Senate investigation finds no Iraq/al Qaeda link EITHER.

[JohnnyBoyCali]

I dont understand why George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld arent in prison for this illegal war. I thought this was America where justice was the law of the land. Was there any Justice in lying to people about WMD and invading a country that had no ties to 9/11.

[BI30]

@JohnnyBoyCali The biggest obstacle to any criminal prosecution without physical proof is proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

All Bush has to say is "I honestly believed, like President Clinton before me, that Saddam had WMD's". That would stick you with the burden of proving he knew otherwise. You can produce a ton of evidence he SHOULD of known otherwise, and even show he ignored evidence to the contrary... and then you end up with the OJ jury.

[JohnnyBoyCali]

@BI30 Yes but I think there's more to it. Ray Mcgovern who was in the CIA has stated that the bush administration lied about WMD and ties to 9/11. I think if enough CIA agents like him come forward and testify that the bush administration was told there were no WMD but they still launched this propaganda campaign then they could be tried for an illegal war and war crimes.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

You once again prove your dishonesty. You know full well the Democrats and the media claimed Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked before Bush got in office. You know full well that the Democrats claimed Saddam had WMD before Bush got in office...I even linked a video proving it and you took it down because it makes you look like a donkey's ass.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Oh geez, are we going to go through this again? You once again prove your inability to grasp facts. Following the November 98 bombing of Iraq's supposed WMD facilities that turned up nothing, followed immediately by the February 99 bombing of what the PNAC Crew insisted was a "chemical weapons factory" that also turned up nothing, Clinton realized Saddam's WMD program simply did not exist, and never again made the claim. That video you keep touting has a huge gap from 98-2000.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Commenting that "I knew THE MEDIA linked Saddam to al Qaeda" on a clip of "the Media" talking about those very claims, is a bit redundant, don'tcha think? Under Bush, "Democrats and the Media" repeated what they were told by Bush. You seem to think the Media and members of Congress should have more intel than the President.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose The video you "linked to" wasn't mine and therefore, I could not "take down". If it was yanked, go whine to the author.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Your video has been approved, though I note to viewers that it is more an indictment of ABC News than the Clinton Administration. The ABC report does NOT contain footage of ANY Clinton Administration officials claiming Saddam was working with al Qaeda. It is also from 1998, not 1999, which was when the Clinton Admin bombed Saddam's alleged "WMD factory" under pressure of PNAC, and upon finding nothing, never again made the claim. But it is interesting footage none-the-less.

[mulhollanddose]

watch?v=aUJhyz4B8nY

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose I will allow the video response if you post it, but I will also reply with the note it contains no actual Clinton Administration officials in it (the Gore clip is dated 1992, before he became VP.)

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

Well, you asked me to upload the video. The video includes the 1998 indictment of Usama Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration...You are so invested in the lie that I truly doubt you even want to accept that you have been misled by the media and the Democrat party the whole time.

[mulhollanddose]

Problem is that ABC forgot that in 1999 they were dead sure Saddam and Bin Laden were connected...Check my video page...Seems the Democrats and their ABC whores were lying the whole time.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Two points: 1) Please use "video reply" if you have a video from 1999 showing Democrats connecting Saddam and bin Laden. No such video exists. 2) In 1998, the Clinton Admin was still buying the lie that Saddam had WMD's, but after Clinton bombed his suspected "WMD Factory" and found nothing, he stopped saying it. Only Madeline Albright claimed (once) in 1999 that Saddam may have WMD's. Contrast that with the CERTAINTY Bush used to start a war.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

No, Clinton and his loyalists were claiming not only that Saddam was directly connected with Al Qaeda, but that he had WMD. In fact Wikileaks documents claim that Saddam had WMD all the way until the moment we entered Iraq...You have been duped and duped large:

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

Go to my page and you will see the video: In 1999 ABC (BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE) were linking without doubt Saddam and Osama. Fast forward to 2006 and ABC didn't even factor their 1999 news story into the equation. It almost seems as if they considered what they said and what the Clinton regime said inconvenient to their true motivation -- to destroy George Bush.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

How can I post video replies if you disallow them?

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Mia culpa. I fixed it. When the video was originally posted four years ago, I blocked video responses following a flood of unrelated video requests.

Video responses will still require approval however.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

Regarding WMD statements: Actually the Democrat party and the media (acting as their typical propaganda arm) made very compelling and definitive claims Saddam had WMD. They continued those claims into the Bush Administration until it became politically expedient to switch course into deceiving America by claiming Bush lied to get us into war...BTW, Wikileaks has uncovered a mountain of documents that include reference to Saddam's post invasion WMD.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Several points: 1) "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. If you are incapable of using proper English, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

2) I repeat, following the 98 bombing of Saddam's alleged WMD factory, upon finding nothing, the admin never again made the claim.

3) If there was a "mountain of evidence of WMD's post invasion", don't you think the Bush Administration would of been waving them around on every Sunday news show for years?

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

1. So how is a person an adjective and not a noun? For argument's sake, I will concede that Democrats are torn with calling themselves "Democrats" or "Democratics" (they call themselves democrats all the time), it is just that calling yourself a Democratic makes you sound like a moron.

2. You regurgitate, or repeat, but you are wrong. The Democrat party was claiming WMD was very dangerous up until the time the Democrat party shifted 180 degrees and began the big lie that Bush lied.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Are you REALLY that stupid that you don't know the difference between an adjective and a noun? If you say the "Democrat party", you are using it as an adjective to modify the noun "party". Therefore you use "Democratic" (eg: "He is a Democrat because he belongs to the Democratic Party.") End of English lesson.

Other than Albright in 99, if you can find ONE clip of a Clinton official claiming Saddam HAS WMD's after the 98 bombing of Iraq, I will delete all my Iraq videos.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

So "Republican" is an adjective?...Your point is petty and irrelevant. Democrats refer to themselves as Democrats all the time, which, incidentally, is simply a word that doesn't bare any resemblance to who they really are. They are more Democrats than socialists.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

So "Republican" is an adjective?...Your point is petty and irrelevant. Democrats refer to themselves as Democrats all the time, which, incidentally, is simply a word that doesn't bare any resemblance to who they really are. They are more socialists that hide behind a more friendly word "democratic."...Sorta like if a communist wanted to be taken seriously he wouldn't call himself a communist.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose "Republican" is both an adjective and a noun depending upon how it is used in a sentence. Much like the word "Italian" or "Martian". Yes, Democrats call themselves "Democrats" because they're not idiots. They also say "Democratic Party" when using the word as a modifier. Class dismissed.

You can't tell the difference between a "Democrat" and a "Socialist" and better than you can tell the difference between a noun and an adjective.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

Tell me the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose First Grammar and now Social Studies? This is sad.

"Democratic" is a political philosophy. "Socialist" is an *Economic* system... like "Capitalist".

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

So why is there an American Socialist Party if it is not a political philosophy?

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc -- (Democrats claiming Saddam had WMD after 1998) -- It is the height of ignorant stupidity to make this ridiculous assumption that Saddam destroyed his WMD program. He was violating UN inspection mandates all the way up to the invasion. The wikileaks documents claim he had them all the way up to the invasion...Such a preposterous assumption that Saddam came to Jesus and destroyed all his WMD.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Yougotta be kidding. First, I said "AFTER" the 98 bombing. That video starts with several February (and one January) quotes from early 98 PRIOR to the bombing, then JUMPS to 2002... conveniently skipping the last two years of the Clinton Admin and AFTER the 98 bombing, to show Democratic members of Congress repeating (the cherry picked and manufactured) lies that the Bush Administration was telling them. Nice try but epic FAIL.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

Why do you keep bringing up the bombing? It is entirely irrelevant to anything. You have been absolutely nuked and you can't accept that reality...Just a bit deceptive for ABC to run with a story that Bush lied about a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda when the Clinton machine made the same case, as did ABC themselves based on what they knew...Not to mention, what was Sandy Berger stealing from the National Archives before testifying to the 9/11 Commission?

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose How can I carry on a discussion with someone that can't remember what was said in prior posts? The 98 bombing is significant because after that, the Clinton Administration KNEW Saddam didn't have an active WMD program and stopped claiming he did.

Enter Bush in 2002, now privy to the same intel and yet claiming Saddam did in order to launch a war that he had wanted since before he even started running for Prez (watch?v=se2mlKTHdUk).

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

The Clinton Administration and his loyalists were claiming Saddam had WMD before Bush and after Bush began the run up to the war. Based on the intelligence before and after Bush, the Democrats signed off on Iraq. The claim that Bush lied, or that Saddam didn't have WMD, was concocted after it became the new Democrat agenda to sabotage Bush.

[JohnnyBoyCali]

@mulhollanddose Clinton didnt invade Iraq Bush did. The democrats signed off on Iraq because they were lied to and told Iraq had WMD and ties to 9/11. As a matter of fact the bill congress passed HJ 114 EH said "take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose As for his WMD's, we KNOW Saddam destroyed them because WE FOUND THEM BURIED IN THE DESERT, munitions that had been detonated and chemical weapons from the 91 Gulf War buried in the sand.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

No, we had no logical or rational reason to believe Saddam destroyed his WMD program or his stockpiles. No Clinton era intelligence said he did. The weapons inspectors were jerked around all the way up until the invasion. In fact Bush gave him ample opportunity to allow the inspectors to do their jobs and Saddam kept playing possum. After we invaded US military kept finding WMD, and WMD producing facilities, and the recent Wikileaks document dump gives even more proof.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Tell me when you get tired of being wrong.

watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

That link doesn't prove a damn thing. Saddam destroyed some missiles, which means nothing about his overall WMD program. To claim that it does is agenda driven ignorance.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose This is getting stupid AND violates my policy of using the Comments section for personal debates. I'm moving this conversation to private messaging. Further comments here will be deleted.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

You lefties hate debate don't you?

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

3) Biggest error Bush made was not communicating the facts. Granted 80% of the mainstream media was working propaganda for the Democrat party, and the other 20% of the media the majority of Americans rarely watch or pay attention to, due to a massive "hate conservative media" campaign orchestrated by the leftist media.

[BI30]

@mulhollanddose Not only did the media bend over backwards and ask NO questions leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration was even releasing its OWN fake news broadcasts and distributing them as real news.

[mulhollanddose]

@BI30,

Given the Democrats, time and time again, claimed Saddam had WMD and had direct connections to Al Qaeda (not to mention other terrorist groups), it would certainly look silly for the media to flip 180 degrees and claim that all the Democrats said before Bush took office were now untrue after Bush took office.

[ikez78]

Except the new Pentagon report shows Saddam funded, trained, armed and harbored Islamic terrorists he knew were members of al Qaeda.

Sorry to let you guys down with the hate Bush ammo.

[BI30]

Link please.

[DorianGrayism]

So you are telling me that Saddam had a direct link in 9/11 and that he was arming Al Qaeda with WMDs? Was he harboring Zarquarwi?

Those were the claims of Bush prior to 2003. He said that there was a direct and immediate threat to the United States as a result.

All the Pentagon report says is that he had links with several groups in the 90's who carried out his assassination plots and limited operations in Israel.

Don't talk a load of shit.

[DorianGrayism]

Link....

[VasiliusKonstantinos]

Wish I knew where you got this reference from if there is one, as I would like to have some of the same kool-aid you have and think the whole world is one big huge American battlefield we can place our troops at, anytime where we please.

[bigal6868]

This is such a sad commentary. The best we can do is forward a copy to our conservative relatives.

[joemwm]

The rats are starting to jump ship,Impeachment will follow,I hope

[sectoidcorpse]

I agree. Treason can and in this case should have death as the punishment.

[daniesza]

bush should hang with sadam hussein, rummy, and the dick

[RUout4it]

No surprise - recall WMDs in Iraq, Iraqi oil paying for the war, Mission Accomplished! The Bush administration = chronic liars, but remember about the 'boy who cried wolf' and pray for the American people!

[bobbyt65]

2 words IM-PEACH

[hyperkinetic]

This is beyond impeachment. Bush should be tried for treason.

[caliphornia]

the truth revealed.