Dr. Rice helped sell the for-profit war in Iraq with a pack of lies, including WMDs that didn't exist and, yes, the fictional al Qaeda/Hussian links.

Sen, Boxer and I both give Octavia Nasr, the 9/11 Commission, and Army Intelligence more credibility than Dr. Rice---and they've all been telling us that there is NO link between the two except in the minds of GOP spin masters and their idiot thalls.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7091EF838540C778DDDA80894DC404482

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_crime&Number=1468521&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1

Sorry Don, you lost. Remember that whole thing in November? Now keep being angry and keep saying what you will about things, but Sen. Boxer can complain all she wants and it won't change who the President is or the next Sec. of State is.

Sorry but intel was not 100%. Maybe when the Democrats get back in power they can make everything perfect the way the French have in the world, but your whining is just pouting over the ass whoopin' your guys received in the elections. Tell it to Tom Daschle.

Keep it coming Sen. Boxer! Was there a big picture of you crying on Sorryeverybody.com?

Don, you are an ill-informed nitwit

see also

Dear cap Abnormal (Don to his fellow travellers)

Reality based means not real.

Please smell the coffee, the dream is dead, time to wake up

You might be interested in the article we did catching Boxer in a very flagrant lie on the Iraq War Resolution.

Click the link to read We Bust Buffoon Babs Boxer on Her Blatant Iraq Lie

People like Boxer cannot be reasoned with. All that can be done is to let them rant place their "evidence" into the record and give a rebuttal and place your evidence in the record. Condi Rice did this beautifully . I think the best of all was the exchange at the very end. Boxer tried to compare Sadam to Miloshevik in asserting the whole war could have been averted just by "nabbing " Hussein in the same way Miloshevik was "nabbed". Condi replied in part "I doubt Sadam could have been "nabbed"."
I don't thin Boxer even knew she had been "B***h Slapped". Wonderful.

Justin, Tim, Capt' Joe, and Paul:

Snipe at me all you want---and I have no doubt that you will---but it doesn't change the facts.

Dr. Rice and the rest of the Bush regime repeatedly claimed that Hussain had WMDs and was linked to al Qaeda. Both these claims have been definately proven wrong.

Either Dr. Rice knew she was spouting untruths, in which case she is a LIAR, or she didn't know, in which case she is INCOMPETENT. Personally, I think she's both.

As a result, over 15,000 human beings are dead, goddess only know how many are wounded, raped, or homeless.

I don't expect you to stop cutting and pasting the latest Fox talking points, but I hope that you'll stop for a minute and consider the blood on Dr. Rice's hands before you swallow the party line.

Bush Lied?

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the US Constitution and laws, 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." -
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9,
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." - Rep. Nancy Pelisse (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his
cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of
State, Nov. 10, 1999

"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." -
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Terry,
Dammit, quit throwing around facts. You are screwing up Don's argument.

Don --

Who is Hikmat Shakir?

Just askin'.

S

Terry don't provide any facts, all the moonbats hear is "wah wah wah wah wah"

I missed most of Boxer's vitriole yesterday, but I did get to hear the first 10 minutes or so of Kerry's. He basically launched into his campaign stump speech, I think he forgot he lost the election in November and thought he was still running. After about 10 minutes of his droning, I began to wonder if he was actually going to ask a question, I didn't get to hear it, since I had to go get my son from kindergarten, but I wasn't too hopeful when I left.

Don't worry, Steve---Terry isn't throwing around facts. He's just cut-and-pasting irrelevant and out of context NewsMax boilerplate.

All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq.

I assume he wants to insinuate that these quotes absolve the Bush regime of any responsibility for their own lies and blunders, but that kind of idiocy only works on true believers and nitwits.

After about 10 minutes of his droning, I began to wonder if he was actually going to ask a question . . . .

Doesn't that drive you crazy? And do they have any idea how offensive it is to go on and on about how much they admire Rice, because of her background? What the hell does that mean? Can they be any more patronizing? I guess they can, because Kerry (the other one) did it at the 9/11 hearings and now these bozos, too.

Has anybody figured out the tsunami "wonderful opportunity" quote that Boxer accused Rice of making?

I've looked through the transcript of the hearings and cannot find any mention of this, although there are news reports out that have a complete quote from Dr. Rice.

BTW, Don, there is no proof of a Hussein/Al Qadea link to 9-11 (but a lot of circumstantial evidence), but there is conclusive proof of an overall link between Hussein/Al Qaeda.

You moonbats continue to try and confuse the two.

TomB:

Hit the "she started hearing voices" link in Paul's article.

I am no fan of Rice or neocons ( yes neo-cons are a small bunch and beleive slightly different things ) that betray my conservative beleifs, but the way the dems are cry babies truly takes the cake.

Bush will go down in history as a great man, but only after along period where people deride him.

We should have just been honest about the war in that he was a bad man, and yes, it will heklp us secure energy for the future. The Terror link was tenuous at best. Not a good sell. Still, at leas tthey tried to do something, instead of give the terrorists a free hand like the damn Dems.

Don,

I wish we had a little time machine and we could ship your ass over to 1990's Iraq to live in Saddam's little spot of paradise. WMD's or not, Al Qaeda or not, Iraq needed to be fixed.

Why don't you head on over to Daily Kos and see what the Dean regime has paid Kos to say this week about Condi or Bush? Don't accuse us of being boilerplate copy and paste hacks. I am sure there are other blogs that talk about how great Michael Moore is or Ted Kennedy is that you would be much more at home posting to. I am pretty sure everyone there will agree with you too on Bush being a liar.

News Flash though--The American People have spoken and re-elected him. We live in a Democracy and the people have spoken. Why don't you let the will of the people speak and STFU!

Between Boxer and Rice...its personal. Boxer fears Rice because Rice still claims California residency, which means come 2010 Rice could run against Boxer for the Senate...

So, Boxer sees it as being in her best intrest to cut Rice off at the knees, by sowing "seeds of discontent".

Thanks for the reply julie, but I already read that article and it doesn't give a definitve answer. To quote from the article:

Final Update: See the comments below for articles that have the quotation. As of 1:15 a.m. eastern, January 19, the transcript still doesn't have it. I'm resigned to confusion.

All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq.

Okay Don, let's look at dates:

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9,
1998

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of
State, Nov. 10, 1999

Rep. Nancy Pelisse (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

The date that inspectors withdrew from Iraq because of Sodom's refusal to cooperate: October 31, 1998

All the quotes are from before the inspectors "finished"? No - two are from before the inspectors withdrew.

Now. Either you are a liar or you are an incompetent. Personally, I think you're both.

Let me translate Justin's poorly-written Orwellian newspeak into English---

paragraph 1: "While it's true that Dr. Rice and the Bush regime sold the war in Iraq based on blunders and lies, it was still a good idea to let al Qeada escape and go to Iraq anyway."

paragraph 2: "Even though I'm completely wrong, other people are sometimes wrong too. Therefore it's completely acceptable for me to keep repeating whatever Bill O'Reilly says over and over until I truly believe it."

paragraph 3: "Might makes right. All dissent must be squashed."

I am glad I could be of service.

I missed this idiocy from Don:

"All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq."

A quote from UN Resolution 1441, November 8 2002:

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security

Apparently you forgot to tell the UN that they already got rid of Iraq's WMDs.

So Don -- just how flat is your home planet?

Sean:

OOPS! You're right, I got the timeline wrong---good thing I'm not becoming the Sct'y of State or anything.

The INSPECTORS were pulled out in 1998 but the SANCTIONS remained in place---y'know, the sanctions that obviously worked because Saddam, as we all know now, had no WMDs.

'Dr. Rice and the rest of the Bush regime repeatedly claimed that Hussain had WMDs and was linked to al Qaeda. Both these claims have been definately proven wrong.'

Only to dunces like you who live in the unreality based community. Saddam was found in material breach of the UN resolutions, had both illegal conventional and chemical weapons, including mustard gas and sarin. There are numerous confirmations of contacts between Saddam and AQ along with Saddam providing santuary and financial support to other terrorists and organizations.

'As a result, over 15,000 human beings are dead, goddess only know how many are wounded, raped, or homeless.'

Sorry you got your idiot talking points wrong, you were supposed to say that the US killed over 200,000 innocent Iraqis. Funny you didn't mention the hundreds of thousands of dead that have been found in Saddam's 400+ mass graves. As well as the fact that 25 million Irais were forced to live, until Saddam changed his mind and had any one who expressed any opposition killed, as slaves in Saddam's police state.

'I hope that you'll stop for a minute and consider the blood on Dr. Rice's hands before you swallow the party line.'

As soon as you acknowledge the blood on your own tyrant and terrorist sympathizing soul.

'All his quotes are from BEFORE the UN sanctions and the Clinton Adminstation inspectors finished disarming Iraq.'

Question then, if Saddam was disarmed why did he refuse the UN free access to inspect and request to have the sanctions removed? So he could continue to steal the oil-for-terror money and use control of the UN terror appeasement money and starve any opposition? So he could continue to run Iraq as a police state and murder any opposition? Why did he continue to employ scientists in both nuclear programs and chemical weapons programs if he didn't have any intention of resurrecting them? Only to provide cover so he could continue to put Iraqis in mass graves and steal UN funds to support both internal and external terrorists? Why did he pay the families of suicide bombers if he wasn't promoting terrorism? Just a nice guy?

Don,

I'm still waiting for you to tell us why the UN voted for sanctions on Iraq in 2002 based on the presence of WMDs when they, according to you, already knew he didn't have them.

Don,

How do you know Iraq didn't have an WMD's? What proof do you have that the sancations worked?

Oh, yeah, the press and others who's opinions you place value upon are telling you there aren't any there.

You know, that sounds exactly like President Bush, his entire cabinet, and most of Congress did. They listened to people (CIA, MI5, etc) who's opinions they trusted and valued on the matter and made a decision that Sadam was our next greatest threat.

Now, can you offer any proof that they lied without using the "proof is in the pudding" defense?

The Saddam WMD argument goes back before Bush, that is pretty clear.

One of the major factors given for the urgency to go to war was the presence of weapons that were an immediate threat to the US. Thats what we were all told.

Now, there are no weapons, and the search is over.

The question is really about how much everyone (in both the Clinton and Bush admins.) really knew, vs. what they were telling us. At least the PNAC people come right out and say it, instead of cloaking it all in pretty PR. But Americans wouldnt go for it if they were told they had to go to war to "further our national interests" would they?

Certainly Iraq supported terrorism, but that isnt really a unique aspect of them. More than one state harbors terrorists.

To my knowledge, the links to AL Qaida were shady at best. But then my main source is the commission report. Any better sources? Strong evidence for a connection would be a major factor in me changing my take on this whole issue. IMO Afhghanistan was alot more on track, and justifiable, than the Iraq war.

Hussein's treatment of his people is legit, although I'm pretty sure thats not the number one reason we went in there...in that case we would have had to consider Saudi Arabia, among others, as well.

The attempted Bush assassination was a legit grievance, clearly. I'm not sure how that adds to the imminent threat aspect however.

I think that Tim's reason #7 is basically the primary motivation. National security interests. Hussein was challenging the US in a region where we have wanted more control/influence. We tried to align ourselves with him in the 1980s, but that didnt work because he's a brutal dictator, and brutal murderous dicators dont make good allies in the long run. Hussein was getting support from other nations in the region, not because he was a good leader, but because he was challenging the US's control/influence in the Middle East, and scapegoating the US to get more support for himself. He became a violent and delusional symbol of defiance for far too many people.

Hussein certainly wasnt a harbinger of freedom or democracy. He was a goddamn criminal. He didnt give a damn about his people, and he defied the US as much as possible. He was also the strongest power and biggest problem for us in the region, militarily speaking. He was a big roadblock.

However, I disagree with people who try to agrue that we went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people. IF our interests were with the people of Iraq then why the hell did we arm and aid Hussein in the 80s? Thats bullshit, IMO. We went there to further our national interests, so the move was primarily strategic, not humanitarian.

Some people might not like this but here goes: If Hussein had complied with the US, had obeyed orders, we wouldnt have invaded, human rights violations or not (IMO). If he had been a good little stooge, then we would have let him do as he wanted, like we do with Saudi Arabia, whose human rights record is fairly dismal.

What did Condi Rice know? I have no idea. Do any of you really know? Please fill me in. Reading the commission report it seems clear that GW himself wasnt too sure about the Iraq war move at the start, and had to be persuaded. He seemed to question the relevance in the beginning.

I know that some people might not like what I say, and thats fine with me. Can we please stay away from the insults, remain civil, and just discuss the issues? If some of my ideas suck, by all means give me your ideas or opinions.

r.a.,

You said:

"IF our interests were with the people of Iraq then why the hell did we arm and aid Hussein in the 80s?"

Arm with what? What exactly did we "aid" Hussein with in the 80s?

There's no doubt we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war (primarily with intelligence), but I keep hearing we "armed" Iraq. Where are the terrorists with M16s and LAW rockets?

It was the MSM that blew the WMD aspect into "the" reason for the war in Iraq. There were other reasons, as Boxer would have known had she actually read the resolution before voting against it. Yeah, it turns out Iraq DIDN'T have WMDs...but anyone who has read at least the key findings of the Duelfer report knows that 1) "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999," and 2) "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions
were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized..."

So instead of going in and taking out a Saddam in possession of WMDs we took out Saddam only shortly before he had possession of WMDs. Much better, in my opinion. There's no doubt in my mind that, had we not gone in, Saddam would have resurrected his WMD program.

TomB:

Obviously, the online free transcripts are incomplete. I have no doubt the quotes of the exchange between Voinovich and Rice are accurate because I heard them, too. Not a shock that Boxer's mis-quotes and out of context statements get printed, but the actual statements by Rice and Voinovich do not.

For complete online transcripts, there is Federal News Service, but it requires a one year paid subscription. Maybe, if you contacted them, they would sell one transcipt if you are that curious.