My God… are you the walking dead or what? You are so horrible underinformed about everything you talk about.
You are not aware that Clinton actively tried to have the investigation go no where?
I started spending some time searching for all the details but the hell with it.
[Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
ILoveCapitalismsays
IOW: The side topics that you’re engaging in / bringing up Henry are fine, but given that you are engaging in them, don’t chide others (#29) for doing so also. You know… people in glass houses, and all that.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Bush complimented the DOJ for the investigation into the Khobar Towers attack
Bush also gave George Tenet, the Clinton holdover and incompetent who presided over several gigantic CIA foul-ups beginning with 9-11, the Medal of Freedom or some such. Bush praises everyone who works for him, regardless of competence. It’s one of his flaws. His praise must always be verified against reality.
New side topic: Bush has many flaws, which people on this site criticize freely. This site is about what is best for America and conservative-libertarian ideals of freedom… screw Bush.
How, exactly was that Phony. My first Post came at 21, after the ‘Who was president in 1999’ post by PH.
But please note: I have made no objection at all to our collectively going off-topic. I am not chiding you, or me or anyone, for it. I have only noted your hypocrisy in chiding people for it
I didn’t chide anyone for going off topic. I chided for what I consider a Straw Man Argument that Presidents convict people. While, admittedly, that was my statement, the intent of the question was apparent. To focus on the incorrect wording, as opposed to the obvious meaning, is a straw man argument.
Peter Hughessays
#29 – “Clinton didn’t convict anyone eithier, but under hos presidence his DOJ was able to.”
Really? In which alternative universe was that? And please do tell us (a) who was convicted, (b) under what charges and (c) the date they were sent to trial. I’m sure it would make fascinating fiction reading.
Plus – I have to hand it to you. Not many libtards will agree with us that Clinton really did have a “hos presidence.” He had more ho’s than Velvet Jones on “Uptown Saturday Night.” But I digress.
Henry, you are probably not familiar with all of us posters here at GP, but I can assure you that I have never created a straw man, much less dated one. And I have a bunch of co-responders who will affirm this statement.
Be that as it may, you yourself never answered my question. I will repeat it here very slowly so you can understand: HOW MANY NAZIS OR JAPS DID FDR CONVICT DURING WORLD WAR II?
Nice example of straw man and projection there, Hank ol’ girl.
Plus, I echo Vince’s equivocation at #40 simply because it is true based upon your Kool-Aid spiked rants, and you have not exactly disproved that postulate in any follow-up postings.
I have never created a straw man, much less dated one
Straw Man: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument:
Your focus on a President actually convicting someone (including your offensive ‘Japs’ FDR question) ignores the actual substance of my point and makes an easy argument to win. (I do know we needlessly interred over 100,000 japanese citizens simply because they were Japanese. With no proof or any wrong doing and no due process, which is won of the worst acts our country has done).
I’ve said it before, it is so hard to have a reasonable discussion with any leftists because they are so horribly uninformed. And uneducated about basic American history and current events scanning the past 10 years. These 18-30 year olds who don’t have any basic grounding are not capable of any understanding of these complicated events and decisions.
Peter Hughessays
#47 – So it’s my fault that just because I took your question literally, that I was avoiding the question and creating a “straw man?” Boy, talk about mental gymnastics. How’s that projection going, Hank ol’ girl?
BTW – “Japs” in a historical context is not so un-PC. Even left-of-center Life magazine once ran an article on racial profiling in 1943 called “How to Tell the Japs from the Chinese.” I kid you not. Go google it.
And if you got offended by my language – tough crap. Deal with it. Be a man. Butch up.
Also, just FYI – Wikipedia is not an accurate source for narrative. Nice try. And did you ever stop to think that if Clinton had been using a policy of pre-emption and not law enforcement, that maybe these Islamofascist scumbags would not have gotten away with the first bombings? Or even those same asshats who bombed the WTC first in 1993 – because remember, Hank ol’ girl, that happened under Slick Willie’s watch too.
Nice chatting with you. Now excuse me, I have a life to lead.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter Hughessays
#49 – Gene, I hear you. Ever notice that the same libtards who identify with “MoveOn.org” can’t really seem to?
Yeah, y’see I don’t curse and I don’t name-call. I only comment on what people post. If I say that someone is a partisan shill, it’s because their postings are one-sided and dishonest, and I’ve said that of people on both sides. So, even though I might think that someone who never questions the spin of his own side is a moron, I usually would refrain from doing so unless they went to the next step of comparing Bush to Hitler or that 9-11 was an inside job. Those people are, in fact, idiots.
ILoveCapitalismsays
6 of those responsible for the first Word Trade Bombing were convicted, including the mastermind.
Yet none of those responsible for 9-11 were convicted. Gee, I wonder why not? (Hint: It was a suicide attack. They couldn’t be meaningfully convicted; they were dead. Preventive actions, like taking the war to the terrorists and either killing them or making them talk about the rest of their plots, are what save American lives. Not after-the-fact police actions that are so ineffective in slowing the next attack, even their own prosecutors repudiate them. Side note: Only a left-liberal would need this spelled out.)
ILoveCapitalismsays
6 of those responsible for the first Word Trade Bombing were convicted, including the mastermind.
Yet none of those responsible for 9-11 were convicted. Gee, I wonder why not? (Hint: It was a suicide attack, and a successful one. So the perpetrators were dead. Preventive actions, like taking the war to the terrorists and either killing them or making them talk about the rest of their plots, are what save American lives. Not after-the-fact police actions that are so ineffective in preventing the next attack, even their own prosecutors repudiate them – as Andrew McC has done. Side note: Only a left-liberal would need this spelled out.)
ILoveCapitalismsays
(btw, I have tried to reference prosecutor Andrew McC’s book several times now, in linkable form… I suspect the GP comment filter doesn’t like his last name… you can look it up on Amazon tho)
ILC, left libs don’t even understand why we’re holding people at GITMO. They’re like, “Hey, so they want to kill American soldiers and destroy the American way of life. What’s so wrong with that? The next thing you know, they’ll be locking up the faculty of Berkeley.”
ILC, that darned moderation buffer continually eats my witty posts making sport of a certain commenter who has a compulsion about reminding everyone how wealthy he is every time he posts a comment. Alas…
markiesays
hhmmmmmmmmm. 1970’s yellowcake. could i have mine with chocolate frosting.
ThatGayConservativesays
So using your logic, Henry, if (God forbid) there is a terrorist attack in the last quarter of this year, then GWB is not responsible for preventing it or pursuing the alleged perps.
What’s more, the next president has to be prepared to go balls to the wall right after his speech on day one. Gotta be ready to do something in response to vague intelligence briefs. Nobody knows what, but he’s gotta do SOMETHING.
How many people has Bush convicted?
I’ll take thousands captured or killed over 29 convicted after the fact any day, how about you? Osama was indicted during the 90s. A lot of good that did. Besides, it goes without saying that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are currently pounding sand and there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in the U.S. in almost 7 years. Compare that with the criminal prosecution angle of the 90s.
BTW, wasn’t Mark Levin one of those prosecutors? Try asking him how well that went.
somehow I knew this post would get quite a thread going. Created more an exchange than posts in which I put considerably less thought.
And more than Henry’s blog has ever produced, apparently.
Peter Hughessays
#65 – Attmay, I have a copy of the report printed by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office dated November 2002 which outlines Saddam Hussein’s crimes & human rights abuses. The list is shocking:
a. Torture (victims & methodology)
b. Treatment of women
c. Prison conditions
d. Arbitrary & summary killings
e. Kurdish persecution
f. Shia persecution
g. Kuwait occupation
h. Lists of attacks with chemical weapons
Oh, and for the libtard trolls who think this is nothing but British propaganda, the report also lists evidence from Amnesty International and the UN commission on human rights.
So to answer your question, Attmay – NO. The international community had every right to seek his removal, along with his two whelpish sons.
Regards,
Peter H.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Ah, but V, Henry’s blog is for the “discerning” (or whatever his euphemism was – I’m not going back to look).
a stash “yellowcake” whose existance has been known for quite some time. and yet is removal is done without fanfare. ya gotta wonder why and just where did it come from?
Peter Hughessays
#71 – If it was known for “quite some time,” why didn’t Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Kennedy/Clinton et al point it out?
Sigh…too easy.
Take a hike, markiemark. Preferably across I-45 during rush hour.
Regards,
Peter H.
markiesays
oh that’s right. it was a present from uncle sam in the seventies.
Ok, so how can “Saddam isn’t looking for WMD” reconcile with “Saddam had stuff to make WMD, still?”
Answer, they can’t. Sorry
KevinQCsays
Why doesn’t it mean, or isn’t equally as likely to mean, that he didn’t need to buy any more material, as he already had plenty to make bombs with?
Let’s say it does mean that, Jody. The mere fact Saddam had that much nuclear material, was refusing to cooperate with inspections, and was a mass murderer who would have used a nuke as soon as he could have built it justifies the invasion.
markiesays
UO2 is as common as snot. that said, capability
is not capacity. face it folks georgie porgie duped you.
Dazzle us more with your expertise on nuclear weapons, Dr. Christmas Jones.
Sean Asays
#78: Bwwwahhhaahhhhaaahhhh! Good one, Vinnie P. The only way I would have enjoyed it more is if markie’s character died at the end of the movie. Preferably in a big explosion. Or maybe covered in suffocating gold paint from head to toe. No, shot in the head execution-style I think. Veeery dramatic.
All this talk of WMDs again (and marxist…er, markie’s contribution) has reminded me that of all the pointless discussions to have with idiot liberals, this one is the MOST pointless. If the “evidence” is that there are no WMDs, then the U.S. cannot take military action. Of course, the “evidence” consists of Saddam turning out his pants pockets and shaking his head back and forth. The mass-murdering dictator MUST be taken at his word. Any efforts by U.S. officials to verify Saddam’s claims will be condemned as ignorant and embarrassing “cowboy diplomacy.” If there IS evidence of the plans, materials and facilities to build WMDs, then the U.S. CANNOT take military action. Just because they have common stuff like enriched yellowcake uranium (enough to build 142 nuclear weapons) doesn’t prove a thing. Besides, I read somewhere that Yellowcake is as “common as snot.” Practically grows in your vegetable garden. And if the evidence is that Saddam (or Iran) has 500 nuclear warheads pointed at the U.S., Israel and Western Europe, well…same answer, of course! If we attack now, Saddam is sure to use those weapons on us and then where will we be????!!! We can’t provoke him–he might launch those nukes! Better that we keep our heads down and try not to piss him off.
But really when you’re talking about people like Kevin and markie, the analysis above is particularly unhelpful because their position from the get-go is: who are we to tell another sovereign nation that they can’t have nukes but we can? Who are we to be so arrogant and judgmental? Just because instead of Nascar, Iranians enjoy an afternoon in the sun watching a gay hanging is no reason to assume their leaders would not have the good judgment to control a nuclear arsenal responsibly.
marxist markie just won’t admit that he’s a pacifist and that he will ALWAYS find some reason to conclude that invasion (or even the U.S. defending itself) is unacceptable.
Sean Asays
COMMON SENSE?! Are you kidding markie? Like that nuclear material being “a present from uncle sam in the seventies.” Is that an example of what you consider “common sense?” How about “war for oil?” I mean, it’s just common sense, right? 9/11 was an inside job? Common sense, huh?
oh that’s right. it was a present from uncle sam in the seventies.
I see the Obama campaign is lying again.
You see, we know when and from where Saddam Hussein purchased his uranium, and none of the locations are the United States.
And then markie finishes by quoting sex offender Scott Ritter, who has already been caught lying in regards to the Pelosi- and Obama-supported Syrian nuclear reactor.
Guys, why are you feeding the troll? Even acknowledging his infantile posts gives a false impression that he actually said something worth responding to.
AoSHQ had a great solution for trolls. Some regulars we ‘deputized’ and allowed to re-write comments posted by trolls to make them sound idiotic. That would not even work, here, as it is impossible to make some trolls’ comments any stupider than they already are.
Peter Hughessays
#83 – Vince, right on. These libtards love the USA like OJ loved Nicole. (H/T Ann Coulter)
I think they are the ones that need therapy to understand why they are so passive-aggressive in their distaste for America and for what she stands.
Where are those gay concentration camps when you need them? 😉
Oh yeah – far back in the recesses of their collective imagination.
The other option, V the K, is simply to take advantage of the power of the Obamamessiah.
In short, blame every stupid thing his sheep say on him, and watch as he throws them under the bus, shuts them up, and is forced to admit that what his sheep say is wrong.
markiesays
it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. the best you can do is innuendo to debunk ritter. arrested, charged, dismissed, files sealed and no trip to baghdad. hmmmmmmmmmmm
heliotropesays
markie can’t do nearly as well as Scott Ritter does for himself in explaining his “objective”, “non-biased” views. He even manages to drag St. Saul Alinsky into the mix!
Then, in 2000, Ritter co-wrote and directed a documentary “In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq,†in which, despite his prior minatory rhetoric, he attempted to show that country was actually a “defanged tiger.†The film was financed by an Iraqi businessman named Shaker Al-Khafaji using pilfered money from the oil-for-food program.
Again, notice how the Obama campaign and the Democrat Party support making propaganda films to promote Saddam Hussein using money stolen from UN humanitarian programs.
But it gets better.
In 2002, during the lead-up to the war he fervently opposed, Ritter refused to elaborate for Time magazine on the “horrific†conditions of the children’s prison he inspected at the General Security Services headquarters in Iraq, fearing that the gruesome details would “be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.â€
So the Democrat Party and Barack Obama supported covering up Saddam Hussein’s brutality, including his imprisonment and torture of children, because doing so would undercut their attempts to protect Saddam Hussein and perpetuate his regime.
And now, the REAL fun.
In that same interview, he clearly contradicted himself and lied about his former position:
In 1998, you said Saddam had “not nearly disarmed.†Now you say he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I’ve said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact.
So Ritter himself admitted that he didn’t think Iraq was free of WMDs.
Meanwhile, he is a sex offender. Court proceedings involving juveniles are ordinarily sealed to protect their privacy. The court ordered him to undergo sex-offender counseling and he did; hence, the court likely dismissed the charges, similar to using a diversion agreement including rehab for DUI.
But again, it’s no surprise that the Obama campaign supports and endorses someone who used stolen money from humanitarian programs to create propaganda films for Saddam Hussein, who himself admitted that he was covering up Saddam’s brutality to aid the Democrat Party’s attempt to keep Saddam in power, and who solicits underage children for sex.
Here’s your neo-con lie that all the conservative blogs got missled with. Saddam had that yellowcake before the Gulf War, and it was locked down after.
markiesays
never ceases to amaze me how a narrow mind contorts.
never ceases to amaze me how a narrow mind contorts.
Yeah, Mitchell Blatt is pretty narrow-minded and contorted. I’ll agree with that.
heliotropesays
Saddam had that yellowcake before the Gulf War, and it was locked down after.
Suppose that Mitchelll Blatt has rock solid proof that both parts of this statement are 100% true.
Does that mean that Saddam did not pursue additional yellowcake after the Gulf War? Does that mean that Saddam would never have agreed to transfer the “locked down” yellowcake to another tyrant? Does that mean than a huge cache of yellowcake is benign, like a warehouse full of aluminum cans?
If you ever saw “The Royal Tenenbaums”, you will recall the scene where Royal is confronted by Chaz (Ben Stiller) in a lawyers office about stealing bonds from his safety deposit box, and all Royal can do is shrug and laugh stupidly….classic gesture of stupid laughing (Gene Hackman was so perfect for this). That’s how I picture Joe Wilson right now.
And I bet you anything that the MSM will not cover this development.
Regards,
Peter H.
Yeah. It’s a good thing Rove, Cheney and Bush outed Ms. Plame. This justifies everything. Now, the Bush administration can be seen for the success that it is.
#3 – “It’s a good thing Rove, Cheney and Bush outed Ms. Plame.”
Liar. Even the jury testimony never showed this to be the case. And besides, how could Valerie Plame get “outed” when (a) she was only an administrative person at the CIA, (b) was listed in “Who’s Who in DC” along with her husband and (c) offered to send Joe Wilson to Niger in the first place.
Match, set, game. You lose. Thank you for playing.
Regards,
Peter H.
You forgot to mention, Pete, that it was liberal state department tool Richard Armitage who disclosed to the press that Valerie Plame picked her husband to go to Niger to discuss Saddam’s attempt tp buy uranium… despite the fact that Joe Wilson knew nothing about yellow-cake, nothing about Niger, his entire trip consisted of sipping tea beside a hotel swimming pool and talking with officials of the Niger government… who confirmed that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake.
It gets tiresome confronting the left-wing myths about Valerie Plame, but somebody’s gotta stick up for the truth.
Good one Peter. Heard a tv thing with young voters today who were just constantly whining about how “horrible” today’s economy was. So horrible that they were all going to vote, couldn’t wait to vote this year. The MSM let’s young people go wander thru their lives thinking this 5% unemployment, 2% inflation, and 6% interest rates as being horrific. No education, not sense of perspective. Same with the yellow cake from Iraq. Without Bush 43, it would be N Korea, Iran and Iraq as a tripple threat. Especially with a Pres Kerry Gore or Clinton 42.
#5&6 – Heard and noted.
Regards,
Peter H.
Also, if Plame Girl was in fact a doublesuperultrasecret spy, she was breaking a host of rules about conduct for such individuals.
Key one:
After Plame was transferred back to CIA headquarters in the mid-1990s, she continued to pass herself off as a private energy consultant. But the first CIA veteran noted: “You never let a true NOC go into an official facility. You don’t drive into headquarters with your car, ever.”
A senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that Plame “may not be alone in that category, so I don’t want to suggest she was the only one. But it would be a fair assumption that a true-blue NOC is not someone who has a headquarters job at any point or an embassy job at any point.”
In short, Plame Girl was claiming that no one could possibly know she worked for the CIA — when she was driving her car into CIA headquarters every day.
Valerie Plame was a secret agent the way Boy George was a closet case.
Now how can this be? I totally believed Joe Wilson and Val and all the left regarding this story. I refuse to believe this, this is another made up Bush lie. It has to be, Joe and Val are the most honest, innocent, she testified under oath, Joe is my hero for… I am having a sick head ache now. Will take a valium and sleep this nightmare through.
Sigh.
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a country with some sort of institutions that conveyed important and relevant information like this to the general public?
Yet another in a long list of liberal lies that went right down the shit hole. Now they have a “messiah” proffering more.
I’m a little confused, Dan. How does this yellow-cake, that we knew about since 1991, tie into Wilson?
Well Jody, it certainly means he had an interest in the stuff, and lends weight to the claims he was trying to obtain more. Remember, everyone from Britain and France to Russia and China thought he was still working on his nuke program. Except the brilliant and omniscient Joe Wilson that is.
That Saddam didn’t get his paws on more uranium is probably just sheer luck considering the incompetent and corrupt way the UN managed its sanctions. Just imagine if Saddam were still in power and had by now convinced the UN to lift the sanctions all together?
Jody, Kevin took the words right out of my mouth.
And Kevin, you forgot to add, that on debriefing dishonest Joe upon his return from Niger, the CIA thought Wilson’s information lent credence to those who thought Saddam Hussein was trying to get yellowcake from that African nation.
Recall, that Wilson made no written report. Any written report made from his mission would have been made by those CIA debriefers.
Other big news that our left-liberal friends are sure to insist on remaining ignorant of: we are On the cusp of the “most spectacular†victory against Al-Qaeda.
#16
Even Snobama has to flip-flop on it.
I still don’t follow. You are saying that because he already had stuff that he could convert to weapons grade material this obviously means he wanted more stuff to convert to weapons grade material?
Why doesn’t it mean, or isn’t equally as likely to mean, that he didn’t need to buy any more material, as he already had plenty to make bombs with?
What will blow your mind even more is the video I have on my website (the bottom-most video).. which is a 1999 ABC News story about how Iraq and Al Qaeda were courting each other, and interested in acquiring and using nuclear weapons.
Click on my name to go to the my site.
This text is a commentary about the video and is with the video at the ultimate source, Powerline Blog:
#19 – And who was president in 1999? And why was he not concerned so much with Iraq and al-Qaeda? Oh yes…something about a stained blue dress and impeachment proceedings. Got it.
Regards,
Peter H.
The claim that Clinton didn’t recognize the terrorist threats, or didn’t do anything against Bin Laden is demonstrably false.
In fact, during his presidency, Clinton took both political and direct action against terrorism, including Bin Laden. Actions which were often opposed by Republicans, either directly or indirectly. And, Bin Laden wasn’t directly tied to any terrorist attacks against US interests until the bombing of the Cole, which occurred with only 3 months left in the Clinton Whitehouse, and even then, Bin Laden’s involvement didn’t come to light until Bush was in office.
There is also well documented evidence the Bush was well aware of the threat Bin laden represented and Terrorism posed, as well as having information regarding their plans to attack on US Soil, and didn’t do anything.
OK, now for the reality of Clinton’s counter-terrorism record:
When American embassies in Africa were bombed by al Qaeda Clinton did… nothing.
When the Khobar Towers were bombed, Clinton did… nothing.
When the USS Cole was bombed, Clinton did … nothing.
Clinton’s total response to terrorism: sending cruise missiles against an aspirin factory and a long-abandoned training camp to distract the media when he got in trouble on other matters.
Not to mention, the Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden by the government of Sudan, and refused.
And while Clinton did nothing, al Qaeda trained pilots in the USA to take off but not to land, and no one knew anything about it because the Clinton administration as a matter of policy (Jamie Gorelick) did not allow the CIA and the FBI to share counter-terrorism information.
Meanwhile, Clinton systematically gutted America’s military and intelligence capabilities. Among other things, refusing to engage as intelligence operatives people who were even suspected of human rights violations… even if such people might have valuable intelligence.
Clinton’s apologists can lie and spin all they want, but the reality is, Clinton was too busy using the Oval Office as his own personal ‘Gentlemen’s Club’ to pay much attention to global terrorism.
#21 – So using your logic, Henry, if (God forbid) there is a terrorist attack in the last quarter of this year, then GWB is not responsible for preventing it or pursuing the alleged perps.
After all, in your assertion, it will not be his fault since the same thing happened to the USS Cole, “which occurred with only 3 months left in the Clinton Whitehouse [sic]” and therefore not really Slick Willie’s responsibility. It is just to be handed off to his successor.
Gotcha.
Regards,
Peter H.
OK, now for the reality of Clinton’s counter-terrorism record
Right, he should have invaded Iraq. That would have solved everything.
Is Clinton criticism free? No (nor, it should be pointed out, are Bush I or Reagan). Did he do more than Bush – certainly. Did the GOP oppose Clinton in almost all he did? Certainly.
The GOP opposed Clinton’s request to modify FISA to allow them to track persons, rather than individual phones, removing the provision (and others) from the anti-terrorism bill Clinton supported. (Now, the GOP argues that Bush doesn’t even need subpoenas).
Clinton increased funding for anti-terrorism by billions of dollars. The GOP spent that day examining a dress for semen.
Clinton attacked Iraqi nuclear sites. GOP accused him of doing it for political reasons.
By the way, Bush complimented the DOJ for the investigation into the Khobar Towers attack. The investigation began under Clinton.
Under Clinton, they were also to bring some of the Africa bombing suspects to trial and convict them. How many people has Bush convicted?
Clinton must have been very proud of anti-terrorism efforts. That must be why he sent Sandy Berger into the national archives to steal classified documents dealing with… Clinton’s anti-terrorism efforts.
I don’t care how much Clinton increased funding. So Val Plame got a bonus some year. Big whoop. All that money is wasted unless intelligence agencies can share information, which the Clinton administration went to great lengths to prevent.
And I’m not impressed that Bush gave a “you’re doing a heck of a job, brownie,” on the Khobar Towers investigation.
Clinton’s launching of cruise missiles into Iraq in 1996 were not directed against Iraqi nuclear facilities but against Iraq’s air defense infrastructure. Coincidentally, Clinton’s poll numbers went up in the aftermath of the strike. Clinton did not strike Iraq again until December 1998 (during impeachment proceedings, just a coincidence I’m sure). Targets included industrial facilities, infrastructure, and command and control facilities, not nuclear installations. Besides which, dead terrorists can’t be pardoned… like the 16 FALN terrorists Clinton pardoned on his way out of the Oval Office. (Notably, Clinton invoked ‘Executive Privilege’ to hide document relating to the pardon of FALN terrorists.)
Of course, the Clinton apologists want us to believe that the fact that Clinton’s cruise missiles attacks just happened to take place on the very same day he was deposed for lying under oath and again during his impeachment trial was just an amazing coincidence and had nothing to do with distracting the press.
How many people has Bush convicted?
Who cares. I’d rather have terrorists dead then imprisoned. Like the Cole-terror-bombing conspirators who just happened to ‘escape’ from Yemeni prison.
#24 – “How many people has Bush convicted?”
There is a prime example of what is wrong with the left, besides having some serious ignorance regarding prosecution of wartime criminals. The president doesn’t “convict” anyone in wartime; the armed forces do. (If that were the case, then how many Japs and Nazis did FDR “convict,” smartass?)
These bleeding heart libtards see people who wish to exterminate us and want to treat them to all the comforts of a democracy – innocence before guilt, free attorneys and habeus corpus. So if (God forbid) they get freed on a legal technicality, they can go free…and try 9/11 again.
We on the Right see these animals for what they are – bloodthirsty, scheming, conniving anti-Semites and anti-Westerners who cannot be reasoned with, who have not advanced their culture beyond the 7th century AD, who try to use our own people against us (just read DK or HuffPo for a view of the “enemy from within”), and have a sympathetic ear from the MSM, CAIR and at least one Democrat presidential candidate.
Sorry, but I’d rather shoot first and ask questions later. The time you spend trying to “reason” with an Islamofascist is enough time for him to kill you.
Regards,
Peter H.
That Clinton established a ‘wall’ between the agencies is another right-wing fantasy. First of wall, the elements of the ‘alleged’ wall was something in effect well before Clinton took office, dating back to the early 80s.
The purpose of the ‘wall’ memo was to clarify the policies which were already in effect: There were avenues open to counter-intelligent investigations that, if used in criminal investigations, would not be admissible and which would / could effect the successfully criminal prosecution. The ‘Wall’ memo was one which clarified (not prohibted) the sharing of information so that materials used in the criminal case would meet constitutional muster.
The ‘Wall’ was not between all the intelligence agencies, rather it was internal to the DOJ / FBI, between the FBI counter-intelligence arm and the FBI criminal division.
Also worth noting was that AG Ashcroft also kept the ‘wall’ up when he took over, which he stated in a memo in August 2001.
Under Bush, U.S. forces have dispatched tens of thousands of terrorists to their 72 virgins / raisins, and al Qaeda is suffering an historic defeat, such that even Muslims are starting to reject them as losers (see link provided at #16). That is better for U.S. security than Clinton’s (non-)efforts. Let’s hope the next President, be he McCain or Obama, doesn’t blow the gains.
The president doesn’t “convict†anyone in wartime
Actually, the president never convicts anyone, ever. Clinton didn’t convict anyone eithier, but under hos presidence his DOJ was able to. My point as you well know was to ask, under Bush’s president, how many convictions were managed. You get points for making a straw man, though.
Nice distraction from the issue.
(sorry, dEspatched)
The typos are at no additional costs. 🙂
Yeah, all 18 of them, or whatever it was. Result: Thousands of American deaths with USS Cole and 9-11. As Andy McCarthy’s book makes clear… read it. (McCarthy was the prosecutor who obtained those Clinton-era convictions.)
Yeah, all 18 of them, or whatever it was. Result: Thousands of American deaths with USS Cole and 9-11.
As Andy McCarthy’s book makes clear. (McCarthy was the prosecutor who obtained those Clinton-era convictions.)
P.S. The issue is this: “I wonder what joe wilson has to say about this?” (About the fact that Bush put some large quantity of yellowcake out of Baathist / terrorist reach) People engaged in straw men and distractions, like you Henry, really should not accuse others.
Clinton did worse than nothing in the late 1990s.
He half-assedly attacked our enemies.
I’m referring to Desert Fox attack on Iraq and the Monica Lewinski missile attacks on Sudan,Afghanistan.
He sent massive ordinance in single instances with no follow-up.. so the attacks themselves only managed to motivate our enemies to work smarter against us.
This manifested itself in the Taliban finally giving up all reservations and partnering with Al Qaeda, as well Iraq increasing its subversion against the UN system, US/UK fighter patrols, and its direct support to terrorism as well as courting Al Qaeda.
21 Henry:
What are you smoking?
Bin Ladin was Suspect Number 1 for the 1998 Embassy Bombings and he declared war against the US in 98 (and serveral other times too)
I think his ties to “Black Hawk Down” were revealed by then too.
Bin Ladin was Suspect Number 1 for the 1998 Embassy Bombings .
Yes he was. That was a mistake on my part when I wrote the post. It was correct on my blog, which is where I was transposing the information from.
People engaged in straw men and distractions, like you Henry, really should not accuse others.
What straw man did I set up?
Yes, the original post was about Wilson, which led to discussions of Wilson, then Plame, then Clinton. I didn’t bring the discussion here, am just replying to what others have said.
Sorry if that is bothersome.
Henry, somehow I knew this post would get quite a thread going. Created more an exchange than posts in which I put considerably less thought.
Oh, please. Are you really that blind to yourself? I count several straw men (i.e., exaggerations or implied misrepresentations of others’ arguments, designed to make you look clever to yourself) in #24 alone.
As for the many distractions from GPW’s original topic:
What a phony disclaimer of responsibility. But please note: I have made no objection at all to our collectively going off-topic. I am not chiding you, or me or anyone, for it. I have only noted your hypocrisy in chiding people for it (#29).
24
My God… are you the walking dead or what? You are so horrible underinformed about everything you talk about.
You are not aware that Clinton actively tried to have the investigation go no where?
I started spending some time searching for all the details but the hell with it.
[Comment edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
IOW: The side topics that you’re engaging in / bringing up Henry are fine, but given that you are engaging in them, don’t chide others (#29) for doing so also. You know… people in glass houses, and all that.
Bush also gave George Tenet, the Clinton holdover and incompetent who presided over several gigantic CIA foul-ups beginning with 9-11, the Medal of Freedom or some such. Bush praises everyone who works for him, regardless of competence. It’s one of his flaws. His praise must always be verified against reality.
New side topic: Bush has many flaws, which people on this site criticize freely. This site is about what is best for America and conservative-libertarian ideals of freedom… screw Bush.
What a phony disclaimer of responsibility.
How, exactly was that Phony. My first Post came at 21, after the ‘Who was president in 1999’ post by PH.
But please note: I have made no objection at all to our collectively going off-topic. I am not chiding you, or me or anyone, for it. I have only noted your hypocrisy in chiding people for it
I didn’t chide anyone for going off topic. I chided for what I consider a Straw Man Argument that Presidents convict people. While, admittedly, that was my statement, the intent of the question was apparent. To focus on the incorrect wording, as opposed to the obvious meaning, is a straw man argument.
#29 – “Clinton didn’t convict anyone eithier, but under hos presidence his DOJ was able to.”
Really? In which alternative universe was that? And please do tell us (a) who was convicted, (b) under what charges and (c) the date they were sent to trial. I’m sure it would make fascinating fiction reading.
Plus – I have to hand it to you. Not many libtards will agree with us that Clinton really did have a “hos presidence.” He had more ho’s than Velvet Jones on “Uptown Saturday Night.” But I digress.
Henry, you are probably not familiar with all of us posters here at GP, but I can assure you that I have never created a straw man, much less dated one. And I have a bunch of co-responders who will affirm this statement.
Be that as it may, you yourself never answered my question. I will repeat it here very slowly so you can understand: HOW MANY NAZIS OR JAPS DID FDR CONVICT DURING WORLD WAR II?
Nice example of straw man and projection there, Hank ol’ girl.
Plus, I echo Vince’s equivocation at #40 simply because it is true based upon your Kool-Aid spiked rants, and you have not exactly disproved that postulate in any follow-up postings.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
Henry is just one of those people who is incapable of critical thought when it concerns Bill Clinton.
I have never created a straw man, much less dated one
Straw Man: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument:
Your focus on a President actually convicting someone (including your offensive ‘Japs’ FDR question) ignores the actual substance of my point and makes an easy argument to win. (I do know we needlessly interred over 100,000 japanese citizens simply because they were Japanese. With no proof or any wrong doing and no due process, which is won of the worst acts our country has done).
Moving On:
6 of those responsible for the first Word Trade Bombing were convicted, including the mastermind.
Wadih el Hage ,Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-‘Owhali , Khalfan Khamis Mohamed – all convicted for the 1998 Africa bombings.
Just by coincidence, a post in The Corner has just appeared to remind us of Clinton’s fecklessness vis-a-vis OBL. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is working with great efficiency today.
I’ve said it before, it is so hard to have a reasonable discussion with any leftists because they are so horribly uninformed. And uneducated about basic American history and current events scanning the past 10 years. These 18-30 year olds who don’t have any basic grounding are not capable of any understanding of these complicated events and decisions.
#47 – So it’s my fault that just because I took your question literally, that I was avoiding the question and creating a “straw man?” Boy, talk about mental gymnastics. How’s that projection going, Hank ol’ girl?
BTW – “Japs” in a historical context is not so un-PC. Even left-of-center Life magazine once ran an article on racial profiling in 1943 called “How to Tell the Japs from the Chinese.” I kid you not. Go google it.
And if you got offended by my language – tough crap. Deal with it. Be a man. Butch up.
Be that as it may, you obviously have not read Michelle Malkin’s book arguing that internment during World War II helped saved the USA from a terror attack within our borders. But then again, if it’s not written by Arianna Huffington (via her translator) or Joe Klein, then you probably won’t believe it anyway.
Also, just FYI – Wikipedia is not an accurate source for narrative. Nice try. And did you ever stop to think that if Clinton had been using a policy of pre-emption and not law enforcement, that maybe these Islamofascist scumbags would not have gotten away with the first bombings? Or even those same asshats who bombed the WTC first in 1993 – because remember, Hank ol’ girl, that happened under Slick Willie’s watch too.
Nice chatting with you. Now excuse me, I have a life to lead.
Regards,
Peter H.
#49 – Gene, I hear you. Ever notice that the same libtards who identify with “MoveOn.org” can’t really seem to?
Regards,
Peter H.
#53
Wikipedia is not a good source, but Michelle Malkin is. Got it.
Henry: I shouldn’t have attacked you in my comments.
I’m sorry.
Yeah, y’see I don’t curse and I don’t name-call. I only comment on what people post. If I say that someone is a partisan shill, it’s because their postings are one-sided and dishonest, and I’ve said that of people on both sides. So, even though I might think that someone who never questions the spin of his own side is a moron, I usually would refrain from doing so unless they went to the next step of comparing Bush to Hitler or that 9-11 was an inside job. Those people are, in fact, idiots.
Yet none of those responsible for 9-11 were convicted. Gee, I wonder why not? (Hint: It was a suicide attack. They couldn’t be meaningfully convicted; they were dead. Preventive actions, like taking the war to the terrorists and either killing them or making them talk about the rest of their plots, are what save American lives. Not after-the-fact police actions that are so ineffective in slowing the next attack, even their own prosecutors repudiate them. Side note: Only a left-liberal would need this spelled out.)
Yet none of those responsible for 9-11 were convicted. Gee, I wonder why not? (Hint: It was a suicide attack, and a successful one. So the perpetrators were dead. Preventive actions, like taking the war to the terrorists and either killing them or making them talk about the rest of their plots, are what save American lives. Not after-the-fact police actions that are so ineffective in preventing the next attack, even their own prosecutors repudiate them – as Andrew McC has done. Side note: Only a left-liberal would need this spelled out.)
(btw, I have tried to reference prosecutor Andrew McC’s book several times now, in linkable form… I suspect the GP comment filter doesn’t like his last name… you can look it up on Amazon tho)
ILC, left libs don’t even understand why we’re holding people at GITMO. They’re like, “Hey, so they want to kill American soldiers and destroy the American way of life. What’s so wrong with that? The next thing you know, they’ll be locking up the faculty of Berkeley.”
Hm, maybe that’s why the left is so paranoid.
ILC, that darned moderation buffer continually eats my witty posts making sport of a certain commenter who has a compulsion about reminding everyone how wealthy he is every time he posts a comment. Alas…
hhmmmmmmmmm. 1970’s yellowcake. could i have mine with chocolate frosting.
What’s more, the next president has to be prepared to go balls to the wall right after his speech on day one. Gotta be ready to do something in response to vague intelligence briefs. Nobody knows what, but he’s gotta do SOMETHING.
I’ll take thousands captured or killed over 29 convicted after the fact any day, how about you? Osama was indicted during the 90s. A lot of good that did. Besides, it goes without saying that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are currently pounding sand and there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in the U.S. in almost 7 years. Compare that with the criminal prosecution angle of the 90s.
BTW, wasn’t Mark Levin one of those prosecutors? Try asking him how well that went.
You’re thinking of Andrew McCarthy or something similiar. His book is “Wilfull Blindness”
Let me ask all of you something:
Did Saddam Hussein ever do anything to deserve not to be ousted from power or executed?
Another reason a dead terrorist is preferable to a convicted terrorist.
somehow I knew this post would get quite a thread going. Created more an exchange than posts in which I put considerably less thought.
And more than Henry’s blog has ever produced, apparently.
#65 – Attmay, I have a copy of the report printed by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office dated November 2002 which outlines Saddam Hussein’s crimes & human rights abuses. The list is shocking:
a. Torture (victims & methodology)
b. Treatment of women
c. Prison conditions
d. Arbitrary & summary killings
e. Kurdish persecution
f. Shia persecution
g. Kuwait occupation
h. Lists of attacks with chemical weapons
Oh, and for the libtard trolls who think this is nothing but British propaganda, the report also lists evidence from Amnesty International and the UN commission on human rights.
So to answer your question, Attmay – NO. The international community had every right to seek his removal, along with his two whelpish sons.
Regards,
Peter H.
Ah, but V, Henry’s blog is for the “discerning” (or whatever his euphemism was – I’m not going back to look).
“discerning” must be a synonym for “zero.”
Crap, I can post a picture of a license plate on my blog and get more comments than he’s gotten in his whole life.
And I did.
Twice.
a stash “yellowcake” whose existance has been known for quite some time. and yet is removal is done without fanfare. ya gotta wonder why and just where did it come from?
#71 – If it was known for “quite some time,” why didn’t Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Kennedy/Clinton et al point it out?
Sigh…too easy.
Take a hike, markiemark. Preferably across I-45 during rush hour.
Regards,
Peter H.
oh that’s right. it was a present from uncle sam in the seventies.
read it and weep peter… http://www.progressive.org/mag/intv0708 … and btw…it’s not nice to wish ill upon another. maybe a therapist could help????
Ok, so how can “Saddam isn’t looking for WMD” reconcile with “Saddam had stuff to make WMD, still?”
Answer, they can’t. Sorry
Let’s say it does mean that, Jody. The mere fact Saddam had that much nuclear material, was refusing to cooperate with inspections, and was a mass murderer who would have used a nuke as soon as he could have built it justifies the invasion.
UO2 is as common as snot. that said, capability
is not capacity. face it folks georgie porgie duped you.
“Welcome to GayPatriot, starring markie as Dr. Christmas Jones, expert in nuclear weapons”
so where is your common sense???
Dazzle us more with your expertise on nuclear weapons, Dr. Christmas Jones.
#78: Bwwwahhhaahhhhaaahhhh! Good one, Vinnie P. The only way I would have enjoyed it more is if markie’s character died at the end of the movie. Preferably in a big explosion. Or maybe covered in suffocating gold paint from head to toe. No, shot in the head execution-style I think. Veeery dramatic.
All this talk of WMDs again (and marxist…er, markie’s contribution) has reminded me that of all the pointless discussions to have with idiot liberals, this one is the MOST pointless. If the “evidence” is that there are no WMDs, then the U.S. cannot take military action. Of course, the “evidence” consists of Saddam turning out his pants pockets and shaking his head back and forth. The mass-murdering dictator MUST be taken at his word. Any efforts by U.S. officials to verify Saddam’s claims will be condemned as ignorant and embarrassing “cowboy diplomacy.” If there IS evidence of the plans, materials and facilities to build WMDs, then the U.S. CANNOT take military action. Just because they have common stuff like enriched yellowcake uranium (enough to build 142 nuclear weapons) doesn’t prove a thing. Besides, I read somewhere that Yellowcake is as “common as snot.” Practically grows in your vegetable garden. And if the evidence is that Saddam (or Iran) has 500 nuclear warheads pointed at the U.S., Israel and Western Europe, well…same answer, of course! If we attack now, Saddam is sure to use those weapons on us and then where will we be????!!! We can’t provoke him–he might launch those nukes! Better that we keep our heads down and try not to piss him off.
But really when you’re talking about people like Kevin and markie, the analysis above is particularly unhelpful because their position from the get-go is: who are we to tell another sovereign nation that they can’t have nukes but we can? Who are we to be so arrogant and judgmental? Just because instead of Nascar, Iranians enjoy an afternoon in the sun watching a gay hanging is no reason to assume their leaders would not have the good judgment to control a nuclear arsenal responsibly.
marxist markie just won’t admit that he’s a pacifist and that he will ALWAYS find some reason to conclude that invasion (or even the U.S. defending itself) is unacceptable.
COMMON SENSE?! Are you kidding markie? Like that nuclear material being “a present from uncle sam in the seventies.” Is that an example of what you consider “common sense?” How about “war for oil?” I mean, it’s just common sense, right? 9/11 was an inside job? Common sense, huh?
The position of marxie and kkkevin is “If x is positive for America, then my position is !x”
oh that’s right. it was a present from uncle sam in the seventies.
I see the Obama campaign is lying again.
You see, we know when and from where Saddam Hussein purchased his uranium, and none of the locations are the United States.
And then markie finishes by quoting sex offender Scott Ritter, who has already been caught lying in regards to the Pelosi- and Obama-supported Syrian nuclear reactor.
Right.
Guys, why are you feeding the troll? Even acknowledging his infantile posts gives a false impression that he actually said something worth responding to.
AoSHQ had a great solution for trolls. Some regulars we ‘deputized’ and allowed to re-write comments posted by trolls to make them sound idiotic. That would not even work, here, as it is impossible to make some trolls’ comments any stupider than they already are.
#83 – Vince, right on. These libtards love the USA like OJ loved Nicole. (H/T Ann Coulter)
I think they are the ones that need therapy to understand why they are so passive-aggressive in their distaste for America and for what she stands.
Where are those gay concentration camps when you need them? 😉
Oh yeah – far back in the recesses of their collective imagination.
Regards,
Peter H.
The other option, V the K, is simply to take advantage of the power of the Obamamessiah.
In short, blame every stupid thing his sheep say on him, and watch as he throws them under the bus, shuts them up, and is forced to admit that what his sheep say is wrong.
it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. the best you can do is innuendo to debunk ritter. arrested, charged, dismissed, files sealed and no trip to baghdad. hmmmmmmmmmmm
markie can’t do nearly as well as Scott Ritter does for himself in explaining his “objective”, “non-biased” views. He even manages to drag St. Saul Alinsky into the mix!
http://www.truthalliance.net/News/Vault/tabid/67/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/416/Default.aspx
Why hasn’t Obama signed this guy on as an advisor?
the best you can do is innuendo to debunk ritter.
And again, the Obama campaign lies and claims Ritter was never allowed to go to Baghdad.
Nope.
Then, in 2000, Ritter co-wrote and directed a documentary “In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq,†in which, despite his prior minatory rhetoric, he attempted to show that country was actually a “defanged tiger.†The film was financed by an Iraqi businessman named Shaker Al-Khafaji using pilfered money from the oil-for-food program.
Again, notice how the Obama campaign and the Democrat Party support making propaganda films to promote Saddam Hussein using money stolen from UN humanitarian programs.
But it gets better.
In 2002, during the lead-up to the war he fervently opposed, Ritter refused to elaborate for Time magazine on the “horrific†conditions of the children’s prison he inspected at the General Security Services headquarters in Iraq, fearing that the gruesome details would “be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.â€
So the Democrat Party and Barack Obama supported covering up Saddam Hussein’s brutality, including his imprisonment and torture of children, because doing so would undercut their attempts to protect Saddam Hussein and perpetuate his regime.
And now, the REAL fun.
In that same interview, he clearly contradicted himself and lied about his former position:
In 1998, you said Saddam had “not nearly disarmed.†Now you say he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I’ve said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact.
So Ritter himself admitted that he didn’t think Iraq was free of WMDs.
Meanwhile, he is a sex offender. Court proceedings involving juveniles are ordinarily sealed to protect their privacy. The court ordered him to undergo sex-offender counseling and he did; hence, the court likely dismissed the charges, similar to using a diversion agreement including rehab for DUI.
But again, it’s no surprise that the Obama campaign supports and endorses someone who used stolen money from humanitarian programs to create propaganda films for Saddam Hussein, who himself admitted that he was covering up Saddam’s brutality to aid the Democrat Party’s attempt to keep Saddam in power, and who solicits underage children for sex.
Here’s your neo-con lie that all the conservative blogs got missled with. Saddam had that yellowcake before the Gulf War, and it was locked down after.
never ceases to amaze me how a narrow mind contorts.
Innuendo? is that the name of the little girl he molested?
never ceases to amaze me how a narrow mind contorts.
Yeah, Mitchell Blatt is pretty narrow-minded and contorted. I’ll agree with that.
Suppose that Mitchelll Blatt has rock solid proof that both parts of this statement are 100% true.
Does that mean that Saddam did not pursue additional yellowcake after the Gulf War? Does that mean that Saddam would never have agreed to transfer the “locked down” yellowcake to another tyrant? Does that mean than a huge cache of yellowcake is benign, like a warehouse full of aluminum cans?
I’m pretty sure it was reported in the actual AP article that the yellowcake was from before the Gulf War, but if not, here’s a link from Hot Air talking about it: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/07/us-removes-saddams-yellowcake-uranium-from-first-gulf-war/
Innuendo? is that the name of the little girl he molested?
show me the money. molest huh?? oh that’s right, just another lie to put out there avoid the real issue.
#97 – “Innuendo? is that the name of the little girl he molested?”
No, markiemark. An innuendo is a brand of Italian suppositories.
However, I would not recommend that you use them as it will cause irreversible brain damage.
Oh, wait – I forgot. You already seem to have that in abundance.
Never mind.
Regards,
Peter H.