Fucking scumbag republican government

[Piffery]

 The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.

Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters — if they asked for it. The report won't be posted on the Internet.

The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.

In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam's regime had ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.

ABC's Jonathan Karl had more:

The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.

The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online. Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."

Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."

"Too politically sensitive"? I suppose that means there's now credible validation that the republican government is full of shit and now even the most close minded hilbilly - earth is 6000 years old - conservative asshole can't refute. I'm sure they'll find a nice way to try and skirt responsibility and owning up to their ignorance, republicans always do.

[Trauma-san]

So, since you're particularly talking about Republicans, what do you think about this quote from Bill Clinton, the democrat president before George Bush?


"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them….I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.” Bill Clinton, Jan. 27th, 1998

Or here's another good one from Clinton, since you're going to say "Clinton destroyed all of the wmd's when he bombed Iraq!"...

"Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors." Bill Clinton, 2-17-98

Here's a good link to that one, basically he says that he needs to bomb Iraq, since they're making NUCLEAR WEAPONS (which Bush never claimed Nuclear, only weapons of mass destruction), then gives 1000 reasons why we should bomb Iraq, then says that even if we bomb iraq it won't get rid of all the weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Also, here's a good link to a story in '04 where Clinton claims he was sure that Saddam had WMD's when Bush invaded Iraq...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-27-burkee_x.htm

... and I could go on and on and on. 

So, is it true then, that the Democrat Government was a fucking scumbag Democrat government for the same reasons? 

[Tay]

So, is it true then, that the Democrat Government was a fucking scumbag Democrat government for the same reasons? 

Yes, that is true, and a major problem. Instead of actually doing something, people just link up to these parties and try and make a bigger difference out of the ideals than there really is, but most of the changes made are small. They present this big government/small government battle, and all sorts of things, but there is so much corruption, overspending, and posturing that makes this a joke.

As for the arguments, they weren't quite the same. Bush was claiming direct ties to Al-Queda also, and now they are covering that up.

[MarkCruz]

So, since you're particularly talking about Republicans, what do you think about this quote from Bill Clinton, the democrat president before George Bush?


"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them….I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.” Bill Clinton, Jan. 27th, 1998

Or here's another good one from Clinton, since you're going to say "Clinton destroyed all of the wmd's when he bombed Iraq!"...

"Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors." Bill Clinton, 2-17-98

Here's a good link to that one, basically he says that he needs to bomb Iraq, since they're making NUCLEAR WEAPONS (which Bush never claimed Nuclear, only weapons of mass destruction), then gives 1000 reasons why we should bomb Iraq, then says that even if we bomb iraq it won't get rid of all the weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Also, here's a good link to a story in '04 where Clinton claims he was sure that Saddam had WMD's when Bush invaded Iraq...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-27-burkee_x.htm

... and I could go on and on and on. 

So, is it true then, that the Democrat Government was a fucking scumbag Democrat government for the same reasons?

YOU ARE AN IDIOT, READ JBANANA POST ONE MORE TIME.

[King Tech Quadafi]

LOL@ The govt making a commission and report about something a King Tech post in wouldve told you in 2002


Me > Democrats > Republicans

[Kill]

Trauma: The point of the original post is not that the Bush administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction and made fallacious claims related to that issue. Everyone's fucking hamster should know about that by now. Neither was the point of the post that the alleged ties between Saddam and Al Qaida didn't exist, but that a report on this very issue is not made public online as previously planned.

I do not mean to make Clinton's statements look any better by that, since they obviously don't. But if the Democratic government of that era was a bunch of scumbags, it's not for the same reason.