Iran accused over Washington terror plot

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2011

Grant said:
You seem to be overlooking the fact that one man lied and got the Democrats and other world leaders to go along with it. Now, is George Bush that smart or are the Democrats, and other democratically elected world leaders, that stupid?

No, he really didn't. He bought a few countries, scared some others who passed the buck, but no one else really made the claims Bush did. Remember, he had to outside the UN because he couldn't successfully make the case.

Grant · Oct 18, 2011

Boo Radley said:
No, he really didn't. He bought a few countries, scared some others who passed the buck, but no one else really made the claims Bush did. Remember, he had to outside the UN because he couldn't successfully make the case.

Okay, he 'bought' the UK and a few other countries to go along with his scheme to invade Iraq, for some reason you'll not disclose. Do you have an explanation of how he 'bought these other countries? And what have been the consequences since the people in these countries learned they had been bought? Or is that still a secret?

And the Democrats obviously went along with his scheme. Were they bought too? How did they profit? Or are they fools?

Simon W. Moon · Oct 18, 2011

Grant said:
We know that Saddam was after WMD, his history demonstrates that, and that it was all up to him, as per the agreement after to Desert Storm, to follow specific guidelines.

He did not follow them and following a second (with a warning issued) invasion and capture the Iraqi courts hanged him. I see no reason why there should be any regrets.

Some find it worth the lives that were spent to prevent an attack that wasn't coming. We're all free to value that prevention in our own way.

Another potential upside, depending on your point of view is that we gave billions of dollars to foreign guns for hire outfits we have no control over nor tracking of. The investment of billions of dollars in private military forces around the world will probably make more business for American arms manufacturers and more opportunities for American forces to deploy. That's another plus right there.

But if you're one of the wacky folks don't think spending American lives and treasure should be done except when it benefits the US national interest, you may be someone who is disappointed with the invasion.
If you're one of the wackos who doesn't value adding power to potential destabilizers around the globe, (which increase US arms sales and provide more work opportunities for those in our armed services), you might also be disappointed with the results.

So, pretty much only nut-jobs don't think the invasion of Iraq was worth it.
Sadly, a sizable portion of the US population and the US military are nut-jobs like that.
But, what can you do?

Boo Radley · Oct 18, 2011

Grant said:
Okay, he 'bought' the UK and a few other countries to go along with his scheme to invade Iraq, for some reason you'll not disclose. Do you have an explanation of how he 'bought these other countries? And what have been the consequences since the people in these countries learned they had been bought? Or is that still a secret?

And the Democrats obviously went along with his scheme. Were they bought too? How did they profit? Or are they fools?

UK was more of being a friend than bought, but you do seem to see the world as all or nothing. But, I'll ignore that for the moment. And being bought for the others is reason enough. Making money or getting favors is more than enough reason to go along, espeically if your contribution is comparitively minor.

Try reading these:

On February 26, the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington released a devastating study, "Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced", examining in detail the pressure applied by Washington to each of the 15 current members of the UN Security Council. The study also examines how the Bush administration is putting together the so-called coalition of the willing.

Asia Times

[PDF]
COALITION OF THE WILLING OR COALITION OF THE COERCED?www.ips-dc.org/files/1767/COERCED.pdfYou +1'd this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Feb 26, 2003 – nations in the Security Council and those in Bush's non-UN coalition. ... votes of several poor countries on the Council were purchased with cheap Saudi ... on nations joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and ...

Bush bought countries to join coalition of the willing - Google Search

And you might also look at the problems Blair had of the truthfullness of his reasoning for the war.

And no, democrats did not go along. Again, Snopes handled your quotes well, and passing the buck is not going along. Sorry. You're not really addressing the argument being made.

mac · Oct 18, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Then you should know. And I don't know why you pretend you don't. :coffeepap

I'm not pretending that I don't. I'm asking you to show what you've based your conclusions on...all I've I seen is you saying "some people disagreed" or the "evidence showed" without you actually linking to anything.

The indications were there, and you are making the mistake of judging history with hindsight. The fact that no WMDs were found after the invasion does not alter the indications that were present before the invasion.

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

justabubba said:
well, some of us can recall how cheney choreographed the outing of a covert CIA agent in an effort to silence her husband, who was writing articles pointing out the administration's (yellowcake) lies

You should let Fitzgerald know that he missed getting the mastermind then........

Any more history that you'd like to invent ???

Simon W. Moon · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
You should let Fitzgerald know that he missed getting the mastermind then...

I think that Fitzgerald was aware that justice was being obstructed, hence the charges of obstruction of justice. So, he prob'ly doesn't need to be notified.

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
I think that Fitzgerald was aware that justice was being obstructed, hence the charges of obstruction of justice. So, he prob'ly doesn't need to be notified.

I don't recall Cheney being charged with any crime by Fitz.

Simon W. Moon · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
I don't recall Cheney being charged with any crime by Fitz.

I don't recall that either.

Boo Radley · Oct 19, 2011

mac said:
I'm not pretending that I don't. I'm asking you to show what you've based your conclusions on...all I've I seen is you saying "some people disagreed" or the "evidence showed" without you actually linking to anything.

The indications were there, and you are making the mistake of judging history with hindsight. The fact that no WMDs were found after the invasion does not alter the indications that were present before the invasion.

I linked to stuff earlier. You never responded to it.

And no, people knew it with foresight. They were called disloyal and other names if you recall.

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
I don't recall that either.

Good, then we are in agreement, but I'm not quite sure why you replied to my original post.

Simon W. Moon · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
You should let Fitzgerald know that he missed getting the mastermind then....

Gill said:
Good, then we are in agreement, but I'm not quite sure why you replied to my original post.

I gather.

The obstruction of justice prevented Fitzgerald from going farther and caused him to miss "getting the mastermind" as you put it.

justabubba · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
You should let Fitzgerald know that he missed getting the mastermind then........

Any more history that you'd like to invent ???

yep, believe that cheney had no involvement
that his chief aid, libby, executed this treason of his own volition

believe that the private energy task force chaired by cheney soon after taking office did not examine maps of iraqi oil fields which maps listed 'foreign suitors for iraqi oilfield contracts'
which meeting was conducted prior to 9/11

some folks love the kool aid and will quaff upon request
the same gullible lemmings who will believe that a bankrupt used car dealer was an agent for iran in this 'plot'

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
I gather.

The obstruction of justice prevented Fitzgerald from going farther and caused him to miss "getting the mastermind" as you put it.

You have a very active imagination, but a poor grasp of historical facts.

Boo Radley · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
You have a very active imagination, but a poor grasp of historical facts.

Actually, he is paraphrasing Fizgerald:

“The results are actually sad,” Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said. “It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did.”

Jury convicts Libby on four charges - politics - msnbc.com

But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

(snip)

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

Dan Froomkin - Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Actually, he is paraphrasing Fizgerald:

“The results are actually sad,” Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said. “It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did.”

Jury convicts Libby on four charges - politics - msnbc.com

But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

(snip)

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

Dan Froomkin - Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

And none of this proves anything other than Fitz found no evidence of criminal activity by Cheney.

Don't you find it just a little odd that Armitage admitted to outing Plame, yet faced no legal liability?? Guess he wasn't the one Fitz wanted to find was he??

Boo Radley · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
And none of this proves anything other than Fitz found no evidence of criminal activity by Cheney.

Don't you find it just a little odd that Armitage admitted to outing Plame, yet faced no legal liability?? Guess he wasn't the one Fitz wanted to find was he??

Nor does anyone suggest we have more. Only that Fitz couldn't find out one way or the other because of Libby.

What Armitage did has nothing to do with it. Look at it this way, if I rob a store before you do, does that mean you didn't? it is possible that Cheney and his people broke the law, or attmpted to even if Armitage slipped up before them.

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Nor does anyone suggest we have more. Only that Fitz couldn't find out one way or the other because of Libby.

What Armitage did has nothing to do with it. Look at it this way, if I rob a store before you do, does that mean you didn't? it is possible that Cheney and his people broke the law, or attmpted to even if Armitage slipped up before them.

Fitz didn't find out because there was nothing to find out.

That has to be a great candidate for the dumbest analogy in history. You and your ilk were having wet dreams that Cheney would be caught up in this non-issue and are simply disappointed that there was nothing to be found involving him.

And at the same time you excuse the Obama crowd for Fast and Furious which resulted in a dead American. Disgusting.

Boo Radley · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
Fitz didn't find out because there was nothing to find out.

That has to be a great candidate for the dumbest analogy in history. You and your ilk were having wet dreams that Cheney would be caught up in this non-issue and are simply disappointed that there was nothing to be found involving him.

And at the same time you excuse the Obama crowd for Fast and Furious which resulted in a dead American. Disgusting.

Maybe there was nothing, but we will never know as Libby hindered the investigation and was convicted for it.

As for the analogy, try to at least see the point: It is possible that Cheney and his people broke the law, or attmpted to even if Armitage slipped up before them.

And I don't excuse the Obama crowd. I ask for the same thing I ask for Cheney: Evidence.

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Maybe there was nothing, but we will never know as Libby hindered the investigation and was convicted for it.

As for the analogy, try to at least see the point: It is possible that Cheney and his people broke the law, or attmpted to even if Armitage slipped up before them.

And I don't excuse the Obama crowd. I ask for the same thing I ask for Cheney: Evidence.

Yes, we do know. The inconsequential lies they caught Libby at had nothing to do with Cheney.

There is no point to your lame analogy. It's also possible that Wilson outed his own wife to get back at Cheney ............right??? After all, according to you anything is possible, even if it is nonsensical.

Simon W. Moon · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
You have a very active imagination, but a poor grasp of historical facts.

Then enlighten me, what was Libby convicted of again? I was pretty sure that obstruction of justice was among the charges. I am pretty sure that I didn't make that up.

Gill said:
And none of this proves anything other than Fitz found no evidence of criminal activity by Cheney.

Well, ymmv, but it also seems to have proven that Libby lied and obstructed justice.

Gill · Oct 19, 2011

Simon W. Moon said:
Then enlighten me, what was Libby convicted of again? I was pretty sure that obstruction of justice was among the charges. I am pretty sure that I didn't make that up.
Well, ymmv, but it also seems to have proven that Libby lied and obstructed justice.

Yes Libby was, but that has nothing to do with the "mastermind" or Cheney does it? Libby's inconsequential misstatements did not point any fingers toward his boss.

Simon W. Moon · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
Yes Libby was, but that has nothing to do with the "mastermind" or Cheney does it?

I assume that the definition of "nothing" that you're using makes that true.
But I really went over all of this multiple times when it was current. I am un-interested in going through all of it again.

I merely pointed out that Fitzgerald didn't need to be notified that he was unable to complete his mission because he was well aware of that fact.

Boo Radley · Oct 19, 2011

Gill said:
Yes, we do know. The inconsequential lies they caught Libby at had nothing to do with Cheney.

There is no point to your lame analogy. It's also possible that Wilson outed his own wife to get back at Cheney ............right??? After all, according to you anything is possible, even if it is nonsensical.

Anything is possible, but that isn't what I said. I said rather clearly that Armitage's actions do not say anything about what Cheney did. It is more than possibile that Cheney was trying to out her no matter what Armitage did or didn't do.

And who determined Libby's lies were inconsequential? The jury who convicted him? Fitzgerald? Or you?

Objective Voice · Oct 20, 2011

apdst said:
You still think Bush faked the WMD evidence?

Not just Yes, but HELL YES!! There's too much information that came out after the fact that proves he lied, i.e., once secret memos, independent and foreign intelligence reports which one can't deny considering that the GW Bush Administration relied heavily on foreign intel in the first place, not to mention no WMDs were ever found in Iraq nor has their been any evidence proving that same were every relocated to neighboring countries that were sympathetic to Saddem Hussein.

Claiming that "we got the intel wrong" is just a lame excuse. NO ONE gets that kind of information wrong, information that leds two countries to war! That kind of information had better be right or you cost people their lives. It was all speculation or more accurately trumped up charges, and it cost both sides dearly.

Iran accused over Washington terror plot

long standing member