March 30, 2006

Cheney: Documents Will Show Close Saddam-Osama Tie
— Ace

Finally.

There are two major sources of frustration about this matter.

First, if there is evidence of a closer Saddam-Osama tie than recognized generally, why is the administration so reluctant to say so?

Second -- and this derives from the above -- I have had the bad feeling that war-supporters were being cynically used and misled through this period. There is just enough information dribbled out to let us suspect a stronger Osama-Hussein tie, and thus argue for such a thing, but no administration official will actually stand behind such a claim. Leading me to suspect the Administration might well know there is no strong evidence of such, and yet they're more than willing to quietly leak tidbits to the conservative press to let the faithful continue harboring misconceptions.

But if Cheney's on board, even in a somewhat muted fashion, I'm less skeptical about where this information may be leading:

Vice President Dick Cheney predicted Wednesday that thousands of boxes of documents captured from Saddam's Hussein's former regime will show that the Iraqi dictator had a much closer relationship with Osama bin Laden than was previously known.

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News Radio's Tony Snow.

Asked if he was referring to Osama bin Laden, Cheney replied:

"Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting, obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden."

...

The vice president stressed that nothing in the new documents uncovered so far links Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. But he added: "That's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaida organization."

Yes, he's speaking in terms of the future -- "predicting" what he thinks the documents will show, not saying what they show at the moment -- but still, it's good to finally have a high-ranking Administration official stand behind the suspicions that so many war-supporters have long harbored.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Steak tomorrow, and steak yesterday, but no steak today. I say: Where's the beef?

I'm suprised Cheney even bothered, as he didn't point to any specific documents. However, that being said, this does tend to bolster your case, Ace (finally).

Wake me when they point to one (or a series) of specific document(s).

Posted by: Larry the Urbanite at March 30, 2006 12:54 PM (Lpswv)

2 I'm thinking--hoping-- Big Dick will be at the helm of this motherlode and put all doubts to rest. He doesn't usually equivocate when he's sitting ex-cathedra and making a pronouncement.

If there is such proof--then out with it, dammit! The administration needs it but the country and troops need it more.

Posted by: kevlarchick at March 30, 2006 12:57 PM (C58DT)

3 Can I hang my Saddam-alQaeda tie next to my Tazmanian Devil and Mickie Mouse tie? Just trying to bring order to my closet.

Posted by: richj at March 30, 2006 01:08 PM (Qrjpn)

4 This story hasn't gotten much attention from the MSM... But it might be what Cheney's referring to.

Posted by: BigTobacco at March 30, 2006 01:10 PM (1WdUw)

5 Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...blah.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2006 01:20 PM (leJWb)

6 Really, I think there is a good chance that there might be some intelligence that pertains to al Qaeda in some way. But I'm sure that the CIA's records also have documentation that would prove that our agents have met with KGB agents. The odds are pretty good that some connection will show up... that is what intelligence agencies tend to do. It doesn't necessarily equal cooperation. And lots of good spy work can have the appearance of cooperation but be the opposite (like selling bad electronics to the soviets, for example).

But to say that they might find evidence is much different than having evidence before the war begins, which is what I thought they had. I really thought that there was evidence of some connection that they were referring to before the war... and that it would be released after they rolled em up in Iraq.

Now it just seems like they are looking for the proof they said they already had. Even if it turns up, people will wonder if it has been finessed to solve a problem.

Posted by: BigTobacco at March 30, 2006 01:24 PM (1WdUw)

7 Most cogent thing you're ever written, Mary. And remarkably honest, too; typical lib with your fingers in your ears pretending you can't hear anything.

Posted by: truly gutless at March 30, 2006 01:25 PM (/0Qyy)

8 This administration has never been particularly adept at making its case publicly when it comes to ANY position they take. They usually half-ass it. Or just plain no-ass it.

Posted by: Mark V. at March 30, 2006 01:28 PM (2ipxY)

9 Anbody who actually believes, that after 3 fucking years occupying Iraq, that we're just now (as Bush's popularity plummets), finding all of this valuable information...well, you're as dumb as most of the idiots on this blog.

It's one thing to be right wing...another to be a gullible sycophant.

This is just another bullshit spin to keep the heat off little Georgie.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2006 01:31 PM (leJWb)

10 He doesn't usually equivocate when he's sitting ex-cathedra and making a pronouncement.

Long live His Holiness Pope Cheney!

Posted by: Muslihoon at March 30, 2006 01:40 PM (Q8UK2)

11 You want documents??

By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 30, 2006

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it...

...WAS PUBLICALY DISCLOSED THAT HE HAD BEEN PERSONALLY WARNED that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that BUSH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ADVISED that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.

As the 2004 election loomed, the White House was determined to keep the wraps on a potentially DAMAGING MEMO about Iraq.

Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002.

The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2006 01:41 PM (leJWb)

12 PINKY Lee aka Mike always boils everything down to George, no matter what it is. Powerful dude, that George, huh Pinkster?

Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 30, 2006 01:41 PM (BJYNn)

13 Allow me to translate for Big Tobacco:

"pay no attention to those facts behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful MODERATE!!" (sotto voice) quickly, Mike, hit the Deflect shield!!!!

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 01:45 PM (1Vbso)

14 Tell you what, Mary, when that story is reported somewhere other than National Journal (what the fuck is that anyway?), come on back.

Posted by: truly gutless at March 30, 2006 01:50 PM (/0Qyy)

15 truly gutless,
What difference does it make if it's published elsewhere...if you don't hear it on Fox...it doesn't exist.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2006 01:58 PM (leJWb)

16 You just answered your own question, Mary. The animus you have toward Fox News is the same one I have for little pissant left-wing websites that nobody's ever heard of.

Posted by: truly gutless at March 30, 2006 02:02 PM (/0Qyy)

17 Gutless,
I could give a flying fuck about Fox.

My point is this: Unless YOU hear it from Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, Savage or Coulter...you assume it must not be true.

If you think this memo story is going away soon...you're even dumber than we both know you are already.

Hide and watch, ass-wipe...the Bush turd is slowly circling the bowl.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2006 02:10 PM (leJWb)

18 Yes, Mary, we know. Keep repeating the same thing over and over again and it'll come true. Good luck on that.

Posted by: truly gutless at March 30, 2006 02:14 PM (/0Qyy)

19 Don't bother, tg, she's just spam-trolling with more material she lifted from HuffingtonPost. Starve her.

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 02:16 PM (nH1Ad)

20 Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.),
If you have evidence that refutes the facts of the story...bring it on.

Whining about me bashing little Georgie has no bearing on the credibility of the author or what he says, and he provides plenty of back-up, too.

Instead of blowing the usual smoke...READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

Here's the link:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm


Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2006 02:18 PM (leJWb)

21 Posted by at March 30,
Why not take the time to read the fucking article, dickhead?
Are you THAT afraid of finding something out you don't already believe to be so??

Again...THE LINK:

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2006 02:26 PM (leJWb)

22 What facts?
That Rove was afraid that an alternative scenario briefing would be misconstrued by an ignorant press and used as a tool against the President? Gee ya think?

What's that have to do with the ever increasing evidence of Saddam-Osama collaboration. I have yet to see you show anything that exonerates either Saddam or Osama. Either one would be fine.

Posted by: Iblis at March 30, 2006 02:27 PM (9221z)

23 Oh, and I could give a Viking Fuck about the National Journal.

Posted by: Iblis at March 30, 2006 02:31 PM (9221z)

24 Well, to the clueless lefty moonbat, concepts like intelligence (both in the CIA and ordinary sense) are alien. The fact that there's never intel always on one side, there's always doubt and some intel that points another direction.

If your data was absolutely 100% solid and without any possibility of contradiction, it's not intelligence any more, its FACT. When you're trying to make a case you don't hand your enemies information that helps them attack you.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 02:33 PM (1Vbso)

25 Karl Rove is smart, but it seems like it's disastrous to put someone who is essentially a really sharp marketing guy in charge of any decision-making. Bush needs a PR guy that he can order around... not someone like Rove who seems to be more interested in how things look than how they are.

I honestly think that Bush is at his best when he's not tugged into campaign mode. I think he's an honest guy... I believe he's a Christian... but I think he relies on Karl Rove too much.

And even these problems with justifying the war... I bet that if he came out and just laid things out very clearly and let the chips fall, people wouldn't be turning on him.
----------------
And Canelone, it's an odd narrative you're constructing... but I haven't even said that we should ignore the facts. And I don't know Mike. I just said that there is a difference between saying you have something and saying you think you'll find something.

It's like this: If I sell you a hat for five bucks, and then I say, "I'm bettin a guy's gonna walk in here with a hat for you someday." It's not as good as actually having a hat to give you for your money. In fact, I'd expect a righteous man like you to either take the five bucks back or call me the fraud that I am, probably both. But if you don't do either, you're a fool and a coward.

Posted by: BigTobacco at March 30, 2006 02:46 PM (1WdUw)

26 Iblis,

I have a photo of Saddam and Osama NOT have a meeting with each other. It's a nice picture of half-dome in Yosemite taken by Ansel Adams.

How can you prove two people did not agree to something? You can have evidence that a meeting took place. You can question that evidence and disprove it. Or, if evidence never shows up, you can ask where it is.

But if we had to plan for every contingency due to lack of positive proof... we'd have to also assume that there is an impending space alien invasion, that three hundred million silent invisible turtles are planning to eat Abraham Lincoln, that Tony Blair is secretly planning to take back New York. It gets really expensive.

And it reminds me of Rumsfeld's old argument about how the USSR had been building new super secret nukes. The Proof he gave? Our spies and satellites cannot see them! The Russians are denying it! Jinkies! Those are the nastiest kind of missiles. And worse, you can't even prove that they don't exist.

Posted by: BigTobacco at March 30, 2006 03:00 PM (1WdUw)

27 There is more of a connection and collaboration between Saddam and Rumsfeld than Saddam and Osama.


Ow...Ow...A - Wooooooooo.

Posted by: BigPharma at March 30, 2006 03:13 PM (hgd2b)

28 Gosh yeah there's a picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein! A PICTURE!!!!!!!!! !!1!1!!


drool....

Posted by: Moonbat McGee at March 30, 2006 03:26 PM (1Vbso)

29 If you think this memo story is going away soon...you're even dumber than we both know you are already.

How's that Downing Street Memo thingy working out for you guys?

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 03:31 PM (zxIrU)

30 Rumsfeld is of German heritage.

Therefore, Rumsfeld is a relative of Hitler.

Posted by: BigPharma at March 30, 2006 03:41 PM (hgd2b)

31 Bush... is going down. This time for... sure. No, I... really mean it this time! Yep, bank... on it. Bush is... definitely going to be... imnpeached. You heard it... here first!

Posted by: M/ke at March 30, 2006 03:49 PM (/0Qyy)

32 Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in
and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength
aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's
attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines,
and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is
reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's
nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of
the nuclear program is underway
but assesses that the tubes
probably are not part of the program.)

From the document in question, bolded for Mary's benefit.

Posted by: dorkafork at March 30, 2006 04:49 PM (ksDNy)

33 Wait just a minute. Raise your hands if you're so brick-brain STUPID that you think that

1) the same CHENEY who repeatedly said that there was unambiguous evidence Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program

is a reliable source???

How many of you are that stupid?

Oh right, 33% approval rating. And more than that who already believe that SH was behind 9-11.

Never mind.

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 04:56 PM (ANynN)

34 Just curious. In your little universe over here, did any of you happen to notice that last week, more evidence and testimony came forward about Bush and Blair concocting a phony incident in Iraq to justify an invasion? No, they didn't DO it, but Bush proposed the idea, and then they promptly came out in front of the press and LIED.

Anyone at all?

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 05:00 PM (ANynN)

35 Woo ding ding ding we have moonbat central phoning in about the Memo that is referring to Blair and Bush not having any confidence that the UN weapons inspectors would find any WMD in the next few weeks!

You win a prize sir! We've got a bunch of clues here and some facts but... you wouldn't want those would you? Here, have a copy of Farenheit 9/11.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 05:02 PM (1Vbso)

36 Thanks, Canelone, but I've already seen it many times. Why, in fact, Michael Moore is where I get a lot of my information. Well, him and Kos. And DU, can't forget them. Oh yeah, and Media Matters. And FAIR. But you know, I'm a moderate centrist!

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 05:21 PM (/0Qyy)

37 FWIW, it seems the alum tubes stated engineering specs were/are suspect. I heard on the radio that they subsequently tested strong enough to serve in centrifuges.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2006 05:23 PM (WjdPM)

38 It is simply inexcusable for opinion makers and public intellectuals (e.g., those who made such a fuss about the 'revelations' in the Downing Street memo) not to grasp the strategic imperatives behind what we are doing in Iraq and elsewhere. It's certainly okay to disagree with our strategy, but for supposedly sophisticated commentators to miss the entire point and continue raving about WMD and UN sanctions is beyond the pale.

Mike aka Pinky Lee. Here is what the CIA head of Clandestine Operations said about the Downing Street Memo. SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS TALKING TO YOU BUCKWHEAT!

Boy, was he wasting his time on cluebirds like you...................






Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 30, 2006 05:57 PM (BJYNn)

39 If Rove is playing to form, he will tease them with just enough to draw the Dems out of their trenches, then open up with the heavy artillery at a politically expedient time, catching them once more defenceless in the kill zone.

Will they never learn?

Posted by: Scott Free at March 30, 2006 06:15 PM (+oayi)

40 Poor mike...
The evidence...drip, drip, drip...
Feel it eating right through your forehead, pussy, feel it driving you even more over the edge...
drip, drip, drip...
"The horror...the horror..."

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at March 30, 2006 07:09 PM (QPFur)

41 Is this the same Dick "Last Throes" Cheney who has been so wrong on so many things about Saddam/Iraq in the past?

The term vested interest rings true here.

Posted by: Not Zero at March 30, 2006 07:12 PM (z0Wgm)

42 But BT, you see there is mounting evidence Saddam & Osama were in cahoots and nothing to prove they weren't. The burden is on Saddam. This aint court its war.

Posted by: Iblis at March 30, 2006 07:13 PM (ivRm4)

43 Whatever you say, not zero.
It's not like the MSM and the left don't have their reasons for trying to discredit these documents...
But then again, they've got a lot of experience with trying to pass forgeries off as the real thing...'courage', not zero...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at March 30, 2006 07:17 PM (QPFur)

44 How's that Downing Street Memo thingy working out for you guys?

Bush Approval Rating: 33% (Pew Research)

Posted by: Not Zero at March 30, 2006 07:20 PM (z0Wgm)

45 It's not like the MSM and the left don't have their reasons for trying to discredit these documents...

Thank you for agreeing Cheney has a vested interest here.

Posted by: Not Zero at March 30, 2006 07:25 PM (z0Wgm)

46 Purple Avenger
I heard on the radio....

Then it must be true?

Posted by: Not Zero at March 30, 2006 07:31 PM (z0Wgm)

47 Bush Approval Rating: 33% (Pew Research)

Bush still in office (Moonbats Bleat)

Posted by: truly gutless at March 30, 2006 07:48 PM (/0Qyy)

48 One more time: repeat after me
"public approval polls measure only how annoyed or happy someone is with what the President did lately, not how they support his goals, efforts, or long-term plans"

If I polled you during a fight with your girlfriend you'd give her pretty crappy numbers, but that doesn't mean you hate her. Polls mean absolutely jack shit unless they are the kind used in an election that people vote in.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 08:17 PM (1Vbso)

49 No, shit-for-brains zero, that is not an agreement.
It is saying that the pot is calling the kettle black.
Yes, you are that fucking stupid.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at March 30, 2006 08:23 PM (QPFur)

50 Of course, your argument relies on good ol' lefty nutcase conspiracy theories, ie 'Bushitlerchimpyhalliburton invaded Iraq for oil'...'Karl Rove had these documents planted'...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at March 30, 2006 08:26 PM (QPFur)

51 Never forget the trolls motto:
Excreto Ergo Sum

Posted by: Iblis at March 30, 2006 09:15 PM (ivRm4)

52 They've been waiting to release documents and information because they want to see just how far the left will go to make total and complete assholes of themselves.

Mike's behavior would be an excellent illustration of the perfection of the plan.

Expect to see a big spike soon in the need for psychotropic medications from the bluer states.

Posted by: Purdy Lee Spackle at March 31, 2006 01:37 AM (cSrmo)

53 At last we have an accurate summary of every post made by Mike on this site:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...blah.

Posted by: Mike on March 30, 2006 06:20 PM

Posted by: max at March 31, 2006 04:02 AM (8lOYp)

54 Once again, the left tries to move the goal posts. The point has never been did Hussein help OBL with 9/11. The point has never been how great the ties between the two were (although I for one have never doubted that they are much stronger than has been commonly reported).

The point is that Hussein most definitely had a relationship with the organization which did do 9/11, which had declared war on the west, was actively seeking WMD and was formenting unrest throught the middle east and Asia.

After 9/11, this was no longer an acceptable condition. If you support or harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Simple.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 31, 2006 04:33 AM (J8+2b)

55 No but ... don' t you see? 9/11 was like a great big global do-over! Everyone not directly implicated in planning that particular operation got a clean slate! Nous Sommes Tous Americains, they were saying, and you redneck idjits threw it all away! Saddam was secular! He begged us to make peace, begged us! Plus the resistance is winning! Jill Caroll told me so!

Posted by: Knemon at March 31, 2006 04:43 AM (n8Bgl)

56 Second -- and this derives from the above -- I have had the bad feeling that war-supporters were being cynically used and misled through this period.

Well it is 2006. If you have an inkling that you may have been misled when you are finding evidence to justify invasion 3 years after you did and all the previous evidence presented has been for the most part complete bullshit your spider senses may just be on to something there.

But if Cheney's on board, even in a somewhat muted fashion, I'm less skeptical about where this information may be leading

This is the same Cheney who in 2003 was talking up Saddam-Al Qaeda links on the same day that Bush was denying such connections were ever suggested right?
Were you worried that he wouldn't be on board?

It is kind of like saying you'll restrict yourself to only eating the foods that Elvis did.

Posted by: SevionH at March 31, 2006 05:02 AM (aOeXm)

57 There must be a big time connection between SADAM and BIN LADEN these two vultures were hatched from the same nest in the UN

Posted by: spurwing plover at March 31, 2006 05:09 AM (Dutrh)

58 Its sad that lefties will continue to quote things out of context or just misquote people in order support their stated position even after its been thoroughly debunked. Dishonest turds.

Posted by: roc ingersol at March 31, 2006 05:27 AM (m2CN7)

59 I'm the last one to argue against keeping a troll around just for laughs, but I have to say this Mary person is a waste of bandwidth and ought to be banned. It isn't even remotely funny, honest or challenging. It doesn't even lie well.

My suggestion would be to ask the troll to back this shit up

1) the same CHENEY who repeatedly said that there was unambiguous evidence Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program

and if he can he stays. If it's a bald-faced lie he goes. Who's with me?

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 31, 2006 05:58 AM (uSomN)

60 In a sense, 9/11 was a global do-over. Everyone had the opportunity and reason to rethink their positions on terrorism. Many simply took that time to entrench themselves even more into 9/10 and close their eyes even tighter to the threat posed by global terrorism.

These are the people for whom no amount of evidence, proof, or factual data matters in the slightest. They're half or totally convinced by now that 9/11 either was a big special effects hoax or a conspiracy by President Bush.

Posted by: Canelone at March 31, 2006 06:05 AM (1Vbso)

61 spongeworthy,
Personally I like Mary. She appears to be one of the few people on this blog who expresses her own individual opinion, unlike the rest of the lemmings, constantly blathering on about how wonder Bush and his administration is, regardless of how many things he fucks up.

Also, it looks like prayer (even though he professes know God personally), isn't going to help G.W. much either...see below:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A study of more than 1,800 patients who underwent heart bypass surgery has failed to show that prayers specially organized for their recovery had any impact, researchers said Thursday.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 09:41 AM (leJWb)

62 roc ingersol,
Oh, you must mean things like this:
1. WMD are there...they really, really are.
2. Those aluminum tubes must be for some kind of big ol' bomb...really.
3. That yellow cake is out there...somewhere...really.
4. We're in Iraq to help the Iraqis...really.
5. We don't even want the oil...really.
6. Saddam was in on the 9/11 planning and execution...really.
7. Saddam and Osama are best of buds...really.
8. We've never outed any CIA agents...really.
9. Everything just peachy...really.
10. The people on this blog are really, really stupid...REALLY.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 09:45 AM (leJWb)

63 BLACKBURN (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted on Friday the United States had probably made thousands of errors in Iraq but defended the overall strategy of removing Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 09:46 AM (leJWb)

64 spongeworthy,
Personally I like Mary. She appears to be one of the few people on this blog who expresses her own individual opinion, unlike the rest of the lemmings,blahblahblah........

Posted by: Mike on March 31, 2006 02:41 PM

Of course you would, because Mary is you. Just like Terry L was the other day.

Posted by: Brad at March 31, 2006 10:02 AM (1F8YK)

65 Please keep responding to Mike. When he's not beating dead horses or tilting at windmills, he is "walking me on the beach", and my butt hurts.

Posted by: Mike's Dog, "Catcher" at March 31, 2006 10:04 AM (NMGPj)

66 I dunno, Mike. I doubt you ever even served a day in the miltary. And if you did, have you ever held a pile of goo that used to be your friend's brain? Have you, huh? Have you?

This twit troll is kind of amusing just to see how inconistent he can be, its sort of like Liberal Larry is posting under an assumed name. That list of 10 "points" is great, the shotgun method of lying wherein if you throw out enough lies, the audience gets too tired to bother to respond. Yup, really, except for every point that is wrong or proven open for debate, to points that are really just insane.

I think all the 2:45 post is is a collection of his auto-troll programs memory banks of automatic talking points.

Posted by: joeindc44 at March 31, 2006 10:04 AM (K0x/A)

67 What Condi Rice said mistakes were made!!!?!?

That is the most ridiculous thing that I ever heard because everyone knows that there are no mistakes, its all part of the Zionist plot to steal oil that we would have otherwise bought!>!!!!....

You need to get your head out of Bush's ass....need to learn to reject stupid conpsiracy theroies...you are stupid and need to stop making personal attakcs....Bush knew 911 was going too happpen...Bush was too incompentent to know 911 was going to happen...Jooos made us invade Iraq....Saudi money made us invade Iraq.....Iraq was a country of peaceful kite herders who never had chemical weapons or paid terrorists to blow each other up...Iraq never invaded its neighbors...especially not for oil.....we only do things for oil....we can't buy oil from other natiosn....we can only invade....

whirt....................................... ..............................................

Posted by: Mike ver. 2.4 (Jooos) auto-trollbot, at March 31, 2006 10:11 AM (K0x/A)

68 What?!?!?!
We can only invade other countries to get oil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard....Everyone knows that Bush's economy has made us too poor to buy oil and our military is stretched too thin to take oil....besides other countries like Mexicaoa is too poor and needs us to give them our money.....that we would have used to buy oil with anyway.....and those Mexicoanans do jobs I can't do....


You need to get your head out of Bush's assssss....and learn to stop making fun of people you don't undetrstnd....and go to shcool to tipe better

Posted by: Mike ver. 2.312b auto-trollbot at March 31, 2006 10:17 AM (K0x/A)

69 joeindc44,
Oh, so you're a war hero, huh?

Held your buddy's brains in your hand and all that?

Help raise the flag at Iwo Jima?

Won the Congressional Medal of Honor, too?

I think the only thing you've ever held in your hand that even resembled a "pile of goo" was what came out of your little weenie at the end of a recreational session watching Spankavision.

Blow me.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 10:18 AM (leJWb)

70 Condi Rice never even served in the military....

Posted by: Mike ver. 2.5 auto-trollbot at March 31, 2006 10:20 AM (K0x/A)

71 Auto Dickhead:
Got a little time on your hands, dude?

Talk to joeindc44, he's got "a pile of goo" in his.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 10:22 AM (leJWb)

72 what a tard

Posted by: joeindc44 at March 31, 2006 10:22 AM (K0x/A)

73 3. That yellow cake is out there...somewhere...really.

/engage

"I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa..." - Joe Wilson in a letter to Congress
500 tons of Nigerian Yellowcake Uranium found in Iraq

In his book, Joe Wilson states that "It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as 'Baghdad Bob,' who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium."

/end refute

Posted by: Auto Moonbat Refuter at March 31, 2006 10:23 AM (1Vbso)

74 joeindc44,
How do you type with "a pile of goo" in your hands?

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 10:23 AM (leJWb)

75 Automatically Wrong,
"I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa..." - Joe Wilson

No, but he did say he found NO credible evidence that it existed and that the sources were highly unreliable, and that Bush shouldn't be throwing it out there in a State of the Union Speech without firm confirmation...but the little twerp did it anyway.

Remember the aluminum tubes?


Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 10:29 AM (leJWb)

76 Auto...you appear to have left out what follows your Wilson quote:

"I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur."

And where is the 500 pounds of yellow cake to which you refer...or a link that substantiates the claim??

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 10:38 AM (leJWb)

77 Auto...maybe this will clear things up for you:

CIA director George Tenet has issued a statement saying his agency should have prevented false claims about Iraqi nuclear fuel procurement from getting into a major speech by President Bush in the run-up to the war. The text of the statement follows:

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the president's State of the Union speech.

These 16 words [referring to the alleged nuclear procurement] should never have been included in the text written for the president

Fact-finding

For perspective, a little history is in order.

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq.

In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 10:45 AM (leJWb)

78 Its like a gateway to some parallel universe. I wonder if in this parallel dimension, white phosphorus is deemed a WMD too?

I think this troll is a follower of Jebedia Springfield.

I feel like I am looking through the Hubble Telescope into a strange odd-world when I read some of this stuff.

Posted by: joeindc44 at March 31, 2006 11:09 AM (K0x/A)

79 joeindc44,
Instead of trying to make funnies, why not try to refute what I've posted?

No balls?

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2006 11:39 AM (leJWb)

80 Hey, Mike. Do something useful.

Blow me.

Posted by: M1ke at March 31, 2006 11:46 AM (aGpO3)

81 That's why I don't bother posting things to refute leftist points. They simply ignore what they don't want to see - everything that destroys their position - and move on to the next point as if nothing happened. It's an utter waste of time. See what Mike does? He ignores the proof that destroys his position and gleefully goes on as if nothing has been discredited in what he says.

It's a waste of time, people. They aren't interested in the truth, they could care less about the facts. It's a matter of zealotry, faith, and emotion for these moonbats..

Posted by: Canelone at March 31, 2006 12:12 PM (1Vbso)

82 /engage

And where is the 500 pounds of yellow cake to which you refer...or a link that substantiates the claim??

500 tons of Nigerian Yellowcake Uranium found in Iraq

/refute

Posted by: Auto Moonbat Refuter at March 31, 2006 02:05 PM (1Vbso)

83 There is no evidence! Your links mean nothing to me! Truth bad!!!!

Posted by: Mike at April 01, 2006 06:39 AM (1Vbso)

84 You... dolts! None of you has... ever served in the military. Watch now as... I deftly move... the goalposts. For my next... trick I'll post... a bunch of ad hominem attacks... and then dare you to... "refute" them!

Posted by: M/ke at April 01, 2006 07:14 AM (/0Qyy)

85 Up above there was an oh-so-predictable vomit from a lefty about the report being untrustworthy because Dick Cheney mentioned it. Why? Because Cheney is a lying liar that lies!

So... if Dick Cheney said the world was a round ovoid, would that be a lie? If he said that George Clooney worked in motion pictures, would that be a lie? The report is true or not on it's own merits, not based on someone's mentioning it.

This is the problem for the left, though. The moonbats cannot refute the facts they are faced with, so they have to either scream hysterically and deflect (ala mike above) or claim it's all false, without even attempting to defend this allegation.

All I can say is, what a shitty life that must be to live, to constantly be unable to support the most basic things you believe in and say, while being filled with fear and loathing. No wonder you idiots take to drugs so readily.

Posted by: Canelone at April 01, 2006 09:07 AM (1Vbso)

86

Internet is a source of information and knowledge. But there are so many sites in net which are nothing but gibberish. But when I visit your site – I felt that – in net there are lots of sites (like this
) from where I can get lot of information too. And if I say truly – your site is fantastic. I’ve bookmarked your site in my browser; I hope in future days I’ll get more valuable information from your site.

Posted by: how to get rid of acne overnight at December 31, 2011 07:16 AM (QbWEH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
121kb generated in CPU 0.26, elapsed 1.2842 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2019 seconds, 322 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.