Where did the information about cyanide come from?

NO bama

Sorry, I should have linked that. Here is a post I dedicated to the subject in 2006, and includes several links you can follow, or you can simply Google "yasin sodium cyanide" and follow your own list of links.

Either Obama is incredibly cynical or incredibly stupid. Trouble is McCain won't call him on it, and the MSM woudn't report it if he did.

The ever-omniscient Wikipedia has a quote indicating that cyanide was not in the bomb, and he regretted not putting it in. Your point that the bomber, formerly a guest of Hussein, is still free is correct.

A better question is why did Obama say 'incapacitated'? Obviously this isn't true. We incarcerate our prisoners. While incarcerated they have access to lawyers, TV, letters, and phones. 'Incapacitated' means they would have an inability to act (sorta like what we had going down in Gitmo). Incarcerated in our legal system means that you can still have your lawyer pass messages on for you, communicate in code via letters & phone, or catch up on current events by watching TV.

I wish our legal system would 'incapacitate' these terrorists.

The Left either invents or distorts History to suit their agenda and support their propaganda message.

A better question is why did Obama say 'incapacitated'?

Let's just call that a Jessie Jackson moment.

JAFAC, you can chose to believe that an anonymous wikipedi author is correct, or that the judge in the criminal trial wass correct when he noted the use of sodium cyanide in the bomb.

I tend to find the judge more credible.

I wonder which of the 57 states they are incarcerated in? I am still wondering why anyone gives any credence to what these liars are saying?

The WSJ reported the plot to use poison gas after the trial was over. It was shocking at the time given the media's failure to cover this story.

I wonder when the trolls will show up to say it was just a government plot or that poison gas cannot be burned, just as they said fire couldn't melt steel.

Every American should get down on his knees each morning and pray in gratitude to God Almighty that we have been afforded the opportunity to dispatch in great numbers jihadis in Iraq & Afghanistan. It is truly a blessing.

Obama campaign slogans:

CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes.
CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually
CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger
CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to.
CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy
CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you
CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew"
CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you
CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs.
CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you
CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote
CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you
CHANGE ... into sycophants; what the liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah
CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses
CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ...
CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet.
CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic skills
CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have speech to read.
CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.

CHANGE ... you better freaking BELIEVE in because it will WORK you over.
Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

57 States? Is that the new meme from the wingnuts? Seriously? If it was a matter of raw intelligence, Romney would be the candidate. Zelsdorf...keep lowering the bar for discourse.

I do believe Obama is following the principle that if you lie enough--or big enough--you have a better chance of being believed, because no one will believe you had the audacity (yes!) to lie so much.

In the 1940s, the Big Lie technique was adhered to by such as Joseph Goebbels.

I'm not comparing Obama to Goebbels, I'm merely noting that on virtually every topic of international interest, historical or current, Obama lies--or, politely put, makes mistakes that, oddly, go uncorrected.

Past time for him to be hammered by the press. The way they hammered Bush every day for 8 years, the way they hammered Hillary.

Kronberg, that post was satire right? The entire Iraq run-up was propaganda. McClellan even stated it, albeit too late.

Now, I'm not saying the administration didn't have noble motives, but it was a big lie for a war and they knew it. I believe Obama has genuine motives too. Your histrionics are too one-sided. Take off the blinders.

Now, I'm not saying the administration didn't have noble motives, but it was a big lie for a war and they knew it.

It saddens me that so many ignore the fact that the U.S. government - Democrat and Republican, Executive and Legislative, the current Administration and the previous - acted on incorrect intelligence collected over many years, and instead attempt to claim that "Bush lied."

Blinders is an accurate name, I suppose, for someone who conveniently ignores data that infringe upon her preferred narrative.

CY, like your blog, it is always interesting to read and generally the infestation of the BHO cleanup posters is not too high.

The main reason his comments worry me has to do with his focus on taking action after an attack. In contrast, Bush has focused on preventing attacks and removing threats.

Personally, I would rather take action to prevent an attack than sick a team of prosecutors on some terrorists after an attack has been successfully carried out. Granted, lawyers can make a person's life hell, but I don't think they are much of a deterrent to terrorists that plan to die in the attack, as was the case on 9/11.

This is my first time posting here so bear with me.

Confederate, in regards to your 3:49 PM post, let me say this - Bush did control some of this intelligence. The administration manipulated not only the intelligence, but more importantly, the situation. In the aftermath of 9/11, no politician could be reasonably expected to not err on the side of caution. Those who spoke out against it did so because of their aversion to war in general and because they were, for the most part, not in any position to have to take a stand that could come back and haunt them.

But I will give you that it was an intelligence failure of epic proportions and consequneces by our intelligence commmunity.

But please do not have your blinders on when it comes to the fact that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq regardless of 9/11. He just found a better way to push his own agenda. And numerous people in Bush's administration have been quoted saying as much.

And you cannot ignore the Bush administrations culpability in letting 9/11 happen when there was that guy who was jumping up and down and screaming from the FBI about what was going to happen.

All that being said, it turns out there was 100% accurate intelligence regarding Iraq available to us that was never consulted - the weapons inspections by the UN. Turns out, they were right about Iraq the whole time. I love the way that has never been discussed accept for the one article I saw about it roughly 5 years ago.

And lastly, there was no vital, American interest in going into Iraq. That was always my reason for opposition to the war. Yes, Hussein was a bad man who did horrible things. But why wasn't that addressed in the 80's when he did them? Iraq had no way to do anything to the US on our own soil. Nor did it have anything to do with 9/11 - a lie still repeated by Cheney to this day.

And if Iraq was such an eminent threat, then what are Iran and North Korea?

Who really has the blinders on?

An Obama Presidency will mean either a civil war to take back the country and salvage what remains after enough people realize that America is sliding away (and nothing less than this will do the job), or we accept it and the American experiment is allowed to sunset.

I believe it will come down to one of those two choices.

Evidently Blinders lives in one of the seven states we don't know about and they don't get up to date news. Even the media has basically admitted that Bush was correct and they hyped the Bush lied, people died for their own and the democrats purposes. Most stupid democrats know that the WMD 'is there' along with the congressional mandate to remove Saddam came out of the 90's while Bush was still in Tx. Slick Willie signed the 'remove Saddam' bill and then got diverted from his duty by a stained blue dress. Blinders should make an appointment immediately with any nut doctor that specializes in BDS. Not many right now, but hundreds of thousands (including my niece) are training and planning on getting billions from the BDS sufferers. The need will come when Bush goes back to Tx and the democrats are still totally possessed by BDS, but there is no one there to project their nightmares on.

Why is it just fine when a silver-tongued orator constantly displays an ignorance of history?

"And if Iraq was such an eminent threat, then what are Iran and North Korea?"

The term is "imminent," and Bush didn't say they were. He said that he didn't want to wait until after the fact to find out that they indeed were. And the difference was we hadn't defeated the other two contries and established well-defined terms of compliance. Violating those terms was tantamount to resumeing war. It cracks me up when people act like Saddam was some innocent-til-proven-guilty character. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

But John Edwards and Jay Rockefeller, among other Dems, certainly did say it.

And you cannot ignore the Bush administrations culpability in letting 9/11 happen when there was that guy who was jumping up and down and screaming from the FBI about what was going to happen.

Who was "that guy"? And just when did the 9/11 hijackers enter the country?

And if Iraq was such an eminent threat, then what are Iran and North Korea?

The only person who said Iraq was an eminent threat was Sen. Rockefeller. Bush said the threat was not eminent.

"Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion."

Wow.

But, but, Saddam had no ties to terror, BUSH LIED I TELL YOU.

Thanks for catching the typo tsmonk.

Bush actually did say they were an imminent threat with their WMD. That statement is what made me stand up and take notice. That's when I knew that my President was being less than truthful with the country. And that was my opposition.

And I certainly didn't say Saddam was innocent until proving guilty. Hussein had been violating the terms of the UN Resolutions for years. Why the rush at that point? And the UN Inspections basically said he had nothing. He was saber-rattling and trying to make himself relevant. But that is not enough of a reason to go to war.

And if a leader of a nation should be removed because they were guilty, where is your rigtheous idignation at Milosevic, Idi Amin, Darfur or Rwanda? Did those leaders not warrant the same consequences for their actions as Hussein?

And what about Al Qaeda? Why not go after the people who attacked us? Why not shock and awe the Taliban in Afghanistan into complete and total submission and help that country rebuild and stop being the problem it has been for the last 30 years? At that point in time, isn't that the more pressing concern?

And it still doesn't answer the larger question that if we were so worried about WMD and not wanting to wait until after the fact to find out, wny are Iran and North Korea not considered the bigger threat? Their nuclear programs were certainly, documentably, further along than Iraq's.

And you don't even offer an argument about Bush's stated desire, and that of the hawks around him, to go to war with Iraq when he took office. Not commenting on it seems to me to be telling.

You can try and justify the war in Iraq any way you want, but you will never convince me it was right or worth the lives it has cost. Just as I am sure I will never convince you of the opposite. Even if this turns out to be the best thing for the Middle East 100 years down the road, it was still the wrong choice, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons - all 10 or so we have been given so far.

I periodically challenge the Bush haters to imagine they were in a room with GW Bush and CIA Director George Tenet in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion, when Tenet told GWB that the case for WMDs was a "slam dunk", and ask them what they would have said to refute him.

The only responses I get back are on the order of drinking red-dyed milk and vomiting it back up on the steps of the City Hall in protest at going to war. Bush haters don't even pretend to want to be taken seriously; they just want to vent.

And my apologies to you Confederate. I did not mean to side track your blog to the war. The battle has already been fought.

Regarding your blog about Obama. Yeah, he does need a little help in the history department. I grant you that one.

And the press' refusal to call him on it has been a travesty, too.

Obviously, from my posts, I think it is apparent that I am a Democrat. I hope you don't mind if I pop in from time to time to add my 2 cents to the coversation as my time allows.

I actually stumbled across your blog from the Real Clear Politics website. Its actually a pretty good website. The articles tend to be balanced between conservative and liberal and it is nice to hear an opposing view for me to challenge myself and my opinions.

I notice that again today, I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan. That alwasy irritates me. LOL

And just for the record, I am actually a Hillary supporter. I don't particularly like Obama and I actually really do like McCain. I haven't even made up my mind to vote this cycle. Ican't in good conscience vote for Obama for many reasons but I also can't vote for McCain in good conscience just for one reason. So I might just sit this one out. Luckily, in CA I have that option since Obama should carry the state regardless of my vote.

Thanks again for the blog. Later on I am going to go back and read some of your past stuff.

Obama gets his gift from Flip Wilson's Rev. Leroy, of the CHURCH OF WHAT's HAPPENIN' NOW:

A lie is a good as the truth, if you can get someone to believe it.

KnSD: "Bush actually did say they were an iminent threat with their WMDs."

Care to give the date and speech he said this? If you can find it you probably will be awarded the Hero of the People medal (2nd Class, with Oak Clusters!) by the DNC, because they've tried in vain for 5 years to find somewhere he said this or anything like this.

Try. Google "Bush imminent threat" and see what you come up with. There are a lot of "I-hate-Bush!" vanity websites where the posters claim he said it, sure. One of the symptoms of BDS is hearing voices in your head and being unable to tell fantasy from reality. But no one has ever found an actual, verifiable quote where President Bush said Iraq was an "iminent threat" or, "the threat is iminent", or any words to those effects.

If you can't argue from the basis of reality, what good is your opinion worth?

Confed Yankee gaffes once again. Obama is dead on - we tried and convicted all four of the 1993 WTC conspirators that we caught. This completely supports obama's and other true small government supporter's contention about Gitmo - it's not necessary. The fact that we didn't have Gitmo-type detentions of the 1993 culprits did not hurt American security. We were able to bring the guys we caught to justice using our normal constitutional judicial proceedings and the rule of law instead of the rule of barbarism.

Yeah we didn't catch a couple guys but that had nothing to do with the absence of unlimited enemy combatant detentions at Gitmo or any failings of the US justice system.

ps: Bush's use of unconstitutional detentions at Gitmo and non-use of our justice system to prosecute terrorists has also failed to catch Yasin and bring him to justice too. As you state he is still on the loose. Using your own argument Bush's terrorist policies have been a failure.

> periodically challenge the Bush haters to imagine they were in a room with GW Bush and CIA Director George Tenet in the days leading up to the 2003 invasion, when Tenet told GWB that the case for WMDs was a "slam dunk", and ask them what they would have said to refute him.

Picking up a phone and called Mohammed ElBaradei and Hans Blix, would have done the job.

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

Q: Well Mr Obama so you think that the right policy is to prosecute terrorist?

Mr. Obama: Well yes it worked after the bombing of the World Trade Center.

Q: Mr. Obama, and where is the World Trade Center now?

Mr. Obama: Uh,

>>nSD: "Bush actually did say they were an iminent threat with their WMDs."

>Care to give the date and speech he said this?

Take your pick

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

>>Yasin fled the United States after the bombing to Iraq, and lived as Saddam Hussein's guest in Baghdad until the invasion."

>Wow. But, but, Saddam had no ties to terror, BUSH LIED I TELL YOU.

Yasin, an Iraqi citizen, was questioned by the FBI after the 1st trade center bombing & released. He returned to Iraq. If you call being in prison being a guest of Saddam Hussein, he was a guest. Saddam Hussein offered to turn him over to the US after 9/11 but the US refused to accept him.

(sigh) You're new, KnSD, so I'll cut you a little slack, but not a great deal, because these quotes were posted by me in another thread right here seven days ago... looking back at previous threads is sometimes a good idea, ya know.

Anyway, if, as you claim, Bush claimed that the Iraqi threat was imminent (and I, too, want to see your source for that), he was joined by a number of prominent Democrats:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy, speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President William Jefferson Clinton, address to Joint Chiefs and Pentagon staff.

So tell me, KnSD, did these prominent Democrats, one of them President at the time, also lie? Or is it only a "lie" when a Republican says it, but the "TRUTH!" when a Democrat does?

>o tell me, KnSD, did these prominent Democrats, one of them President at the time, also lie? Or is it only a "lie" when a Republican says it, but the "TRUTH!" when a Democrat does?

They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point.

The Security Council and the whole world agreed that Saddam had to be disarmed. So it voted to put inspection teams in. Which were working and getting cooperation. Blix said he would have the job done 'not in weeks nor in years but in months.' ElBaradei got the job done: he said no active nuclear weapons program.

Cheney said ElBaradei was wrong. Gave no evidence as to why, just said, he's wrong. And we invaded.

Orion - as I am trying to get out of the office right now, I don't have time. But I will do my best. If I can find it, I will certainly let you know. If I can't, then I will certainly admit my mistake.

If I can ask though, what is BDS?

And yes, I dislike Bush immensely and I think he has been horrible for the country. But I dislike his politics, not the man. I don't doubt his intentions, just his actions.

You are not going to find me your typical Democrat. I tend to be somewhat conservative - for a liberal anyway. But most importantly, I try to look at each item individually, then see how it fits into the larger picture and then look to see if my logic and beliefs are consistent through my opinions. And if I discover that I have been wrong or inconsistent, or in some instances hypocritical, I adjust my thinking accordingly. And always, I try to keep in mind the kind of person I want to be and how I would feel in someone else's shoes.

So challenge away. It might be good for both of us.

And lastly, having a different opinion doesn't mean we can't debate and needle each other. I will do my best to be respectful. :-)

No wonder you use the term "vegetative" in your name, PVL... you clearly have the approximate brain of one.

The original post quotes Obama as saying:

...we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial.

And here you come with your statement:

...we tried and convicted all four of the 1993 WTC conspirators that we caught.

Note, please, that Obama himself didn't restrict his comments to those "that we caught.," he said we had arrested and tried all of them.

In short, you're trying to put words in his mouth in a blatant attempt to cover his goof, and it ain't gonna fly around here. Go back to DailyKos, where I am sure you're considered "wise" by their standards.

And this -
>If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

was after the expulsion of inspectors in 1997. He bombed them but didn't invade. Seems very smart in retrospect, doesn't it?

They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point.

Anselm, one of them WAS PRESIDENT HIMSELF when he said what I quoted above.

Now, are you gonna tell me that the all-powerful George W. Bush reached back in time and controlled the sources inside Bill Clinton's White House? Well, he can apparently control hurricanes--remember Katrina?--so I guess a little thing like time travel shouldn't bother him.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. Go back to DU.

"I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks, and we should not minimize the risks, we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with the threat. There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated....To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, September 25, 2002, excerpted from the Phase 2 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, Chairman, PG 105.

>Anselm, one of them WAS PRESIDENT HIMSELF when he said what I quoted above.

After the expulsion of UN inspectors, yes. He bombed Iraq. Quite successfully. No U.S. casualties. No endless occupation. Problem?

Regarding what Rockefeller said -- since that time, he's said he was fed a line, and we have lots of testimony from the feeders. But you know the real deal - how?

Hey asselm, thanks for proving that President Bush did not, in fact, say that Iraq was an "imminent threat." Did he say it was a threat? OF COURSE, being as they were. Did he use some strong language, sure, he was building a case for a WAR. Jesus...As some earlier commentor said: Go back to DKos were all you double diget IQers baffle one another with your brilliance. Round these parts we deal in reality...

Quit trying to change the topic, Anselm. Clinton wasn't misled by the White House, he WAS the White House. And he said Iraq was a threat.

Was President Clinton a liar, or was he telling the truth? Answer me that.

C-C-G - might I point out that Obama didn't use the word "all" in what you quoted either. He didn't qualify it one way or another. Implying that he meant that we caught all of them, when that is not explicitly what he said is exactly the same as what you accuse PVL of doing when he qualifies Obama's position with "that we caught."

And is it really necessary to include the vegetative comment? Is that somehow supportive of your argument?

Thank you for letting me join in the discussion guys. I hope I can do it again soon.

And Orion, I haven't forgot that I will look for those commments. I know Anselm posted those quotes, but I will try to find quotes myself, too.

And Doug. I'm sorry, but how many people do you think heard Rockefeller say that? Not quite the same joining the chorus as it is in leading the choir. Anyone who came out in suppport of the imminence of the threat would have been responding to the comments by the administration. (And yes, I ahve qualified my earlier Bush comments to administration until I confirm for myself I heard what I think I heard).

"They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point."

Really? So the rest of the world that thought he had it also pulled this same trick with their OWN intelligence agencies?

Give me a freaking break.

If Bush were half the liar you people make him out to be then he would have had Chem weapons planted and then found.

There will always be people in an organization that think one thing while a majority of the others think another. You go with the majority. Some times it bites you in the ass. Most of the time it does not.

Next please!

>Hey asselm, thanks for proving that President Bush did not, in fact, say that Iraq was an "imminent threat." Did he say it was a threat?

Oh, give us all a break. All of his spokesman used the word "imminent," verbatim, or even stronger words. Bush himself used words like "unique urgency." Why not explain why a threat of "unique urgency" is not "imminent."

>Did he use some strong language, sure, he was building a case for a WAR

D'uh. The question remains, was the war justified? Was it a good idea? We now know it wasn't. And he could and should have known, from Blix and ElBaradei, that the WMD threat wasn't there.

>Quit trying to change the topic, Anselm. Clinton wasn't misled by the White House, he WAS the White House. And he said Iraq was a threat.

You're the one trying to cloud the issue. Nobody, and certainly has said Clinton in 1998 was misled by the White House. He was reacting to Saddam Hussein expeling UN weapons inspector. And his military response was measured and highly effective.

oops - "nobody, and certainly not me, has said that Clinton in 1998 was misled by the White House."

KnSD, quit trying to throw red herrings. If you hear a police department spokesman say, "we have caught the bank robbers," the natural assumption is that they have caught all of them. If you later spot one of the bank robbers on your street, you therefore assume that the spokesman was incorrect.

It's not Friday, and I am not Catholic, so I have no use for the fish you're tossing.

>>"They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point."

>Really? So the rest of the world that thought he had it also pulled this same trick with their OWN intelligence agencies?

The rest of the world was also worried, which is why the Security Council voted to put the inspectors Saddam had expelled back in. Unanimously. They went in and went to work, and were reporting, effectively and we now know accurately. Cheney and Bush dismissed them. Why? What did they know the inspectors didn't?

>Give me a freaking break.
You seem to need one badly.

Lying again, Anselm?

>o tell me, KnSD, did these prominent Democrats, one of them President at the time, also lie? Or is it only a "lie" when a Republican says it, but the "TRUTH!" when a Democrat does?

They were given selective information by White House controlled sources, which they should have been more skeptical about. But you're avoiding the point.

That's you at 6:09 pm today, according to the timestamp.

And now, you at 6:42 pm:

oops - "nobody, and certainly not me, has said that Clinton in 1998 was misled by the White House."

Was someone else pretending to be you, or are you a bald-faced liar? I vote for option 2.

>KnSD, quit trying to throw red herrings. If you hear a police department spokesman say, "we have caught the bank robbers," the natural assumption is that they have caught all of them. If you later spot one of the bank robbers on your street, you therefore assume that the spokesman was incorrect.

They put the ringleaders on trial. One Iraqi citizen was questioned by the FBI, released, went back to Iraq, where he was imprisoned. The Iraqis later tried to release him to Bush/Cheney, who refused to accept him. Now he's still at large. That's Obama's fault??

And in fact, the criminal justice system worked quite well in the first bombing. How has Guantanamo worked better?

I overlooked the reference to Clinton being president at the time. Mistake, yes. The facts remain as I stated them. Clinton was in 1998 reacting to Saddam kicking out inspectors, and took effective action. Democrats in 2002 were getting information from the White House that proved, after UN inspectors went in, to be wrong.

The White House refused to listen tot he inspectors. Unlike the rest of the world. Why? Calling me a liar (again, admit I overlooked the clause pres at the time) doesn't change this

Anselm, the criminal justice system worked so well after the first bombing that we had, oh, let's see...

* Al-Qaeda related bombing of our embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (1998).

* Al-Qaeda related bombing of our embassy in Nairobi, Kenya (1998).

* USS Cole bombed while in port in Yemen (2000).

* And, of course, that second attack on the WTC in 2001. You may have heard of it.

After imprisoning people in Gitmo, tell me, how many successful Al-Qaeda attacks on our embassies, ships, or on American soil have there been, Anselm?

The results speak for themselves. You just gotta know what you're talking about.

You might wanna read the whole text of the Rockefeller report (it's available online as a .pdf file, but CY's spam filter chokes on the link... it's at the senate "dot" gov site), Anselm.

It clearly states, even though the MoveOnMedia somehow forgot to mention this in their breathless reports, that Bush's statements pre-invasion were "generally supported by intelligence information."

Doing your research is a good idea when coming here to comment... because the regular conservative commenters here (like me) do so.

>After imprisoning people in Gitmo, tell me, how many successful Al-Qaeda attacks on our embassies, ships, or on American soil have there been, Anselm?

In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds. This is a joke, right? But here's the poser: how many threats have we found out about in Guantanamo that we prevented? I mean, this is really any excuse will do country.

Do you really think Americans being killed in Iraq prevented Americans from being killed in the US?? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Ah yes - regarding the Cole As Clinton was leaving office, the attack on the Cole was traced to Al Qaeda. Clinton officials, and particularly Clarke, turned the info over to Bush people. Who did nothing. Even after the intelligence organization brief him in August: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

In fact, Anselm, here's part of a previous comment of mine listing some of the statements in the Rockefeller report that the MoveOnMedia didn't think you needed to know about.

Some excerpts for ya (the page numbers I list are from the bottom of the printed sheets, Adobe Reader's internal page numbers are 1 page higher, so don't go whining that I say page 15 when Adobe says 16.):

Page 15: "Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."

Page 28: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."

Page 37: "Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information."

I won't bore you with more excerpts... those three should be enough. If you wanna read through 170+ pages of bureaucratese, you're welcome to.

There ya go. Keep spinning, it's fun knocking you down over and over again.

U all know that Hussein Obama had committed a lot of flagrant errors in his speeches/comments and the "intelligent" pundits tried to conceal them so as not to show his ignorance. I've heard many of his mistakes and they made me laugh because his stupidity/ignorance on certain facts seem funny and at the same time idiotic. I hope the world and his cohorts will see him as he is. But then, to their eyes, the Americans would appear ridiculous for having a presidential nominee as unknowledgeable as he claims to be. How pathetic.

Anselm, you're pathetic. I said, attacks ON OUR EMBASSIES, SHIPS, OR ON AMERICAN SOIL. Are you trying to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are American soil?

Maybe those are part of Obama's "57 states"?

>It clearly states, even though the MoveOnMedia somehow forgot to mention this in their breathless reports, that Bush's statements pre-invasion were "generally supported by intelligence information."

If the Rockefeller report were the only source on this, you might begin to have a point, though "generally supported by intelligence information" is about as vague and minimal as conclusions get.

The fact is, we have lots and lots of other sources. But, sure, it's just the nasty MSM making things up because they hate Bush. Dream on.

Please, Anselm, list for me some of those "other sources." I imagine that they're places like the Huffington Post, MoveOn, DailyKOS, and DemocraticUnderground, since you're clearly more familiar with their twisted fantasies than you are with reality.

And there you go, copying biased bloggers.

Here's the text of the report:
) Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves."

That means, they exaggerated. You don't want to call it lie? Go ahead.

again:

(U) Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deviler chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.

or this:

(U) Conclusion 4: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Or this:

(U) Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Or this:

(U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional [sic] statements, regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers’ statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qa’ida.

>Anselm, you're pathetic. I said, attacks ON OUR EMBASSIES, SHIPS, OR ON AMERICAN SOIL. Are you trying to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are American soil?

The green zone in Iraq, and our embassy has been attacked repeatedly. As have our troops. But the point remains, you haven't shown how the Guantanamo jail has had anything to do with attacks taking place or not taking place.

Puzzle: who got this note a month before 9/11: "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." and ignored it?

>> it's fun knocking you down over and over again.

Big guy, you can play or you can keep score. Let people reading figure out who's knocking who down.

Ahh... so you're saying that an exaggeration is a lie? Well, I guess President Clinton lied as well when he spoke about those same things. Oops, I forgot, he was misled by the White House. Nevermind that he was in charge of the White House at the time.

Here, I'll toss you a bone: some (not all, but some) of the judgments made regarding Iraq may have been a stretch given the intelligence information at the time. I admit that. However, we must also remember that the intelligence community completely missed the planning and build-up to 9/11, so just because something doesn't appear on some intelligence summary somewhere does not prove that it doesn't exist.

However, we're straying far from the original point. Obama wanted to claim that we'd caught and imprisoned all those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing. We haven't. And all the spin in the world isn't gonna change that.

Anselm, lemme as you this. How many bank robberies have not happened because we put some bank robbers in jail?

When you figure out a way to quantify that, I'll use that formula to quantify how many terrorist attacks haven't happened because we have people in Gitmo.

"You're the one trying to cloud the issue. Nobody, and certainly has said Clinton in 1998 was misled by the White House. He was reacting to Saddam Hussein expeling UN weapons inspector. And his military response was measured and highly effective."

I am only quoting this one point because much of what you say is busted by this one point I am about to make.

So you agree that Clinton was right in reacting when Iraq expelled the inspectors? How about the many dozens of incidents where Iraqi forces fired on Coalition forces while patrolling the no fly (just in 01 and 02)? Couple this with the breaches in 1441, Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284 and many more.

Couple that with the available intel that much of the world agreed with that said they did have CBRN weapons, and the fact that a change in regimes had been doctrine since the Clinton administration. Yeah it was justified, and late. The UN should have rallied forces much earlier.

That was not gaffe. Obama saying that the Constitution is the law of the land and the President's duty is to uphold the law. Unless of course, you are Bush.

While you are correct in some of your statements about Yasim, he was however, one of many people involved in the bombing. To single him out as THE TERRORIST is false. Yasim fled to Iraq, where we have been for over 5 years yet we can't catch him. We can't seem to catch Bin Laden either.

Well, Jay, Osama was offered to President Clinton, all gift-wrapped and everything. He declined the offer.

Are you sure you wanna go down that road?

"Unless of course, you are Bush."

To finish your statement. Or Obama!

Well, I'm not sure what the score is, but this reader, a pretty middle of the road kinda person, sees Anselm getting pretty thoroughly trounced at each and every pirouette.

His facts are lousy, but that's the least of my worries. He looks directly at the facts of the 1993 and the 2001 WTC bombings, with the benefit of hindsight, and still comes to the wrong conclusions. His presidency will be disastrous.

First, I see that nobody is willing to take on the fact that U.N. inspectors were on the scene with facts -- that were ignored by Cheney and Bush.

Then we get this:
>However, we must also remember that the intelligence community completely missed the planning and build-up to 9/11, so just because something doesn't appear on some intelligence summary somewhere does not prove that it doesn't exist.

Again: it did not, not in the least: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike IN US, " report delivered to U.S. President in August, 2001.

I see that nobody has been able to post any factual evidence that Guantanomo deterred or prevented any attacks on the US.

>Well, I'm not sure what the score is, but this reader, a pretty middle of the road kinda person, sees Anselm getting pretty thoroughly trounced at each and every pirouette.

No specifics, no facts but sure, you're sure. Thank you for sharing.

What an incredibly stupid man.

My first post here so I will be brief.

All of us paying attention to those dark days following the 9-11 attack clearly recall the difficulty being expressed with regard to combating Al Qaeda and it's organizaton.

Tens of thousands of trained terrorists in 60 countries.

How to fight that sort of enemy?

President Bush decided to kill a few birds with (in retrospect) one very expensive stone.

Phase One: Remove the Taliban controlled goverment in Afghanistan.

Mission Accomplished!

Phase Two: Establish Military bases in Afghanistan in cooperation with NATO along Iran's eastern boarder.

Mission Accomplished!

Phase Three: Attack Iraq and bring down that filthy, sadistic group of lunatics.

MISSION ACOMPLISHED (recall Pres. Bush on the aircraft carrier?)

Phase Four: Establish military bases along Iran's western boarder and stabilize Iraq.

Work in progress....but we do have a huge inventory of man and materials now in the real theater of war...

Phase Five: Create an attrative target for all who would like to do harm to United States of America through Jihad.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (recall Pres. Bush saying in so many words "You Jihad a__holes want some USA? Come get some!)

Honestly, there was no way to respect the 60 sovereign nations in fighting those virgin loving Jihadists if we were to attack them where they were so we had to entice them to come to us. "Bring it on!" seems to have done the trick. Heck, we even brought down Saddam as an extra added plus.

Today:

- We have nearly 100,000 battle hardened NATO and US military personnel along Iran's Eastern boarder along with tons of battle tested equipment.

- We have almost 200,000 battle hardened military personnel and well tested equipment arrayed along Iran's western boarder.

- We have circulated (over extended duty stays) more than a half million battle trained US Military personnel who can be called up at a moment's notice.

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that our friends on the left say we are in no position...stretched too thin... to engage Iran as they try to perfect thier nuclear program.

If we are not in a position to confront Iran right now, what is it you think we need to do to get better positioned...?

I suppose we could move a carrier battle group into the gulf....errr...wait a sec here...we have three battle groups there now.

The most sophisticated military in the world, battle tested equipment, battle trained commanders, more than a half million battle hardened vets and military bases and supply chains established and protected...all around Iran.

...and all we hear from the left is that we are too weak to offend Iran....

You oddlings on the left should stick to fighting to let gay folks get married, ensure abortions are legal..and find new ways of taking my money and giving to your base voters (pardon the pun)and leave the job of protecting us from the real bad guys of the world to the grown-ups.

Your judgement appears flawed, silly and dangerous.

Oh...and by the way...your current meme of Sen. McCain being too old to be president...stomping all over the Hillary supporters wasn't damaging enough for you? Your now looking to throw away the Sr. Citizen vote too?

My apologies for my failure to be brief.

Mr. Yankee,

You are either ill-informed or (more likely) disingenuous. There are six known perpetrators of the 1993 attack including: Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajajand and Abdul Rahman Yasin . Five of the six were apprehended in foreign countries, extradited to the US, convicted in US courts and are serving longer-than-life sentences. As indicted in your piece, Yasin has not met with US justice. However, contrary to your assertion, Yasin was not Saddam Hussein's guest, but (after a yearlong period of freedom) a prisoner in an Iraqi prison. And, in fact there were several opportunities to have him conveyed from Iraq. Obviously, we did not take those opportunities and since the US invasion, his whereabouts are unknown.

Do you think so little of your readers to assume they can't undertake a simple google search to fact check your half-truths?

I have to say, reading these comments, that I am struck by the lack of civility on the part of many of the posters. Disagreeing about facts and interpretations is one thing; questioning people's intelligence and slinging insults is completely unnecessary. It's the kind of behavior that wouldn't be allowed in any elementary school classroom. I'm sure your parents raised you better, and I would hope you'd teach your children better, too. Note that I do not have a political bone to pick in this fight; I am not referring to posters of either political stripe.

Could we please consider our own behavior and the example it's setting???

Mix Xyanides and an acid and you get Hydrogen Xyanide gas

>Anselm, lemme as you this. How many bank robberies have not happened because we put some bank robbers in jail?

Nobody is calling for not pursuing, capturing and punishing enemies, for doing away with jails. We have lots all over the place. The issue is whether we are going to honor the rules set by our history and constitution, or disregard them because of fearmongering politiicians.

>>Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that our friends on the left say we are in no position...stretched too thin... to engage Iran as they try to perfect thier nuclear program. If we are not in a position to confront Iran right now, what is it you think we need to do to get better positioned...?

You should really tell the Joint Chiefs about all our unused military muscle, and how ready we are to go after Iran. They'll be very surprised. Tell the voters too: that's a really winner.

A good site for the folks wanting to claim that the Bush admin was hyping up Saddam as a threat is http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/.

It has a great many quotes from prominent Dems echoing the same concerns the Bush administration had. Some even go further in their claims than the administration.

Just some food for thought.

Do you think so little of your readers to assume they can't undertake a simple google search to fact check your half-truths?

why would anyone fact-check such delicious propaganda ?

>A good site for the folks wanting to claim that the Bush admin was hyping up Saddam as a threat is http://www.whosaiditiraq.blogspot.com/. It has a great many quotes from prominent Dems echoing the same concerns the Bush administration had. Some even go further in their claims than the administration.

We've been there and gone through that. The Rockefeller report and many other independent accounts from journalists have documented that the data was cooked and skewed before being presented to lawmakers, to not present dissenting or questioning views from the intellgence community.

And, again, there was an independent check available. The U.N. inspectors in Iraq were there investigating. They asked us for leads, and followed all they got. Empty holes. ElBaradei reached an (accurate) conclusion: no nuclear weapons program active. Blix said he'd have a definitive answer "not in weeks or years but months." Bush couldn't wait. But it's the Democrats' fault. Sure.

Well, but what about Yasin having been in prison since 1994?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2022991.stm

He certainly seems to have been lost in the shuffle since the war began.

Anselm:

Care to tell us all how you've been earning a living since you lost your PR job with Saddam.

What a crock. Saddam imprisoned any number of terrorists including Abu Nidal, all who live in a secured luxury housing area. I know I saw this area in the mid 80s and saw the terrorist HQs in Baghdad. Do you imply these people couldn't travel freely were in jail with common criminals, couldn't freely communicate or meet with anyone they choose to?

Its sad to see the lies that are told here by people who have a very obvious agenda.

One more point for Anselm, then I am done with him.

Even allowing, just for the sake of the argument that we did capture, convict, and imprison all those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, there is one simple, inescapable fact that proves beyond any doubt that those actions did nothing to make America safer.

That fact is 11 September 2001.

Face it, the arrest, trial, and incarceration of those responsible in 1993 didn't stop the 2001 attacks.

Since 2003, however, there hasn't been a single, not ONE, successful terrorist attack within the United States of America.

I'd say that pretty well shows the difference between a law enforcement approach to terrorism and a military approach to it.

And now, Anselm, I am done with you. Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY!

Oh, did any of you pro-law-enforcement lefties here know that Bin Laden was indicted in 1998?

Yeah, law enforcement really helped keep Bin Laden from killing some 3,000 Americans.

"Face it, the arrest, trial, and incarceration of those responsible in 1993 didn't stop the 2001 attacks.

Since 2003, however, there hasn't been a single, not ONE, successful terrorist attack within the United States of America."

Count the years. 93 to 01, 01 to 08.