Prosecute the torture.

January 23, 2008

More Proof (as if we needed it)

From The Huffington Post:

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The study itself is posted here. It begins with this:
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
A telling example:
On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
Something to remember the next time someone says, "Everyone believed Saddam had WMD."

On the page labelled Key False Statements, we read:

In his dramatic presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." In preparation for his presentation, Powell had spent a week at Central Intelligence Agency headquarters sifting through intelligence.

One of the "human sources" that Powell referenced turned out to be "Curveball," whom U.S. intelligence officials had never even spoken to. "My mouth hung open when I saw Colin Powell use information from Curveball," Tyler Drumheller, the CIA's chief of covert operations in Europe, later recalled. "It was like cognitive dissonance. Maybe, I thought, my government has something more. But it scared me deeply."

In his presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Powell described another of the human sources as "a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to Al Qaeda." Six days earlier, however, the CIA itself had come to the conclusion that this source, a detainee, "was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

In a report completed in 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "Much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell's speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."

And so on.

You can even search the database yourself.

There's 935 false statements.

35 comments:

Schmuck Shitrock said...

This comes as quite a shock to those of us who have always consider the Bush Administration to consist of nothing but paragons of integrity...NOT.

I suspect that Sec. Powell was systematically mislead, but "there is no doubt that" Don Rumfeld actually claimed he knew where the WMDs were.

These people and many of their dwindling coterie of supporters are congenitally dishonest. They lie compulsively, even when their lies serve no purpose. Of course, in this case the lies did serve a purpose: To enrich the Administration and their cronies at the expense of our tax dollars, our position in the world, and most importantly the well-being of the brave young people who serve America in our armed forces.

In a just world, these people would be imprisoned at hard labor, then exiled to an unpleasant place.

"Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

These people and many of their dwindling coterie of supporters are congenitally dishonest. They lie compulsively, even when their lies serve no purpose. Of course, in this case the lies did serve a purpose: To enrich the Administration and their cronies at the expense of our tax dollars, our position in the world, and most importantly the well-being of the brave young people who serve America in our armed forces.

But it's not as if they lied about a blow job or anything serious. Remember, IOKIYAR.

Anonymous said...

Here are some other "false" statements about the threat Saddam posed:

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."


Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."


John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."


Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that 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, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."


Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. 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."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"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."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain."


Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."


Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."


Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002
"With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."


Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."


John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."


Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002
"I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."


Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[i]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 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."


Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."


Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
"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."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


John Kerry > October 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."


Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
"There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."


Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), 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 national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."


Jane Harman > August 27, 2002
"I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."


Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."


Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."


Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."


Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002
"I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."


Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."


Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."


Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."


John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Anonymous said...

John K. says: The Huffington Post LOL LOL Only the left wing kooks think this has any credibility. Adrianna publishes anything and everything that fits her agenda, without bothering to check. So what happened to the Downing Street Memo ? Ahh this is so funny.

Heir to the Throne said...

Where is the study by two nonprofit journalism organizations on the lies that Bill Clinton used to start his illegal war in Kosovo?
such as Mass graves with 100,000 dead.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Anon 11:07:

Thank you for pointing out why all those Democrats invaded Iraq under false pretenses. I was wondering why Bill Clinton sent 4,000 American kids to their death and ruined the bodies of 25,000 others for no good reason. It's good of you to clear this up for me.

I'm sure you would agree with me that all those Dems should be severely punished for their misdeeds.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Mein Heir, I'm surprised at such an disingenuous comment from you. As you know, the Kosovo deployment was done under the auspices of the United Nations which made it entirely legal. Is there a large moral difference between 100,000 bodies in a mass grave and 100,000 individual graves? Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Albanians were being massacred? No and no.

I am not surprised, however, to find you defending Slobodan Milosevic. He's your kind of guy.

Heir to the Throne said...

SS,
By being "anti-war" on Kosovo,
I can use progressive anti-war cliches against them.[G]
I am not surprised, however, to find you defending [Saddam Hussein]. He's your kind of guy.

As you know, the Kosovo deployment was done under the auspices of the United Nations which made it entirely legal.

Using the progressive standard, from what I remember you are a liar.
Reaction to the war
The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council because the resolution was vetoed by permanent members, China and Russia.
But that is from Wikipedia. Not the most unbiased source.
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Albanians were being massacred?
[progressive anti-war cliche]
So that is your excuse to bomb their homes and kill their families.
War-mongering Neo-con

"Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

Thus spake the troll:

ohn K. says: The Huffington Post LOL LOL Only the left wing kooks think this has any credibility.

Don't like HuffPo? How about this one:
Fox News: Media Study Claims Bush Administration Lied Hundreds of Times About Iraq?

Schmuck Shitrock said...

A liar, am I, Mein Heir? You don't seem to have much to back up that allegation, do you? I thought not.

But you don't want to debate with a liar, so I'll just say ta-ta and wish you the best of luck with your therapy.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

F&BD, aw, c'mon. Everybody knows that Fox news is just a bunch of liberal assholes. What does Rush say? There's a guy we can really believe.

How about Glenn Beck?

Bill O'Reilly?

Anonymous said...

Colin Powell deceived all Americans. He was an icon to many of us. According to the study he made more false statements about Iraq than anyone else from the white House during the two year period following 911. What could have been his motive. I hope one day that he will reveal why he lied and caused such a grave injustice to the United States.

Heir to the Throne said...

Don't like HuffPo? How about this one:
Check the byline.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Associated Press

SS
I said that by "progressive" standards you are a liar.
You could be mistaken or only referring to the UN deployment after the war.

In which case, you are not addressing my statement that the Kosovo war/bombing was illegal. Clinton had to use NATO to start the bombing as he could not get UN approval.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Mein Heir, I owe you this and no more: I misspoke about the UN, I actually meant to say NATO. That does not make me a liar; it does however, make me incorrect. It is quite painful for me to admit that, but I am sure not nearly as painful as your waking up each morning to discover that you are still Mein Heir.

I will not be called a liar by a member of a group whose every value is based in greed, stupidity, and mendacity. You will therefore have to to without the honor of having me point out your ridiculousness. Please feel free to continue doing that yourself.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Wait, many of the Democrats currently holding office are cowards who trumpeted the "grave threat" of Saddam Hussein even though there was abundant evidence that the administration and its war-mongering cronies were just making shit up? Wow, that's news to me.

Not to defend any of them - because they are undoubtedly a bunch of cowards - but for those who did not support the war and warned that it would be a huge mistake - like Russ Feingold did, despite that quote taken out of context by anon 11:07 - they need not have worried about being called "traitors" and "terrorist appeasers" in the newspaper and in campaign ads. No, that would never have happened.

In any case, I'm not quite sure how the Democrats' cowardice somehow justifies 900+ lies about a war that has killed, critically injured, and displaced so many innocent people; sent our international standing into the toilet; decimated our armed services; and directly contributed to what will likely be a significant recession.

It is, however, a sad attempt to distract people from the real issue, and that's what the entire Republican play book pretty much is composed of. Health care crisis? There's no crisis, and besides, all of them gays wanna get married and destroy traditional marriage. Homeless soldiers? Please, we support the troops with bumper stickers, and those darned liberals want to take "under god" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? Global warming? No such thing, just a bunch of hooey, and, besides, those darned liberals want to teach our kids how to use condoms, in school of all places!!

Lies, distraction, and obfuscation: wingnuttery at its finest.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Very nicely said, Fill. But you forgot, "It's all Bill Clinton's fault."

Sherry said...

well put.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Yes, Schmuck, how could I have forgotten. For somebody who is so reviled, the wingnuts spend a heck of a lot of time comparing their favorite tough-guy president to Bubba (who, by the way, is making a complete ass of himself during this campaign... then again, that's something at which he truly excels, so I shouldn't be surprised).

Anon #2 said...

The 11:07 am anonymous giant cut and paste from a wing nut website job...was that by any chance Braden?

C.H. said...

It's funny how its said that Saddam Hussein never posessed weapons on mass destruction...

We did however, find hundreds of thousands of bodies in mass graves. Old Saddam did his killing sprees the old fashion way--just like the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, Cambodia, Congo, Darfur, Somalia, south Sudan, and the dozens of other human tragedies that have happened--all without the use of a wmd.

Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction himself. He also supported terrorism by financing suicide bomb squads in Gaza and the West Bank. Let's also not forget that he repeatedly violated the Gulf War cease-fire.

The biggest mistake we ever made was leaving him in power back in 1991, when we left the millions of Shiites who had bravely risen up against him to die at the blood-soaked hands of the Republican Guard and the Fedyeen.

Now, the American public continues to get barraged with 100% negative news coverage of the Iraq War every night. How are we supposed to suceed over there if we only hear about the bad news? Isn't there more to this than counting soldiers getting killed?

If you guys are so concerned about death and destruction here on 2pjs, why don't you write a nice post on the strife in Eastern Congo, where a new report suggests that 5.4 million people have died in that conflict (I have the report on my website, www.unitedworldforpeace.blogspot.com). But then again, the only people we can blame for that disaster are the genocidal miltiias killing people in those forgotten jungles and the inept UN peacekeepers who have failed to stop them.

5.4 million innocent people...shound't that fill up the headlines on the nightly news? Instead, all we can do is argue about these stupid WMD's in Iraq--a debate, which I may add, no longer matters any more and is becoming increasingly irrelevant. What matters is stopping the forces of terrorism from destroying Iraq and helping the Iraqis rebuild their country. Instead of this pointless argument filled with angry words and hate, we should put aside our political differences to make sure sucess can happen in Iraq. Or is it that the American left hates Bush so much that they don't want that to happen? I hope thats not the case, and I hope you people pray for peace and sucess in Iraq every night just as much as I do.

This is not about "prewar assessments" anymore. This is a fight against tyranny, terrorism, and genocide.

Saddam's Iraq, Darfur, Congo, Rwanda...

Never again...again...and again...and again.

Do we ever learn from history?

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I own this blog. You left wing kooks are more afraid of FOX news than an islamo thug. LMAO Limbaugh scares you more than a street gang selling crack cocaine. LOL LOL man are you lefties funny. And to the person who posted the link to a blog other than Huffington post (By the way Arianna is hot) LOL LOL What? Same story, different blog. Oh way too funny for thursday. MSNBC David Schuster is editor in chief for the Daly Kos. So much for objective reporting eh?

Not-Shitrock said...

CH:

You erased what was left of your credibility with your first sentence.

It's funny how its said that Saddam Hussein never posessed weapons on mass destruction...

Now who ever said that Saddam never had WMD?

The point of the report is that he didn't have WMD when the Bush administration was convincing the nation that he did. There are more than 900 false statements, timed very carefully. They knew they were lying.

Don't you care when a president is lying to the country? Don't you care when those lies have lead directly to the death of almost 4,000 American servicemen and women? To the maiming of thousands more?

Apparently not.

All you're interested in is changing the subject to something anything else.

Bush lied. American troops died. It's clear as day.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Also, C.H., "all that matters" is not what you say. Our inability to do anything in Eastern Congo is directly related to Iraq - the international community doesn't trust us to do the right thing there and we don't have the resources to do much of anything there. Of course, I'm not that much of a fool to think that our government will ever take crises like the one in Congo seriously because - and this applies to members of both parties - there isn't some precious resource there we're trying to protect. Unless you count innocent human lives, which apparently many elected officials don't.

And please spare me the Iraq and terrorism link. I sound like a broken record, but every indication is - and several government and international reports have determined likewise - that the war in Iraq is one of the biggest single deterrents to the global effort to "fight terra." It helps recruit terrorists, it is sucking valuable resources away from our ability to go after terrorists, and it has damaged our credibility to the point where other countries are hesitant to work with the U.S. in combating it.

You are dead right about those other international crises - they do deserve FAR more attention. But funny that I never hear a god damn word about them from any Republican leaders or the neo-cons who championed this war or the so-called "values" crowd who believe every life is precious until it's actually breathing air on its own or unless it has brown skin.

Every indication is that only the Iraqis can solve their problems. In the short-term, there may well be a price in blood that is paid for that, but our continued presence there is doing nothing more than delaying the Iraqis from taking control of their future.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

He also supported terrorism by financing suicide bomb squads in Gaza and the West Bank.
Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. The Saudis are heavily armed by the United States. The Saudis have some of the worst human rights policies in the world. The Saudis refuse to recognize Israel or its right to exist. Why has Dubya not hung King Abdullah? Could it be....oil? Could it be....cronyism?

Now, the American public continues to get barraged with 100% negative news coverage of the Iraq War every night.
It is quite remarkable how extremely little news is coming out Iraq these days as the right-wing media (that is, most all media) ramp up to steal another presidential election. But if you want good news about Iraq, you can get it every single day from Fox and Murdock.

The biggest mistake we ever made was leaving him in power back in 1991
Damn liberals -- Bush, Cheney, Powell, Schwartzkopf.

If you guys are so concerned about death and destruction here on 2pjs, why don't you write a nice post on the strife in Eastern Congo
Nothing much we can do while your boys keep all our resources tied up in Iraq.

Do we ever learn from history?
Some of us do. The rest, however, are Republicans.

C.H. said...

"Why has Dubya not hung King Abdullah?"

It was government policy to support terrorism in Iraq, just like Iran. Saudi Arabia on the other hand, has been attacked by Islamic extremists repeatedly.

"there isn't some precious resource there we're trying to protect."

Perhaps you have never heard of coltan, a mineral found in Africa that is used to run electronics (computers, xbox, dvd player). That mineral has been one of the driving forces behind the congo tragedy for years.

http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/congo-coltan.htm

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Jeez, C.H., doesn't it get tiresome being wrong all the time? (:^}

A few excerpt from an article on the web site of that bastion of the Liberal Establishment, The Cato Institute:

Saudi Arabia enlisted in the fight against terrorism only in response to intense pressure from the United States following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Even then, its cooperation has been minimal and grudging.

Even that belated, tepid participation is an improvement on Saudi Arabia's previous conduct.

The Saudi government has been the principal financial backer of Afghanistan' s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996. It has also channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that have committed terrorist acts in Israel and other portions of the Middle East.

the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and "charities" throughout the Islamic world. Those organizations have been hotbeds of anti-Western, and especially, anti-American, indoctrination. The schools, for example, not only indoctrinate students in a virulent and extreme form of Islam, but also teach them to hate secular Western values.

Sorry, you lose again. Take off all your clothes and do the backwards bow to John K.

C.H. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
C.H. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
C.H. said...

(sigh)

I simply make a valid point that proves you wrong and you come out foaming at the mouth with hate, lies, and propaganda.

For one thing, I want you to find a section in my comment where I suggested that Saudi Arabia is a champion of human rights and an effective ally in the war on terror. Shitrock, no one is disputing your claims that the Saudis have done a poor job at curbing extremist clerics who preach Islamic domination. However, since 9/11, they have severed ties with extremist organizations and have taken some steps to be more constructive in the war on terror.

But the point I made, which is that the Saudis are THREATENED by Al-Qaeda any less valid? In recent years, there have been numerous plots foiled by Saudi police to attack the Saudi royal family and even worshippers in the holy cities of mecca and medina. One was even foiled last year during the Hajj (annual pilgrimage to mecca)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html

There are also Al-Qaeda attacks against the Saudi government, as you can see here as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/international/middleeast/30saudi.html

If Saudi Arabia is such a big sponsor of terror, why are suicide bombers blowing themselves up against government and religious targets?

On the other hand, we have states that continue to arm, finance, and train terrorists (Iran and Syria) and you people portray them as innocent victims being bullied by the big bad neocons, even as their money flows into the pockets of some of the most vicious terrorists out there, including Hezbollah.

The left always wants to have it both ways. You'll scream about human rights all day with Saudi Arabia, but stand silent when Iran, the poor country that is trying to protect itself from the evil dick cheney, hangs homosexuals and tortures pro-democracy activists, all the while giving full-fledged support to terrorists all over the world.

Oh and one more thing. Please don't compare me to John K. While I do delight in watching him set you off in a fit of anger, my views are vastly different from his, including but not limited too...

a) his attacks on John Mccain, the man I will be voting for on feb 5th

b) his attacks against the religion of Islam, a community I have good realtions with.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Phew! You really ought to cut down on the meth, C.H.

I simply make a valid point that proves you wrong and you come out foaming at the mouth with hate, lies, and propaganda.

Your point was not valid, you did not prove me wrong, there was nothing hateful in my post, there were no lies, and the "propaganda" comes from The friggin' Cato Institute. OTOH, you did use the word "and" properly.

since 9/11, they have severed ties with extremist organizations and have taken some steps to be more constructive in the war on terror.
Wha??? That's a claim that will require some pretty heavy, impartial documentation. Good luck.

But the point I made, which is that the Saudis are THREATENED by Al-Qaeda any less valid?
Your point was that if terrorists are attacking them, the Saudis must not be sponsoring terror, was it not? Well, whether or not the Saudis are also attacked by terrorists has no bearing on whether or not they themselves are state sponsors of terror. Terrorists are almost more heterogeneous than Democrats. (:^}Rival terrorist groups attack each other all the time in Saudi Arabia, as they do Iraq, in Chechnya and all over the world. BTW, AQ, if you'll recall, is lead and financed by a Saudi terrorist from a prominent Saudi family.

The left always wants to have it both ways. You'll scream about human rights all day with Saudi Arabia, but stand silent when Iran, the poor country that is trying to protect itself from the evil dick cheney, hangs homosexuals and tortures pro-democracy activists, all the while giving full-fledged support to terrorists all over the world.
This is just so much bullshit. Damn right we scream about human rights and torture all day, whether it's occurring in Saudi, in Iraq, in the United States, in Egypt, in Pakistan, in Syria, or in Iran. The difference between those of us on the left and you on the right is that we scream about it and encourage international co-operation to sanction that sort of behavior. You guys just want to gun-up and invade -- sometimes: If it looks easy, if the target can't be bought, and if there is oil to be had.

A couple more writing tips:
-- Sighing at your debating opponent too much can really make you look like an asshole. Almost as much as LOLing and LMAOing.

-- Pay attention. I guess you don't pay too much attention to my interactions with John -- kinda like the way you're not paying attention to Iraq, I guess. Anger? Mais non. I love the guy. He is a sensational example of the way you Extreme Fringe Righties do business -- maximize the bluster ("Bring it on"), the triumphalism ("Mission Accomplished"), and the distortion ("There is no doubt that Saddam has WMDs"); minimize the substance and congnition. I hope he lives a hundred years (that would make him 112 when he dies), and blogs here every single day. He puts the perfect dunce cap on Right Wing Politics of Deceipt.

-- I didn't actually compare you to him this time, though. I suggested you moon him. Perhaps I was too subtle for you. My apologies.

Anonymous said...

Don't waste your time C.H. Shitrock is nothing more than a troll seeking validation through the responses of others shocked by his mean-spirited vitriol.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Doctor Anon: I guess you'd have to say all you trolls are wasting your time on this blog, eh? So you get your jollies wasting your time? Strange.

Or maybe you find it feels right somehow to get beat up. OK, whatever turns your crank. I'm happy to humiliate you.

An arab christian said...

Neither C.H. nor shitrock
Neither Abdullah nor Ahmadinejad
Neither Olmert nor Abbas
Neither Fatah nor Hamas
Neither Islam nor the west
Neither john k. nor the cook
Neither Bush nor Reid
Neither Pelosi nor Cheney
Neither conservative or liberal
Neither Sunni nor Shia
Neither Zarqawi nor al-sadr
Neither Osmama nor Nasrallah
Neither left nor right

Will be able to solve all of the problems facing the world by themselves.

Long live freedom and liberty!

C.H. said...

Anon 4:14,

That's a good point you make.

However, I enjoy debating with Shitrock...its fun to hit the far left with reality. I'm not saying that being liberal is bad or anything, seeing as I myself embrace many liberal viewpoints. However, when your ideology is so hateful and angry, its a problem. People like Michael Moore, Moveon.org, That topeka church, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Schmuck Shitrock are all so loyal to their extremist ideologies, both far right and far left, that they lose touch with reality. Before you know it, they'll make really ridiculous claims, like suggest that Hitler was a religious extremist...oh, wait a minute...that's already happened.

Many on the left-side of the spectrum suffer from a disease known as BDS, or Bush derangement syndrome. Therefore, there are people out there who hate Bush so bad that they want failure in Iraq...just so they can continue to trumpet their "Bush lied people died" rhetoric. Now, I am no die hard supporter of GWB...nor am I a conservative, and I'm DEFINETELY not a republican. I'm just a concerned individual who is very worried about what's going on in the world and here at home as well.

To quote a song I know of by Toby Keith...

"You might not like where I'm going but you sure know where I stand,
hate me if you want to, love me if you can"

That's a good way to sum it up. Alright, I'm done with this thread. Let's see what Dayvoe and Maria put up tomorrow...

Schmuck said...

Did I just read that correctly? Is C.H. calling Roman Catholics extremists?