Cheny's victim suffers heart attack

[Brandon777]

Geez, it was an accident. My cousin shot his friend in a hunting accident. Thankfully he is alive and well today. Some of you guys just have a blind hatred for anyone affiliated with the Bush Administration. You are acting like he shot a guy at bar during a drunken dispute.

[JansenFan]

As an aside, in the google ad space at the bottom of this page, I'm getting an ad for an illustrated book entitled, "Are There Liberals Under Your Bed?"

[DarthMonk]

I'm thinking that if any of us shot someone while hunting we would be expected to notify the police immediately. They might even tell us to not go anywhere and "rope off" the scene", etc. By the way - Cheney admits to having "one beer" at a barbecue on the ranch earlier in the day. A woman (forget name) at the ranch says there was no alcohol. I've been hunting a few times. Drinking is almost mandatory. How far fetched is the following?

After a few beers somebody says "How about we go out and shoot us a few quail." In his (slightly?) inebriated state the aptly named Dick Cheney accidentally shoots his friend, you know, pulls the trigger without really knowing what he's shooting at. After several "OMG's" and what not a Secret Service guy tells everyone to calm down, go back to the house, and drink some coffee while he straightens things out. "Go have some coffee sir. Don't make any phone calls. Wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea. I'll get a medic and call the White House. Relax, we're all friends here."

Think about it. You are on a ranch with a millionaire friend having a barbecue and some beer. You shoot him later. What would you do?

One thing is for sure, Gibbs may have voted for him but he'd never hire him. Character is paramount, intelligence is second, and talent is a distant third.

[thaiphoon]

Darth - just to get the story out that the WH Press Corps will not report... the local sheriff was notified the same day of the shooting...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/02 ... eney1.html

[Redskins Rule]

You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!

[NikiH]

Obviously none of you have ever done this type of hunting. When I have a free moment I am going to post a link that explains why the guy was off to Cheney's side and explain each person's role in this type of hunting. It will show you that while Cheney was partially at fault, the gentleman who walked in the spray of his gun was also at fault. Mind you this man was NOT shot with a bullet as some of you are picturing. Educate yourself and then speak. If every American did this before opening their mouth and letting every opinionated thought out we'd all be better for it.

[Redskins1974]

You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!

Honestly, that's the part that bothers me the most. If this was any other administration, including W's father, people would have been up in arms. Instead, this adminitration likes to be nonchalant about everything and say stuff like, "we don't think it's a big deal so you shouldn't worry either." (not a verbatum quote by the way). I'm not just talking about this incident, it's everything.

I also have a family friend who's husband is a secret service agent. I'm not sure what part of secret he doesn't understand but he tells his wife everything, lol. He said they were drinking (and more than the one beer that Cheney said). Now, I have several friends who are hunting guides on the Eastern Shore of MD and when hunting, drinking is a huge no-no, especially in this type of environment. I'm sure some will dispute that but that's my experience with hunting and even sporting clay tourney's. Once they're back in the lodge after it's all over everyone boozes up but never before or while out there.

[thaiphoon]

Redskins Rule:

You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!

I'm on record as saying it was not a good thing. It was an accident and it should've been handled differently by the VP and his people and by the WH... but it was an accident and was investigated. Now as for Clintons "load"...I had no problem with that (I mean look at his wife - does anyone wanna come anywhere near that harpy?? j/k). I did have a tad of a problem when he tried to corrupt the proceedings of a co-equal branch of government by lying under oath. Most of the people I've talked to on the Right feel the same way about it.

[Redskins Rule]

Redskins Rule:

You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!

I'm on record as saying it was not a good thing. It was an accident and it should've been handled differently by the VP and his people and by the WH... but it was an accident and was investigated. Now as for Clintons "load"...I had no problem with that (I mean look at his wife - does anyone wanna come anywhere near that harpy?? j/k). I did have a tad of a problem when he tried to corrupt the proceedings of a co-equal branch of government by lying under oath. Most of the people I've talked to on the Right feel the same way about it.

Dang Thaiphoon.....I guess I should have said 99% of you Republicans instead of "all".

[crazyhorse1]

Obviously none of you have ever done this type of hunting. When I have a free moment I am going to post a link that explains why the guy was off to Cheney's side and explain each person's role in this type of hunting. It will show you that while Cheney was partially at fault, the gentleman who walked in the spray of his gun was also at fault. Mind you this man was NOT shot with a bullet as some of you are picturing. Educate yourself and then speak. If every American did this before opening their mouth and letting every opinionated thought out we'd all be better for it.

Dear NikiH,

It doesn't matter what the duffer did. He is 78. If you take a 78 year old hunting or rock climbing or swimming or camping or canoeing or to dinner, you're responsible for him PERIOD Cheney should have been watching the guy like a hawk. He didn't do it because he's a careless psychopath/sociopath who routinely shows a lack of concern about other people's lives.

[thaiphoon]

No worries man - I don't mind the sweeping generalizations and don't get upset like others when it happens. I would tell you that alot of Republicans I've talked to agree that the problem wasn't the affair (people have them all the time)...it was manner and the place in which it was done and also the lying under oath that was the problem.

[crazyhorse1]

No worries man - I don't mind the sweeping generalizations and don't get upset like others when it happens. I would tell you that alot of Republicans I've talked to agree that the problem wasn't the affair (people have them all the time)...it was manner and the place in which it was done and also the lying under oath that was the problem.

Wow. You must really be ticked off that Bush sent Powell to lie about WMD at the UN and that his representatives were once instructed to lie to congress about even the budget. Oh, didn't Libby lie under oath? Rove? And how about that affair Bush senior conducted at Camp David...that really ticked you guys off...didn't it? and Eisenhower's gal? I bet you guys are still fuming. How about the Delay/Jack Abramoff forced prostition scandal in the Mariannas so many Republican's received bucks from-- bet those great Americans were stomping their feet in anger all the way to the bank.

[thaiphoon]

Wow. You must really be ticked off that Bush sent Powell to lie about WMD at the UN and that his representatives were once instructed to lie to congress about even the budget.

Would love to see you prove a lie here...

Oh, didn't Libby lie under oath?

Don't know ... grand jury testimony is sealed - have you read the transcripts of the testimony?... One difference so far to me is Clinton has admitted he lied... The biggest difference was that this was the President of the U.S. doing this ...

Rove?

Proof?? You can magically see the grand jury testimony that is sealed ??

And how about that affair Bush senior conducted at Camp David...that really ticked you guys off...didn't it?

What affair? Where do you get this stuff?? But I'll answer your question with a question -> Was a Head-of-State waiting for their meeting while Bush Sr. was allegedly getting serviced??

and Eisenhower's gal?

Did Eisenhower lie under oath and corrupt a proceeding of a co-equa branch of government?

Sorry my friend... today is just not your day.

[skins81]

Obviously none of you have ever done this type of hunting. When I have a free moment I am going to post a link that explains why the guy was off to Cheney's side and explain each person's role in this type of hunting. It will show you that while Cheney was partially at fault, the gentleman who walked in the spray of his gun was also at fault. Mind you this man was NOT shot with a bullet as some of you are picturing. Educate yourself and then speak. If every American did this before opening their mouth and letting every opinionated thought out we'd all be better for it.

Look, people get hurt in hunting accidents, but it was Chaney's fault.
It's his responsibility to know where all the hunters and dogs are, and to see sky before shooting, I don't care if there were three guns and two coveys, it's still Chaney's responsibility.
It's a shooting error, not an accident. Shooting without seeing the sky is reckless. You'll kill dogs or people.

[Redskins Rule]

Quote:
Wow. You must really be ticked off that Bush sent Powell to lie about WMD at the UN and that his representatives were once instructed to lie to congress about even the budget.

Would love to see you prove a lie here...

There is a lie there. You probably don't remember the Presidents State of the Union address the year before we went to war. It was a couple of years ago so I understand He said that Iraq was trying to get nukes. Later it came out that Bush had already been told by the CIA that this was BULLCRUD. In other words Bush knew Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and he still said it before both houses of Congress and the American People. This incident later led Rove to do his thing. By the way.....why do you think his testimony is sealed? What does he have to hide?

[cvillehog]

Wow. You must really be ticked off that Bush sent Powell to lie about WMD at the UN and that his representatives were once instructed to lie to congress about even the budget.

Would love to see you prove a lie here...

I love the "it's incompetence not deceit" defence.

[DEHog]

You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!

And you never will...Reps and Dems aside surely you can see one was a "choice" while the other was a "accident" Please tell me you get that!!

[skins81]

You know what I really find funny about the whole thing. All of you Republicans seemed to have VERY strong feelings when Clinton shot his load on his secretary's dress, but don't have any feelings about Cheney shooting his shotgun into a friends face and chest. I just don't get it!

Any you never will...Reps and Dems aside surely you can see one was a "choice" while the other was a "accident" Please tell me you get that!!

I have less of a problem with getting a blowjob.
Lying about shooting him from 30yds? (It really did have to be closer)
Leaking that it was Wittington's fault??
Drinking, shooting your friend, trying to gloss over it?
I definately have more of a problem with someone who didn't respect his weapon enough that someone got seriously injured and could have died. Never mind the refusing to be questioned by police.

[thaiphoon]

There is a lie there. You probably don't remember the Presidents State of the Union address the year before we went to war. It was a couple of years ago so I understand

Actually I do...

He said that Iraq was trying to get nukes. Later it came out that Bush had already been told by the CIA that this was BULLCRUD.

Wrong. They were...500 tons of uranium were found in Iraq and 5 tons had been processed. Additionally, the recently declassified tapes of Saddam show that he was trying to build a nuke and refine the uranium through a process called "plasma separation". BTW- there are about 2 million or more items containing documents (i.e.- CD's harddrives, audiotapes, etc...) that were captured by coalition authorities and are being translated. 50,000 so far have been translated. Know what else they found so far ?? That inside these documents are the names and backgrounds of 8,000 or more terrorists who trained in Iraq from 1999-2002. Eight thousand terrorists trained in Iraq under Saddam! And the anti-war MSM along with apologists for Saddam still blindly insist that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda and to terrorist organizations.

Going forward - > George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that;

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

In other words Bush knew Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and he still said it before both houses of Congress and the American People. This incident later led Rove to do his thing.

Wrong again...the information presented to Congress was the information that was given to them. If you were in a closed room with no windows and I told you it was 8pm at night outside and it was really noon and you called and told your wife that it was 8pm...are you lying ?? Or just repeating information that was supplied that was incorrect??

BTW- what lead Rove to do his thing was that Joseph Wilson lied about what he found.

Finally -> The consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President;

to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.

If you think Bush and Powell lied then these people also lied...my guess is that you don't think they lied...

By the way.....why do you think his testimony is sealed? What does he have to hide?

Because grand jury testimony is sealed my friend ...

[cvillehog]

Wrong. They were...500 tons of uranium were found in Iraq and 5 tons had been processed. Additionally, the recently declassified tapes of Saddam show that he was trying to build a nuke and refine the uranium through a process called "plasma separation". BTW- there are about 2 million or more items containing documents (i.e.- CD's harddrives, audiotapes, etc...) that were captured by coalition authorities and are being translated. 50,000 so far have been translated. Know what else they found so far ?? That inside these documents are the names and backgrounds of 8,000 or more terrorists who trained in Iraq from 1999-2002. Eight thousand terrorists trained in Iraq under Saddam! And the anti-war MSM along with apologists for Saddam still blindly insist that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda and to terrorist organizations.

You need to source a statemetn like that.

[thaiphoon]

You need to source a statement like that.

Sure...the NYTimes is a good source is it not? I'll quote them since they have been anti-war in their coverage. They reported in May 2004 the following I'll quote so its more readable:

"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq. The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium,"

... the paper revealed, before insisting:

"None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found:

"some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was;

a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon. Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb. And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions. "A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

My note- I mis-stated the original amount of processed uranium. It was not 5 but 1.8 tons. Sorry about that I was relying on my memory (not a bad memory to remember something from a year ago and still get the main points correct don't ya think?). Still my broader point is correct...

For the recent documents claim of terrorist training here is one source of information...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 0kmbzd.asp

[welch]

As Cville says, you'll need some documentation. An isolated sentence doesn't make it.

The claim that Saddam had a live nuke program in 2002, or that he trained Islamic fundamentalists terrorists -- the kind that blew up the WTC and Pentagon -- slipped right past the NY Times, Washington Post, UK Guardian, Economist Magazine, Financial Times, St Louis Post Dispatch, and other online papers that I've read.

The claim also seems to have missed the spacialists at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace non-proliferation practice.

See their "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications", by Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, published in January, 2004. Conclusions in the executive summary, the "Guide to Key Findings", at

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... ummRec.pdf

The full report is at:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/public ... &proj=znpp

In addition, see Paul Pillar's article in Foreign Affairs, at:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301f ... -iraq.html

CEIP comments:

There is one sentence in Paul Pillar’s new Foreign Affairs article that
says all you need to know about the role intelligence played in the
decision to invade Iraq: “As the national intelligence officer for the
Middle East [2000-2005], I was in charge of coordinating all of the
intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I
received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was
not until a year into the war.”

This article contains many more stunning insights. Pillar’s insider’s
look at the Iraq intelligence process confirms the findings of the January
2004 Carnegie study, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications. Pillar
concludes, as did the Carnegie authors, that the assessment process was
highly politicized by the White House, that pressure was brought to bear
on analysts to agree with a predetermined policy, and that while many
analysts thought that Saddam had some weapons, the real pre-war debate was
not over weapons but over war. Pillar says :

[The White House] perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by
the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other
Western governments and intelligence services. But…intelligence on Iraqi
weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war. A view broadly
held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of
Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the
best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive
inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the
administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that
its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the
desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and
hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.”

Pillar acknowledges that the intelligence analysts made serious mistakes,
still, he finds:

Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with
its flaws, it was not what led to the war. On the issue that mattered
most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several
years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The October 2002 NIE also
judged that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD against the United States
unless his regime was placed in mortal danger.

"The Weekly Standard", like the rest of the FOX media, tends to be as reliably selective as Pravda.

[Redskins Rule]

There is a lie there. You probably don't remember the Presidents State of the Union address the year before we went to war. It was a couple of years ago so I understand

Actually I do...

He said that Iraq was trying to get nukes. Later it came out that Bush had already been told by the CIA that this was BULLCRUD.

Wrong. They were...500 tons of uranium were found in Iraq and 5 tons had been processed. Additionally, the recently declassified tapes of Saddam show that he was trying to build a nuke and refine the uranium through a process called "plasma separation". BTW- there are about 2 million or more items containing documents (i.e.- CD's harddrives, audiotapes, etc...) that were captured by coalition authorities and are being translated. 50,000 so far have been translated. Know what else they found so far ?? That inside these documents are the names and backgrounds of 8,000 or more terrorists who trained in Iraq from 1999-2002. Eight thousand terrorists trained in Iraq under Saddam! And the anti-war MSM along with apologists for Saddam still blindly insist that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda and to terrorist organizations.

Going forward - > George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that;

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

In other words Bush knew Iraq wasn't trying to get nukes and he still said it before both houses of Congress and the American People. This incident later led Rove to do his thing.

Wrong again...the information presented to Congress was the information that was given to them. If you were in a closed room with no windows and I told you it was 8pm at night outside and it was really noon and you called and told your wife that it was 8pm...are you lying ?? Or just repeating information that was supplied that was incorrect??

BTW- what lead Rove to do his thing was that Joseph Wilson lied about what he found.

Finally -> The consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President;

to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.

If you think Bush and Powell lied then these people also lied...my guess is that you don't think they lied...

By the way.....why do you think his testimony is sealed? What does he have to hide?

Because grand jury testimony is sealed my friend ...

Dang Thaiphoon!!! Who do you think I am? Crazyhorse or something? I only got a couple sentences to respond with......That was some serious detail you went into. It was weird though. A very intelligent response from a Republican. I'm not used to this. Anyways, If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as you are so sure they did.....where are they? All that I've heard from just about everybody is that there are no WMD's in Iraq. You know how easy it is to make one? You can go on a shopping trip to your local grocery store and pick up some things. Its so easy. Why didn't they use it? Iraq was getting its butt kicked toward the end of the war. I mean, Saddam went to live in a mud whole for crying out loud. If he was that desperate why didn't he use it. Where is it? Where are they? Where is the bomb? Where is the nuclear plant to make one? No, not the one that was destroyed over two decades ago. I mean an active plant. North Korea has one. They've made a couple of bombs. Where is Iraq's plant? Sorry dude, but I don't buy into your post one bit.

[thaiphoon]

If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as you are so sure they did.....where are they? All that I've heard from just about everybody is that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

Natalie Holloway was in Aruba and is now missing (I'm sure you know the story by now). Does that mean she was never there?? My guess and the rumor floating around is Syria has alot of them. There were trucks going into Syria before the war started. Additionally, Saddam's own generals believed they had them. The recently translated audio tapes of Saddam and his council discussing ways to circumvent the sanctions also are startign to shed some light.

You know how easy it is to make one? You can go on a shopping trip to your local grocery store and pick up some things. Its so easy. Why didn't they use it?

Your guess is as good as mine but practically EVERYONE beleived they had them, including Saddam's own generals and including other foreign govt's and including alot of the Left.

Where is the bomb? Where is the nuclear plant to make one? No, not the one that was destroyed over two decades ago. I mean an active plant. North Korea has one. They've made a couple of bombs. Where is Iraq's plant?

The program to rebuild one was alive and well. Check out a book called "The Bomb in my Garden". It is a book by Saddam's scientist who was in charge of the nuclear program. Additionally in the recent audio tapes they are discussing ways to enrich the uranium (500 tons of which were found in Iraq after the war)using "plasma separation" which doesn't require as much of a physical presence as you'd think.

Sorry dude, but I don't buy into your post one bit.

Well you should...the Deulfer report even said that while none were found they did find the capability to "ramp up" the programs once the sanction were lifted. And make no mistake, the sanctions were well on their way to being lifted (France, Germany, China and Russia all wanted to see them lifted). We had to act when we did and do what we did IMHO

[skins#1fan]

It is so pathetic that you liberals look for anything you can get your paws on to make this administration look dumb. I honestly think that Gore, Kenedy, and Dean are the best thing for the Republican party because the more they open there mouth the more the public runs away from them and that party. So keep up the good work guys and lets keep the conservative movement moving forward!