Book Says White House Ordered Forgery

I'm sure if you read it it must have lots of pictures in it to keep your interest.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I think extreme ideologues use Bush hater

I think extreme ideologues use Bush hater as an attack on the poster. I think the mods should say something to him for being that extreme people can disagree with Bush and call him shameful and how he has damaged our world.

Bush does not exactly help his cause on this board by acting like this , just look at his face the classic haughtiness :Bush disrespects the flag


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWY-MapKy3U



What Bush is doing is childish,stupid and disrespectful but I don't hate him, I just think he is shameful to this country, somebody needed to yank him up from that chair and take the flag away from this child.

back to topic as I stated in a previous post , that a Conservative voice is supporting Ron Suskinds book that the forgerys did occur the do not agree with
Suskind perfectly but here it is.

the American Conservative is claiming that while the story is essentially correct, some of the specific facts are wrong.

The Suskind account states that two senior CIA officers Robert Richer and John Maguire supervised the preparation of the document under direct orders coming from Director George Tenet. Not so, says my source. Tenet is for once telling the truth when he states that he would not have undermined himself by preparing such a document while at the same time insisting publicly that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Richer and Maguire have both denied that they were involved with the forgery and it should also be noted that preparation of such a document to mislead the media is illegal and they could have wound up in jail.
My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment. Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job.

Now obviously there are some supporters of the administration who are still crying foul and claiming that the entire story is bogus, but as more cracks appear in the walls, that’s looking less and less likely. With that aside, this leads me to the main question here.

On the one hand, perhaps Bush ordered Tenet to have the document generated. On the other, Cheney had the Office of Special Projects produce the forgery. It then winds up leaking into the press and cranking up the volume of the drumbeats for war. If either of the above scenarios are true, does it really matter who actually forged the letter? What is the point of noting the allegations in the American Conservative article? Are we to say, “Oh! I see! Suskind had it wrong about who forged the letter so the point is moot.”

 

Poncho is right; the only way to deal with Carpro is to ignore him. I've been doing it for months.

It's a pity though, I'm sure Carpro could be a welcome voice in the political spectrum if only he could ditch the sarcasm that is evident in a vast majority of his postings.

BTW, it doesn't matter what the author's political beliefs are, if he has stated the truth accept it, if not refute it.

 

First, President Bush did not "move OUT of Afghanistan." US forces have been in Afghanistan the entire time (even while other forces took up action in Iraq).

Second, yes there were/are terrorists in Afghanistan. However, it is false to claim that there were no terrorists or terrorist activities in Iraq before April 2003.

Third, Iraq, under Saddam, failed to uphold the terms of the 1991 Treaty that brought about a ceassion of hostility for the Gulf War. President Bush repeatedly called on the UN to enforce those terms. Ultimately they failed to do anything about Iraq's failure to live up to the terms of the 1991 Treaty. President Bush realized that the UN either could not or would not bring itself to take action. Therefore, he asked the US Congress to approve the use of military force to enforce the terms of the 1991 Treaty. The US Congress approved the President's request. According to the US Constitution the US Congress is the sole authority for authorizing the use of the US military forces. Upon obtaining Congressional approval President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, sent the military to Iraq, with a coalition of other willing nations, to bring Iraq into compliance with the terms of the 1991 Treaty.

 

So...there you have it. The military of the USA is being ordered to fight and die to enforce UN resolutions instead of protecting the U. S. Constitution and our homeland. Our military has been transformed into something it was never meant to be. The enforcement arm of the NWO...otherwise known as the "international community".

You explained that quite well Bible Boy (except for this maybe). Thanks. :thumbs:

BTW, where are the links to the information that support your statements? I can't seem to find them anywhere in your post.

 

Note the cease-fire agreement was made between “Iraqi and coalition (i.e. U.S.) military leaders” on March 3, 1991.

Note the UN simply incorporated the terms of the March 3, 1991 Cease-fire agreement into Resolution 687. However, this act does not remove the responsibility to uphold the terms of the original cease-fire agreement from its original signatories (i.e. Iraq and the U.S.). Therefore, it is invalid and false to claim that the U.S. is/was doing the bidding of the UN by taking action against Iraq in 2003. Detractors can not have it both ways. Some claim that the U.S. engaged in an “illegal war” because it acted without UN approval in 2003, while also trying to maintain that the U.S. is carrying out the bidding of the UN under some sort of new world order.

Likewise, others have documented that Iraq maintained WMDs all the way to 2003, and then shipped them out of the country to be hidden in Syria and elsewhere. Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076
Furthermore, Saddam’s Iraqi government maintained and hid 550 tons of Yellow Cake uranium, which was only recently removed from the country when the current Iraqi government sold it to a Canadian company. Sources: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=203686
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

Finally, recent research shows that Saddam’s Iraqi government was heavily involved in harboring and training terrorists.

 

Nothing to support. Neither of your statements are factual.

The US did not and has not moved OUT of Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda was routed from Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq.


The conflict in Iraq drew al qaeda terrorists like a bee to honey and they are now defeated and on the run from Iraq and looking for a safe haven.

While Bush has been president, they haven't had one. An Obama presidency will most likely help them find one.

 

Sure if he supported their activities elsewhere in the world.

Why?

I can post all the quotes of all the liberal Democratic members of congress that said he was a threat since the mid 90's if you like.

i

This number implies we killed all the people. It lacks the facts to back it up.

Prove that every other country hates us.

It makes plenty of sense when you refuse to ignore facts:

1. The current situation in Iraq is still part of the 1991 invasion of another country where multinational forces went in.

2. After 12 years of a conditional cease fire that was broken by saddam we went back in.

3. Memebrs of the UN and France undermined sanctions which lead to a support for Saddam that undermned the cease fire. These undisputable facts played a major role in why we went back into Iraq.

 

No what you said was:

That statement is vastly different compared to the one below where you say:

Not probably. Certainly there were terrorists in Iraq and they were not underground. Did you read the article I linked to regarding the terrorist traing camp with the airplane fuselage?

Your error here is assuming that the terrorists would be against his government. He sponsored and supported them. Have you not heard the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Again, you are making a mistake in think that Saddam's state sponsored and supported terrorists somehow equate to a rebellion against his government.

I don't know of anyone who has claimed the bin Laden was in Iraq. So why are you saying this?

First, the goal was to enforce the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement between the U.S. and Iraq that brought about the end of hostilities in the Gulf War. Second, the evidence clearly shows that Saddam's government was a state sponsor and supporter of terrorism. Third, you are making a false claim when you say that, "every other country in the world other than the UK" hates us. That simply is not true and it is also the informal fallacy of Allness.

Where is your evidence to support this claim?

 

Wow, Bush hater, Bush Lover, I can't believe a group of proclaimed Christians would become this engaged in smearing one another simply to state their political beliefs. I can't believe I read all the posts. I can't believe I am posting this because I should be praying that my brothers in Christ will learn to respect one another.

 

Nope. He'd have to have had a documented residence in Afghanistan before one could make that assumption.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I simply pointed out an error in the limited statement that you made. Perhaps if you'd articulate exactly what it is you really mean right from the beginning we would not have such confussion.

 

Context, context, context...

Why do you want to take one sentence out context and attempt to build an entire negetive theory about the President?

Let's look at what the President actually said in the question and answer session where the latter two quotes were uttered:

So according to the President's full and complete answer to the questions I'd say your assessment of the situation and proposed theory about really just wanting to invade Iraq are way off base.

Likewise, do you think it may be at all possible that the President mad those remarks in an attempt to play on bin Laden's ego and draw him out into the open? This is a well known tactic used by police when they are trying to flush out a serial killer.

 

Again, let’s get a better idea of the full context instead of cherry picking quotes that seem to support a particular presupposition:

See the rest of the article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp

Maybe, or maybe not. Like I asked previously, is it at all possible that the President said those things, making bin Laden out to be of little or no concern, in an attempt to play on bin Laden’s ego and draw him out of hiding. Plus, the full context of the President’s statements show that it is not sound policy, when engaged in a global war on international terrorism, to focus all of your effort on one man.

See the whole article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4138791.ece


Again, the full context of that article makes it clear that the renewed effort is to “roll up” Al Qaeda’s network in Pakistan and push bin Laden back across the border into Afghanistan where a trap is waiting. The operation has a two-fold objective, crush Al Qaeda in Pakistan and collect bin Laden in the process. I don’t see a problem with this approach. Finally, look at the dates of the quotes you provided. Some are from the very beginning of the war on terror, the latter ones are from 2006 and as recent as two months ago. These quotes are from very different phases of the military operations. Military policies, requirements, and methods change depending on the situation on the ground so what’s the problem?

 

This shows that he was thinking ahead about the international problems he would face as President. Remember, the Gulf War Cease-fire Agreement was signed by the U.S. and Iraqi governments in 1991. Saddam's Iraq had broken that agreement and continued to do so throughout the Clinton Administration years and into the Bush administration. So what's your point?

 

It's that thing on top.....na I am just kidding. It's that thing that is falling apart the longer he spends defending it.