MucheDumbre

In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser to former President George W. Bush, verbally approved the water-boarding of an al Qaeda terrorist named Abu Zubaydah.  On August 1st, after ignoring dissenting legal opinion on the legality of water-boarding and whether it was ethical or even productive, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department gave the green light to water-board Abu Zubaydah in what is now being called the ‘‘torture memos’. One memo, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use “harsh interrogation techniques” on a high-ranking terrorist( Abu Zubaydah) on the grounds that previous methods had not been working.

Zubaydah was water-boarded 83 times  that month.

According to many, including Marc Thiessen President Bush’s former speech writer, the technique was a success. Jose Padilla was apprehended in Chicago on May 8,2002 because of information learned through Zubaydah’s water-boarding sessions.

The problem with this is, in May 2002 Condelezza Rice hadn’t yet given her verbal authorization to water-board and the Justice Department, along with Gonzales and Ashcroft hadn’t yet given the written authority. Rice’s authorization wouldn’t come for another 2 months and the ‘Torture memo’ authorizing  the water-boarding would not be written for another month after that. If Abu Zubaydah gave interrogators the information needed to apprehend Jose Padilla, he did it without being water-boarded or he was water-boarded without consent of the NSA,White House or the justice department.“

one of the top

three leaders

in the [al-Qaeda] organization.

Another question raised is, if Abu Zubaydah was cooperating  and had already given up the information that lead to Padilla’s capture in May, then why did he need to be water-boarded 83 times in August?

In a story from CBS news, dated March 29, 2009, a former senior government officials said that not only was the information Abu Zubaydah gave after being tortured worthless, but it also caused the FBI and CIA to run aimlessly around the globe chasing made up shadows.

President Bush, in order to justify what he was allowing to take place, called Abu Zubaydah “al Qaeda’s chief of operations” and “one of the top three leaders in the organization.”

Not long after his capture though, this was found to be inaccurate..

Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man

Image via Wikipedia

that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources. Rather, he was a “fixer” for radical Muslim ideologues, and he ended up working directly with al Qaeda only after Sept. 11 – and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.

This is not to say Zubaydah wasn’t a criminal or even part of a terrorist conspiracy, but he was not what he was water-boarded for. He was being water-boarded, so they told us, because he was the number 3 in al Qaeda, he wasn’t cooperating and he knew things that would help us stop the next wave of the attacks.

a senior terrorist leader

and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden

But was he a high-ranking Al Qeada member with close ties to Osama Bin Laden? Was he uncooperative under normal interrogations? Author Ron Suskind wrote, which the Washington Post has confirmed, that President Bush was so invested in Zubayduh that another question that be must be asked is; is it possible that his ties to Bin Laden or his level of cooperation really didn’t matter at some point?

Suskind writes in his book, “The One Percent Doctrine” which Barton Gellman reviews, that not only was Zubayduh just the ‘go-to guy’ for minor purposes, but  he was also mentally ill.

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries “in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3″ — a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail “what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said.” Dan Coleman, then the FBI’s top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, “This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.”

During this time President Bush’s outward proclamations were that we had captured a major leader in Bin Laden’s network. Privately though he wasn’t so sure, at one point even asking George Tenet “‘I said he was important,’

…’You’re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?’

To which Tenet replied, “‘No Sir, Mr. President.’”

The Chinese used water-boarding as a way not to get their enemies to confess their crimes, but to get them to confess to things they had not done. In the middle of 2002, what was going on that would require someone to force a person to falsely confess to something?

The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

It’s true that a link from those responsible for the 9/11 attack  to Saddam Hussein would have made the case for the war in Iraq that much easier, but is that the reason for Zubaydah’s treatment?

In 2002, this country was still reeling from the attacks only a few months earlier, crews were still digging out ground zero and our hearts were still broken into pieces as we remembered  those flag-draped remains being brought home to those who loved them. Would we have tortured anyone to get  any information telling us who, why and if there was another attack coming?

When Zubaydah was water-boarded in 2002, the CIA video-taped it. Some of the question we have today could be answered by just reviewing those tapes. Unfortunately, the CIA’s director, Michael Hayden had them destroyed for security reasons. But there are many principals left who can answer some of these questions.

ABC News Video

One of the 1st questions being, why was the Vice President the one to  give the order to use these techniques and where was President Bush during these discussions and decisions?

Allah had visited

him in his cell

during the night and

told him to cooperate,”

Do we ‘cross the Rubicon’ as my colleague says and open an investigation of the previous administration? And if by doing so, do we damn all other Presidents who come after him? Dick Cheney wants more memo’s released so that his side of the story can be told. But will he stand before congress and give his side under oath is the question. Judging by the last time his administration was under oath in in front of Congress..

In several hours before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Gonzales said he had done nothing improper in firing the eight prosecutors, but conceded the case had been badly handled. At the same time, he said 71 times that he either could not recall or did not remember conversations or events surrounding the dismissals.

The answer to that question is not as clear as it should be.

Abu Zubaydah was captured in 2002, he was water-boarded 83 times in August 2002 for not cooperating with interrogators even though 3 months earlier he had given enough information for officials to arrest Jose Padilla. A CIA operative involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou now retired, told ABC News that what happened to Zubaydah was in fact torture, but it was also necessary. He goes on to say  the water-boarding was so effective that Zubaydah broke within 35 seconds and the next day told investigators  that “Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate” and that… “From that day on, he answered every question,”

If Zubaydah broke after only 35 seconds, broke to the point where he spoke with Allah and Allah told him to answer every question then why did he need to be water-boarded an additional 82 times that month?  The Chinese used water-boarding to make their victims give false confessions.  What question did he either refuse to answer or not know the answer too?

Before the release of the ‘torture memos’ Kiriakou was sure about the number of water-boardings and even had actual quotes made by Zubaydah, but after the memo’s release, ABC contacted him and he had this to say

When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques.”

So who has the 1st hand information on this session where these comments were made? Who can answer if  Zubaydah was tortured before NSA Rice gave a verbal nod allowing it? Who can answer if Zubaydah was in fact cooperating with interrogators 3 months before the “Torture memo’s” were even put to paper? Who can answer if he really broke after only 35 seconds of one session or if he needed an additional 82 more before he gave information that had the CIA and FBI running all over the world to confirm? Did traditional interrogation methods work with Zubaydah? Did he give up the information he had on Jose Padilla and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, did the Bush Administration really get ‘actionable intelligence’ from by using these ‘enhanced’ techniques? The man who really was there, Ali Soufan says he questioned Zubaydah from March to June 2002 using traditional methods and he was successful in gathering actionable intelligence and the information Zubaydah gave up on KSM and Jose Padilla came before he was water-boarded in 83 times in August. Mr. Soufan goes on to say that not only were the enhanced technique unnecessary and useless, they even created a wall between the FBI and the CIA, similar to wall that impeded the sharing of information before 9/11. It was so detrimental to the rival bureaus that the person who knew Khalid Shaikh Mohammad more than anyone else in the government, was  not allowed to speak with him.

There are so many questions that need to be answered and we know the principals involved who need to be asked.  But the biggest question of all is, do we really want the answers? Do we really want to go down that road and if so, just how far are we willing travel on it?

Related articles by Zemanta

• How the Bush administration waterboarded a low-level operative, who was brain-damaged, 83 times (americablog.com)
• FBI Zubaydah Interrogator Calls George Bush a Liar: “No Actionable Intelligence Gained from Using Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (firedoglake.com)
• Rice approved CIA waterboarding (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Released memos don’t answer age-old question: Does torture work? (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

What is going on!?! I have always been a middle of the road democrat. I fall on the liberal side for some issues and the conservative side for others. While I’ve never ruled out voting for a republican, I have only ever voted democrat. I have spent the last few years gorging myself on the Bush’s admin polices, actions, cronyism, incompetence and deceitfulness just to vomited out tirade after tirade about the illegality of the man and everyone surrounding him. I have taken criticism for speaking out against a sitting President and have been called unpatriotic because I asked questions and didn’t support the ridiculous answers given. I have become polarized against the GOP over the last 8 years because of the likes of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Libby. For many millions of middle of the road democrats it has been a long 8 years, a tough 8 years hell, even a painful 8 years. But I have waited for the day when finally I get to do my part to rid the country of a Republican President and switch things up a little to help us get back a little closer to center.

So why I am looking at John McCain to be the next president?

What is wrong with this picture? I am attacking the only man who can bring about the change I so crave. I am attacking in the same way I attack Gonzales and his 72 “I don’t recall’s”. I am attacking him the same way I attacked Scooter Libby’s “The vice president told me to leak classified information to discredit Wilson”. I’m ranting about him the same way I ranted about “Good job Brownie”.

Why do I loathe and distrust the only democratic hope for president?

Because I know nothing about him. Well, I know that he will say whatever he needs to about any issue just to get votes. If your area doesn’t like off-shore drilling when comes there and gets in front of a TV or reporter he’ll tell you that he doesn’t approve of it either.

If your area seems to be ok with the idea, he’ll tell that well, he’s not really against off shore drilling.

If your for the rights of the people of the country and don’t believe the government should be able to do wiretap and listen in on it‘s citizens phone calls and the telecom companies shouldn’t get immunity, then he is with you. If you think that telecom companies should get retroactive immunity for illegally wiretapping the public and are for a bill that allows the government to keep on tapping it’s people, then he is with you too.

If you are against dirty politics in a campaign race and are just plain tired of the mudslinging. Obama is right there with you. In fact he doesn’t miss the opportunity to call people out for making things dirty. Of course it doesn’t bother him to go out imply that the only woman running has PMS when he said… ’periodically’ she has her ‘up’s and down’s’.

What is it about him that people support so whole heartedly. Yesterday’s headlines were, PELOSI HOLDING FIRM, BLOCKING OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING VOTE followed by “Obama shifts position on offshore oil drilling… *” If that is not the biggest slap in the face to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, what is? The FISA vote obviously wasn’t a hard enough slap because they just took it and kept going, so what will they do this time?

My guess? Nothing. What can they do. Dean and Pelosi did all they could to get one person out of the race that people knew everything about it in favor putting in the man no one, not even his ‘grass roots’ know anything about until he decides to tell them. But even that doesn’t matter because in the next town or the next speech he’ll just change his mind and tell those people what they want to hear. Even his pastor told us he would do that. Why nobody believed the man’s spiritual adviser to him and children for 20 years is still a mystery to me.

How can I vote for a man that has no one stance on any issue? Whose only accomplishment so far is that he can read a script off the teleprompter and make me believe him the same way Heath Ledger read his script and made believe he really was as evil as the Joker.

Maybe that’s what it is. In our fast-food, Hollywood celebrity sycophant society, we are drawn to the one who gives us the best ‘after school special’ speeches. We don’t have to hold him to those speeches and promises, because it’s TV and this is just a role he’s playing and like any good actor he can say what he wants and we forget what he just said the last time we saw him. Just look at Kevin Costner’s speeches in Bull Durham

and JFK

See, we can believe both depending on what ‘role’ he’s in. We don’t have to know what he truly stands for, we just have to believe in him.

The sad fact is we didn’t know anything about Obama when this all started. But he could sure talk. We threw out the people who had been around, who were known to the world, who policies and ideas and votes we could track and trace. We wanted flash and pizzazz and we got it. The republicans tried to do the same but ultimately chose the one with a past and a congressional record that is as long as War and Peace. Funny how the Democrats mocked them for this. Mocked the GOP for thinking they could put an old man with a 30+ year public past up against the new and fresh no-name from Chicago.

What I wouldn’t give now for someone with an actual stable record. Someone I can trust on Thursday to say the same thing on Friday.

Obama isn’t Presidential because of his senatorial voting, his political history, his 300 advisers, his “meet the Messiah” world extravaganza… he’s presidential because he watched “Jeb Bartlett” and learned how to give a good “episode ending, goose-bumpy” speech. So let’s reward him for that. But let that reward be an Oscar or an Emmy and save the Oval Office for someone with an actual plan.

Breaking news: The Surge worked.

Actually it’s not so breaking.  The results have been apparent for several months now.  Civilian casualties are down, military casualties are down, and acts of violence in general are down.  Iraq is no paradise, but on the other hand it’s not quite the hell on earth that could have safely described it in 2006.  It’s hard to argue now that it was the wrong strategy, so let’s take a look down memory lane and see who opposed it eh?

Senator John Kerry:  “The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn’t the answer–in fact, it’s a tragic mistake. It won’t end the violence; it won’t provide security; …it won’t turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won’t deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won’t rein in the militias.”

Kerry’s fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, declared the surge, “an immense new mistake.”  Kennedy actively tried to fight sending any more troops.

Senator Christopher Dodd, former Presidential candidate and onetime threesome partner with the previously mentioned Senator Kennedy:  “We don’t need a surge of troops in Iraq–we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years–Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers–has drawn the same conclusion–there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (really, is that his real name?), when asked is she was worried that the gains of the surge might be lost if the troops were removed too hastily, “There haven’t been gains, Wolf…The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.”

Governor Bill Richardson, former Presidential candidate and yapping Vice Presidential wannabe had this to say on the surge:  “The president is wrong. We don’t need anymore troop surges, we need a diplomatic surge. We must get all our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.”

Senator Joseph Biden, yet another former Presidential nominee, and currently running for either Obama’s Vice President or his Secretary of State, whichever will put him in front of the cameras the most, told this to Secretary of State Rice on the surge:  “We heard a plan to escalate the war, not only in Iraq but possibly into Syria and Iran as well…I believe the President’s strategy is not a solution, Secretary Rice, I believe it is a tragic mistake.”

And of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who tried to play the man in her ultimately failed Presidential race against Senator Barack Obama:  “Based on the president’s speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq…The President simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course. The president has not offered a new direction, instead he will continue to take us down the wrong road, only faster.”

There was some Democratic support however.  Senator Lieberman said this in support of the surge:  “it’s just unfair to our troops implementing the surge, to Gen. Petraeus, who helped create this totally different strategy — which is working — to essentially pull the rug out from under them, to take away their reason for fighting before they even have a chance.”

Oh wait, Lieberman is an independent now.  Although he caucuses with the Democrats he is regarded as traitor.  Quite a fall from being the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate 7 plus years ago.  But I don’t want to make it sound like only Democrats opposed the surge.  There was some Republican opposition as well. 

Retiring fence sitter and amateur historian Senator John Warner had this to say, “Young men and women of US forces and coalition forces should not be caught in the crossfire of a civil war prompted by who should have succeeded Mohammed in — what is it? — 650 AD?”

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who teased the country on his decision to think about deciding to consider whether to entertain the notion of running for President, had this to say:  “This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq.”

But right now, the opinions of those who matter most are the two Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.  Come January of next year, no matter who wins, George Bush will be packing his bags and whatever White House towels he can get away with.  As he leaves, his policies leave with him.

McCain’s views on the surge are well known.  In fact, you could argue that he risked his political career on the surge.  But what did fellow contender, Barack Obama have to say?

Before the surge: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.”

After the surge was announced:  “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Of course you will have to look a little bit for Obama’s earlier comments now.  He scrubbed his website to clear out his previous anti surge comments.  Now, guess what?  The surge worked:  “In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda–greatly weakening its effectiveness.”

Hey, anyone can be wrong.  It’s possible that someday I might be wrong about something.  It’s not likely, but never say never.  But it’s stunning when an entire political party is wrong about something so important.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream media was as one on the idea a year and a half ago that the surge couldn’t work and shouldn’t be tried. 

In this election, Barack Obama isn’t running on the experience card.  McCain has that locked up.  He’s running on his judgment. Because he opposed the war on Iraq, he is somehow supposed to have better judgment?  Sean Penn opposed the war too and he thought it was a good idea to marry Madonna.  His supposedly superior judgment had him opposing the surge too.

It wasn’t judgment that had Obama opposing the war,  it was the reflex of the anti-war left.  The same reflex that had him oppose the surge.  I’m still waiting for an example of his good judgment.

Rumors have been swirling that Obama,Dean and Pelosi are trying to negotiate Hillary’s name off of the ballot at the Convention next month. It seems they don’t mind her being on the ballot as long as it’s as a symbolic, roll-call gesture . They want her name on the ballot, they just don’t want placed on the ballot for nomination.

Neither Obama nor Hillary won enough votes to secure the nomination. Obama may have 390 more of them if all the super delegates who pledged to him actually vote for him at the convention. But with his shine getting a little a duller and with 18 million voters voting for Hillary, having her name as a nominee on the ballot and having to listen to all her delegate vote for her would make his ass pucker. All it would take is for her to have prime placement in the speeches and just knock it out of the park. The amount of delegates she has and the problems with his incessant flip-flopping could remind the delegates that she really does have a damn good chance of beating McCain. If she, or Bill were to remind them that her poll numbers against McCain were better than the 46% he and Obama share now…. Who knows what could happen and that’s why he needs to get her of the nominating ballot.

So what can he do about that? Well he can use his political influence to make sure that she is taken off the ballot as a nominee and placed there just as his symbolic 2nd. He’s done this before. Obama only likes to win when he’s uncontested. When Alice Palmer, the former state senator who picked Obama to be her successor back in the mid-90s wanted back on the ticket, he had her kicked off. The problem with Hillary is that there is no legal reason to have her bumped off the ballot. More than that though, if her voters aren’t allowed to vote for her then it’s game on and party unity my ass.

It would be quite embarrassing to Obama if there was a open-air-stadium-like response to Hillary getting on stage and giving a blow-out speech.. This is his shining moment and Hillary can’t be allowed to outshine him once again. But at the same time, Obama wants to project a ‘party-unity’ that just isn’t there. In order to keep that faux-appearance, Hillary just can’t be on the ballot and steal the sunshine from his over-whelming, ever engorging ego. It would ruin his grand plan to take over the world.

Don’t think he has a plan?

Ha-ha Ha-ha Ha-ha

He’s going to give his outdoor stadium speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK “I have a dream” speech while being the 1st nominee to give an outdoor speech since JFK did it in 1960. Yeah, someone is a little full of himself huh?

Here’s the thing. I don’t really give a rat’s ass if it’s embarrassing to Barack Obama. His people screamed like little bitches that Michigan shouldn’t count because he wasn’t on the ballot when they are the ones who took him off. So could you imagine the screaming and race-crying if there was a plan in the mix to get him placed on the ballot as a token 2nd choice? I think Motley Crue, The beatles and Charles Manson had a prediction for that scenario called “Helter Skelter”

This Manson predicted scenario is really just one wrong move from happening as it is. If the press caves, if Obama misteps in such a way that it just can’t be ingored we might have to call Charlie “profit” instead of whack-o-nut. But it would take alot to make the press go against the messiah I mean have you read a story on Obama? The other day there was a story that comics can’t even make fun of him, in that story the writer says

“But there has been little humor about Obama: about his age, his speaking ability, his intelligence, his family, his physique”

Is he Adonis or something? Maybe he’s Jesus? Or maybe he’s the reincarnation of Budda himself .

Jon Stewart tried to make fun of him, but met resistance from the audience. He had to tell them “You know, you’re allowed to laugh at him.”

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm ….Did Jim Jones’ followers ever laugh at him?

Every week I decide I am going to have to swallow my hatred and get on the ball and get the bad stuff out about McCain. Because there really is a lot of stuff out there….. I mean look at this response to a question about his surrogate saying that some health insurance will pay for viagra and not birth control and women would like to have the choice (response at about 5:00).

Could you imaging him being asked a really important question? HA!

Anyway, every week I want to change. I hope that I can finally sit down and do something positive about Barack or if not positive then something about McCain. But every week Barack tweaks my ire with something else and I completely forget about the crazy old man that might just be our next president and I shouldn’t.

This man is just as dangerous and the other one.

How in the hell did we get these 2 “unelectables in a sane year” as our only 2 choices?

Three words

George W Bush.

Yes, that’s right. What kind of liberal rant would this be without putting some kind of blame on Bush? But it’s true. The DNC figured that no matter what and no matter who, they had this election in the bag. The republicans could clone Ronald Reagan and it wouldn’t matter. George Bush fucked this country up so bad and didn’t give one shit about it that anyone running as a (D) would win.

Look say what would want, but even McCain knows this and is doing everything in his power to avoid being linked to Bush.

So the DNC is all it’s wisdom gave us…. No forced upon us.. A liberals wet-dream. No the wet-dream isn’t a woman… No-no… the true liberal wet dream is a good looking black man. Harold Ford jr would have been my choice, but his skeletons have already been vetted out so a no name senator would have do. Hopefully he could get the nomination and election before they were weeded out by the press. But if not, what to do?

Then, a “Karl Rove like” idea was formed.

Anytime anyone dissed this candidate, scream racism.( Which as you know is the liberal kryptonite.) Scream it at every charge and eventually no one will make any more charges and if the do they can be put off as people who just don’t like blacks.

Howard Dean may not have known about Obama deciding to do the open-air stadium rapture until he saw it on the news, but he damn sure knows his liberals.

The problem is liberals don’t just sit silent and fall in with the party-line because the party wants them to. But to silence them forever Dean and his subordinates can only do one more thing to ensure the nomination goes to the exalted one. Get Hillary off the ballot at the convention.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I hope The Denver Group accomplishes it’s goal. Because Hillary may be an old school politician, but she is still better and saner than anyone else out there. The question is though, are more and more people with the power to do something about it paying attention?

Why is Jon Stewart news?

Why are blogs news?

Because if it wasn’t for these media outlets noone would know about the “Phase II” report on how the Bush administration used — and abused — pre-war intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

This story is not on Cnn, Msnbc,Fox, or even this asshat…. No this story is on the blogs and Daily Show.

1st let me say this. Anyone who wants to say “blogs aren’t real news” go piss up a rope. You wouldn’t know that Congress found our leader and his band of merry men lied to us if it wasn’t for blogs.
Same goes with Jon Stewart. So STFU.. You’re just jealous because you don’t have your own outlet that people enjoy reading.

Now.. The story.

Yes, we’ve all “known” Bush and Cheney lied to make this war. We’ve all “known” that they the made up Intel, went against security reports, out and out fabricated (lied) and exaggerated the threat like a 7th grade pre-pubescent boy exaggerates his dick size and the orgy he had with a couple of hot blonds who (always) lives 7 states away. But now we don’t just “know”…… we Know!

Phase 2
Report on whether public statements regarding Iraq by US Government Officals were substantiated by intelligence information.

Let me save you the trouble……… NO! The statements were not supported by diddle shit.

“his regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and Sarin and mustard Gas—Donald Rumsfeld Testimony before the House arms and Services Committee, 9/18/02″

“He’s got chemical weapons:he needs to get rid of them, all of the” –George W Bush 9/26/2002

“They have amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons including anthrax and possibly smallpox. They have amassed large clandestine weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas. His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons”—Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to ROA, 1/20/03

Lie… Lie…. Lie….

“each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or Vx–nerve gas–or some day and nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally”–George W Bush, remarks in the Rose Garden, 9/26/2002

Lie

It goes on for pages and pages….. Lies, exaggeration not substantiated by the intelligence, deceptive misinformation… why in the hell is this not news?

No…. scratch that……. Why in the hell is he still in office? Jesus Christ run him out at the end of a sharp stick already. I’ve been told that I just hate Bush so I can’t be objective. WTF? He lied about invading a country,. Killing 1000’s of people, destroying everything he could get his weasel little fingers on… and killed the President of the country… and I should take his side? I should stand at allegiance and support him? Are you fucking kidding me?

Look, I admit that I don’t like the man. But when the hell will you admit that he fucked up and he fucked up big time? When can you admit that standing by his side is like standing by the bastard child of Hitler and Pol Pot. He invaded and over threw a sovereign nation and executed their leader… Support him? Adore him? Ignore and excuse him? There isn’t enough kool-aid in the world.

Srlys? A fucking blow job is worse than this?

We are retarded… …

Discussion