Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements
Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements
During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.” Watch it:
In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:
BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]
BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]
BUSH: [Zarqawi’s] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]
Transcript:
MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship.
Filed under: Iraq
Posted by Payson September 15, 2006 2:20 pm
Permalink | Comment (88)
88 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 09/ 15/ bush-zarqawi-iraq/ trackback/
1.
what a fricken lie. and why do these folks keep denying the truth when in fact it can be proven. ummmmm, sociopaths?
Comment by bs — September 15, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
2.
Yay…more fodder for Jon Stewart.
Somewhere along the line, the presidential shenanigans have lost their appeal…I think it was around January 20th, 2000.
Someone needs to go in armed with a soundboard of all the president’s statements, and just play them back to him when he attempts to deny them.
When is enough enough? When do we get our country back?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 15, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
3.
Why doesn’t someone point out that Saddam was trying to have Zarqawi arrested… BUSH KNEW THIS… and still he perpetuated the lie that Saddam was providing safe-haven for Zarqawi?
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — September 15, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
4.
*!@$#^ liar that Bush.
Comment by gmnotyet — September 15, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
5.
He’s not lying. See, he never used the exact phrase “operational relationsihp” so everything is hunky dory (*wink*). He also never said Saddam and Zarqawi were “BFF”, “totally ccol with each other”, or that they were “homies” so he’s totally off the hook and it is everyone else’s fault for believing otherwise.
Now, someone needs to ask him if he said “he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi”…….
Comment by gonzoknife — September 15, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
6.
TripMaster Monkey,
I’ve been wondering the same thing.
The journalists know the question they’re going to ask; for crissake have a tape or at the very least a transcript available!
Why do they let this Admin. get away with blatantly lying to the American Public?
Comment by trueblue — September 15, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
7.
Do you mean he has been lying to us all along?
Could someone clarify his statement(s)?
Comment by theswan — September 15, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
8.
Methinks that it’s getting harder and harder to talk their way out of their lies.
I learned that lesson when I was a kid. Tell and lie and you almost inevitably had to tell a bunch more lies to cover the first lie.
Comment by margaret — September 15, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
9.
I don’t believe the question was if there was an “operational relationship”. This is amazing. They push the fear then juggle the words when that falsehood is exposed and go merrily along like the gengerbread man. “I didn’t say that” is not a free pass. Game over.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 15, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
10.
Look, you can’t have it both ways - when you say something, and it’s on record, you can’t just magically “un-say” it. How many times can the president claim to have it both ways and the so-called “reporters” let him get away with it?
Comment by Toonguy — September 15, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
11.
I was looking for the quote from Clear and Present Danger when Harrison Ford confronted the President when he tried to pass the buck and say he didn’t know what had happened. Can’t find it. Something like “I won’t let you tarnish their memories by saying you had no idea what happened!”
But this one is almost better. For shame Mr Bush.
“(1) You are such a boy scout. You see everything in black and white. (2) No, no, no Mr Bush {Ritter}. Not black and white. Right and wrong.”
Comment by Tyler — September 15, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
12.
But..but…but…he wasn’t lying. He said that Saddam provided safe haven to terrorists “like” Zarqawi. In the second statement, he said that Saddam harbored terrorists, then just rattled off a few names which had nothing to do with the original statement. See, you folks need to work harder at splitting hairs.
Comment by Seitz — September 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
13.
We just heard the President of the United States refuse to obey the law and directly attack The Supreme Court of the United States, when he said “This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.”
We just heard the President of the United States ask what outrages upon human dignity meant, when he asked “And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s like — it’s very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity?”
Any more questions?
Comment by leonard — September 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
14.
“I never said there was an operational relationship….”
….and no one asked you if there was an ‘operational relationship’ Georgie.
Comment by Quadrajet — September 15, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
15.
Bush also never said that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. He was talking about “nukular weapons” :)
Comment by Count+Iblis — September 15, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
16.
Can someone please ask him if being in the same country constitutes a relationship… if so maybe we need to investigate Bush’s relationship with the 911 hijackers!
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — September 15, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
17.
What Bush says and does is reminiscent of how the writer Mary McCarthy described th playwright Lillian Hellman: “Every word that comes out of her mouth is a lie, including the words ‘the” and “and.”
Comment by Erroll — September 15, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
18.
All I can say is thank god for miracle of technology. Not only do we see the actual clips of the lies and misstatements, we have transcripts to verify them as well. Does he really believe that he is pulling one over on the people of this country? Not anytime soon and with technology. We can see the actual clip and see him for the liar that he is.
Comment by sunshine — September 15, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
19.
I wonder what the Bush adim. has already done, he wants the law changed in quite a hurry. The 14 sent to Gitmo may have already been subjected to some of it. And why is the CIA hiring lawywers left and right?.
Comment by Pam in SC — September 15, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
20.
Democratic President lies- Impeach
Republican President Lies-IOKIYAR
Comment by goose1 — September 15, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
21.
They are puking on their own lies. If it were not so serious, it would almost be entertaining.
Comment by NoMoreBush — September 15, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
22.
Bush lies even when he doesn’t have to. It’s good practice.
Comment by Solitaire — September 15, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
23.
Bush rewrites history on everything regarding Iraq, so I am NOT surprised Dubya Dunce Decider Despot tries to change his prior statements on Zarqawi, who by the way was a CIA stooge creation!
Comment by Jay Randal — September 15, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
24.
BUSH HAS JUMPED THE SHARK! IT IS ALL COMING UNDONE NOW!
Comment by calguy — September 15, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
25.
By the same logic, Bush had a relationship with the terrorists who struck on 9/11. After all, they were living in the United States, ergo Bush provided terrorists like the 9/11 hijackers a safe-haven; Bush harbored terrorists. Now, there might not have been an operational relationship….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — September 15, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
26.
You see - “harbor” is not spelled the same was as “operational” so God told Bush that this lie was OK.
Comment by pgl — September 15, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
27.
My thoughts exactly, calguy.
Could it be that GWB has finally hit the slippery slope?
AND can we please not back off the guy?
Comment by Zooey — September 15, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
28.
i hope the bushliar-criminal is in a public setting when his head explodes so we get to see what shit-for-brains looks like.
.
Comment by yowzer — September 15, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
29.
putting bush out in public is an incrediably risky proposition. unka karl is clearly desparate.
.
Comment by pluege — September 15, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
30.
I’d love to see an ad run continuously by the Democrats that simply shows Bush’s denial and then clips of him saying there was a connection (maybe with some Rice and Cheney clips thrown in for good measure).
The screen could then say: “Had enough? Vote Democrat.”
Comment by crickett — September 15, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
31.
One possible reason for the President to hold onto this idea of ties between Iraq and Al Qiada is that there is no declaration of war only the AUMF.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
No connection means no authority to attack Iraq. Why isn’t this being pushed.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 15, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
32.
#11-Tyler:
I was just (in the bar at lunch) seeing the replays on CNN of the conference, thinking of Batman….”this town (country) needs an enema!!”
Funny (disgusting) how we can pull crap out of Hollywood to compare this mess to. Fitting, no doubt.
Comment by SouthPaw — September 15, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
33.
Riddle me this….
Bush is exposed as a liar, admits to torture and secret prisons, admits to breaking the law, admits that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11…… and his poll numbers go up because of the Repuglicans coming back to his side.
WTF? Are Repuglicans really that frigging stupid?
Comment by nanlichi — September 15, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
34.
HEY! just in from mowing… randi has clips from this press con…
dubyas’ answer to a very good david gregory question is worth highlighting… he thinks the WHOLE WORLD ought to be able to torture… it’d be a better place… !!!
sorry to be yelling… this is a “melt down” for sure…
Comment by katy — September 15, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
35.
hellina, good catch!
Comment by Briseadh+na+Faire — September 15, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
36.
I think that it is ironic that the most significant early advances in magnetic recording technology occurred in Nazi Germany. My dad spent about six weeks in post-war Germany gathering up the technology for the feds. He had spoken German at home as a boy and was able to speak either native or English with the German engineers and physicists.
That technology has come back to haunt the Fascists here.
Comment by WaltTheMan — September 15, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
37.
Per the Intelligence Committee Report:
The Intelligence Community used the term safehave to describe both active assistance to and passive acquiescence of al-Qa’ida operations.
The report finds that Saddam indeed provided a safehaven to Zarqawi and other terrorist networks.
Another thinkparanoid thread debunked.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — September 15, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
38.
Bush baby looks angry in the TP pic, so watch out he might order an attack on Iran tomorrow to screw us all over in revenge! Dubya is going insane, so he is very dangerous unstable kook now!
Comment by Jay Randal — September 15, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
39.
You are trying to make a news story out of something a politician said in 2003 and 2004? It is 2006, wake up. This isn’t news.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 15, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
40.
Of course it’s new double R. Just saying words doesn’t make it so. We are in the mess today because of what’s been said in 02,03 and 04. it’s called accountability you should try it some time
Comment by hellinabucket — September 15, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
41.
You are right Roger_Roger, it’s not new news, it’s fact.
Comment by WaltTheMan — September 15, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
42.
[Bush] “I never had relations with that terrorist!”
I hope it will be his final undoing.
Comment by Jesus+Christ+God+of+WAR — September 15, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
43.
I love with this douche is caught in an outright lie - he just compounds it with another one. I think the media may finally be starting to get the message that if you’re aggressive with the chimp he’ll eventually run away and suck his thumb in the corner. And I don’t know about you guys, but that’d be good TV.
America’s Least Wanted
Comment by budpaul — September 15, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
44.
The Intelligence Community used the term safehave to describe both active assistance to and passive acquiescence of al-Qa’ida operations.
The report finds that Saddam indeed provided a safehaven to Zarqawi and other terrorist networks.
Another thinkparanoid thread debunked.
Comment by Steed Lankershim —
“Passive acquiescence?” You mean, Zarqawi was in the Kurdish safe zone?
Another “debunking” that gets debunked! How it feel to be pantsed by your own strawman, Steed?
Comment by barfly — September 15, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
45.
Roger_Roger
You want us to stop talking about ONGOING distortion from BushCo, but you can harp all you want about Clinton after all this time. I don’t think so!
Republicans: The “I’ve got mine” Party
Republicans believe in THEM.
Democrats, believe in US.
Republicans: the ConServingTime Party
Democrats: If you love liberty, love a liberal
Conservatives start wars. Liberals finish them.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
46.
He lies and commit crimes in the name of United States.
We know he does this time and time again.
But no one is able or willing to stop him.
Where are our heros?
What happened to our “Land of the Brave???”
Yes, like every other nation state of present and past, we have appeasers and enablers abound.
One may argue we may have more of them than ever before in a single country.
Comment by napu — September 15, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
47.
Goddamn, why can’t one member of the press, ONE TIME respond to one of Chimpy’s misdirections by saying clearly and loudly, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that WASN’T the question”?
That seems to me like it would be one GIANT step forward to restoring the nation we once knew.
Comment by KRank — September 15, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
48.
You are trying to make a news story out of something a politician said in 2003 and 2004? It is 2006, wake up. This isn’t news.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 15, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
WTF?!?
Is this why we still have Bush and other criminals still in power?
Damn!!!
Each time I see this type of comment, I lose hope for my country little more.
Comment by napu — September 15, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
49.
When a lie from the lips of the “commander-in-chief” is exposed, and said lie was used as a basis (amongst other lies) to go to war with a country that was not a threat, then yes that is news.
His lies have caused needless deaths and have mortgaged the economic future of this country.
Comment by margaret — September 15, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
50.
sorry, should have been “Home of the Brave”
Can’t even think straight anymore
Comment by napu — September 15, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
51.
This is the rub… when they catch him trying
to rewrite history, they need to hit him right
then and there with the facts. Read back his
quotes to him and let him respond to THAT.
Comment by Bob Jones — September 15, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
52.
Reporters need to start bringing portable AV units with the quotes in question cued-up and ready for playback. That way, next time one of these asshats denies he ever said it, they can play it right there. Gotcha maggot repuke!
Comment by eternal springs — September 15, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
53.
“Read back his quotes to him and let him respond to THAT.”
That is all well and good BUT as we saw earlier in Bush’s response to Powell, Bush evades the question and produces strawman aurguments and baseless rhetoric AND I’m not sure anyone at a Bush question and answer period gets to do a follow up question. Rove has taught him well
Comment by Yikes — September 15, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
54.
I saw the old clips of Dan Rather getting into it with Nixon. Even Nixon kept some level of composure and dealt with it, like a professional should. The exchanges were allowed to take place.
Shit nowadays if that happens the reporter would be fired the next day, and family would disappear. They are much more afraid to ask the tough questions, they know they will just be removed. If that isn’t moving away from a free country I don’t know what is.
Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
55.
And he doesn’t allow follow up questions. She sat down. I saw only Gregory persist for a follow up only to get another non-reply.
One day I expect to see W explode in rage at one of these press conferences. He is petulant, defiant, and arrogant. He cannot continue to defend his losing position. His contradictions and revisions are more numerous. He is cracking at the edges, and Humpty Dumpty is either going to have to take more meds or cease the pressers.
Comment by Marie — September 15, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
56.
See- even if you kicked Bush in the Balls just to get some Satisfaction, it wouldn’t matter. After he got kicked in the balls and fell to his knees, the stars spinning around in his head would say above them “Mission Accomplished”- so whats the point unless we all get to kick bush in the balls.
Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
57.
Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 04/ 09/ AR2006040900890.html?sub=AR
Comment by pnac911 — September 15, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
58.
KICK
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
59.
#58 ya, kick!
Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
60.
Remember “Schoolhouse Rock” played on Saturday morinings during cartoons? We bought that tape for my 9 year old son, and I watched it with him, all the episodes are there. It was real nostalgic, but I noticed, some of that material would be considered leftist propaganda today, or even Anti-American.
The one that was most poingent (sp?) was the one about how we had a revolution, due to taxation without representation, and they throw the bucket on the king after the Boston Tea party. Run the British out, and we’re gonna have a president instead of a king.
“Rockin and a Rollin”
“Splishin and a splashin”
“Over the horizon what do I see”
“It looks like its goin to be, a free country”
I know its corny, but what would people say if that material was shown to kids nowadays? The concept of revolution and throwing out a King? Taxation with representation?
What have we become?
Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
61.
I support this blog. I believe Bush and his administration are incompetent.
But if we are going to make true progress, then we need to be judicious in our critique. In none of the three examples supplied by Payson does Bush ever claim that Saddam and Zarqawi had an operational relationship. Technically, there is no history being rewritten here. Naturally, however, there is a lack of total honesty.
Comment by W. Dylan — September 15, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
62.
Yo #60! “School House Rock” was awsome! “I’m just a bill on a Capitol Hill” I miss that so much, do they have a DVD? Dont feel it’s corny, it was so cool, thats when people were actually progressive and so was ABC. Chin Up
Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
63.
Ren,
We got it on video tape, I don’t know if they have a DVD, it is really good stuff, I didn’t know how good I had it when I was a kid.
Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
64.
“The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it has never been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version is the past, and no different past has ever existed.”
George Orwell, in the voice of Emmanuel Goldstein, 1984
Comment by redbone — September 15, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
65.
Hey I got an idea, we have Bush sit down and watch “Schoolhouse Rock”.
It gives the basic fundamentals of government, the Constitution, our founding fathers, and some grammar to boot. Its put in a format with catchy songs, and cartoon depictions. I think that would be a perfect way to introduce George to America and how things work.
Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
66.
We have School House Rock in our house too - on DVD.
It was a great learning tool.
Comment by Marie — September 15, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
67.
#63, hey truth! I just googled the school house rock series and found and bought the DVD set that had 40+ Songs on it for 14.00 so its out there on DVD. So thanks for the flashback.
Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
68.
Ren you are entirely welcome, and thanks for the positive feedback.
Comment by ForTruth — September 15, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
69.
W. Dylan
Bush’s use of “operational relationship” is his current phrase to try to parse the language and sidestep his responsibility for repeatedly, even in his 9-11-06 speech, to connect Iraq and the 9-11 attack. “Technically” takes a back-seat to reality, morality, and intentionality!
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
70.
What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? Is lips were moving weren’t they?
Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
71.
What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?
Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
72.
What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?
Comment by Peg — September 15, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
73.
#What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? Is lips were moving weren’t they?Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
#What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?Comment by Stram — September 15, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
#What’s your point, that Bush is a liar? His lips were moving weren’t they?Comment by Peg — September 15, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Is “Stram” also “Peg”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by ren — September 15, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
74.
So Dubya’s a lying sack-o-shite. That so ooooolllllllllldddd news. Aren’t we missing a white woman somewhere?
Cheers,
Comment by Arne Langsetmo — September 15, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
75.
#44,
You haven’t debunked anything. Zarqawi was in Baghdad.
The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that the al-Qa’ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa’ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam-mainly the al-Zarqawi network-and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas.
Given the pervasive presence of Iraq’s security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa’ida to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — September 15, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
76.
Steed Lankershim
And how long were the 9-11 hijackers in the U.S. planning (i.e. operating) and there presence known by U.S. agencies?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — September 15, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
77.
Mohammed Atta was in the US - does that mean we harbored him?
Comment by Marie — September 15, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
78.
Where’s the obvious follow-up question: Well, Mr. President, what kind of relationship WAS it?
Comment by Cowpunk — September 15, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
79.
Bush can’t open his mouth without getting caught in one of his own lies. He’s easily the worst President this country has ever seen. And he has 2 more years of damage to do.
Comment by Darin — September 15, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
80.
Steed,
I guess you didn’t bother reading the Senate’s response to this propaganda you posted?
That the CIA groups that pushed this false theory did so without evidence?
And that the CIA groups that knew there was no connection weren’t part of the official briefings passed on to congress?
In otherwords, your right wing buddies fabricated reports - DOH!!!
Then again, reality has a liberal bias - so what options are left for you?
Lying is the only tool you extremist right wingers have for your agenda!!! ROTFL!!!
Comment by btruthful — September 15, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
81.
“WTF? Are Repuglicans really that frigging stupid?”
Oh yea.
.
Comment by yowzer — September 15, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
82.
the monkey finally understands.
Comment by CakeWalk My Ass — September 15, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
83.
“Sadam did not…have…relations with that terrorist, Mr. Zarqawi.”
Comment by Hesiod — September 15, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
84.
If Bush ever finds himself in the land of OZ, he should ask the wizard for a brain, a heart, and some courage.
Comment by neopro — September 15, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
85.
Bush does live in OZ, he’s the chief flying monkey taking orders from cheney, the wicked witch.
Comment by buzzbomb — September 15, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
86.
Where are all the trolls? U-Wrong-U, Mighty Aphrodummy or Mighty Aphrodykie (whatever), Exley, etc.
Comment by Mr. Evil — September 15, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
87.
Mr. Evil, you know they can’t function without the talking points. Rove must be busy with Mehlman going over the…uh…budget? No, that isn’t it. Foreign policy? Nooooo. They must be going over gay rights…Somehow I think that is closer to the truth.
Comment by JPark — September 15, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
88.
Here is Colin Powell at the UN on 2/5/03, promoting the upcoming Iraq war:
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organisations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbours a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.
He used Zarqawi’s name more that 20 times in that speech, even though Zarqawi seems to have been in a part of the country that was controlled by the Kurds, not Saddam.
Also, Bush prevented the US military from taking Zarqawi out in 2002. (see this from WSJ, 10/25/04 and this from MSNBC)
Comment by pessimist — September 15, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
Posts
