His conscience is clear... LOL!

lionshead2010 wrote: It's times like these that the Libs thank God for diversions like George Bush. "Can we talk about something else because our guy isn't doing so well these days and neither is his first string".

As for Afghanistan, let's just say that I'm "intimately familiar" with the place and the only way we are leaving there in July 2011 is if we leave it like we left Saigon....hanging off the skids of helicopters. The Taliban is thankful for the strategic blunder of naming our departure date too-that was precious. What may appear as "progress" is just the Taliban melting into the populous for the winter.

As for the poor General(s) who have to make their report in the next month to the President and Congress on our progress there....yikes. They saw what happened to General McCrystal and they know that the President likes to shoot the messenger who brings bad news.

If my vote had helped to put the current administration in place...I'd want to be talking about anything BUT them too.

Anyone in or that has served in the military knew that as soon as the idiot put a date on it, they just decided to sorta sit it out and wait. Now violence is escalating again. Obama has no clue what is really goin on over there. What I do know is that if congress would give us the authority to do the job we need to do, and are trained for, then there would be some changes I am sure of that.

navycpo7 wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: It's times like these that the Libs thank God for diversions like George Bush. "Can we talk about something else because our guy isn't doing so well these days and neither is his first string".

As for Afghanistan, let's just say that I'm "intimately familiar" with the place and the only way we are leaving there in July 2011 is if we leave it like we left Saigon....hanging off the skids of helicopters. The Taliban is thankful for the strategic blunder of naming our departure date too-that was precious. What may appear as "progress" is just the Taliban melting into the populous for the winter.

As for the poor General(s) who have to make their report in the next month to the President and Congress on our progress there....yikes. They saw what happened to General McCrystal and they know that the President likes to shoot the messenger who brings bad news.

If my vote had helped to put the current administration in place...I'd want to be talking about anything BUT them too.

Anyone in or that has served in the military knew that as soon as the idiot put a date on it, they just decided to sorta sit it out and wait. Now violence is escalating again. Obama has no clue what is really goin on over there. What I do know is that if congress would give us the authority to do the job we need to do, and are trained for, then there would be some changes I am sure of that.

The headlines suggest that the President is "relooking" that whole July 2011 thing and thinking about pushing a new target date out to 2014.

Obama officials moving away from 2011 Afghan date
Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/09/v ... -away.html

This should clear President Obama's conscience too eh? Can we now say that the President "lied" about the July 2011 withdrawal date? This should go over like a lead balloon with his true believers but anyone who had spent 15 minutes at on the ground there would have realized that the 2011 date was too aggressive and telegraphed our intentions to the Taliban.

lionshead2010 wrote:

navycpo7 wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: It's times like these that the Libs thank God for diversions like George Bush. "Can we talk about something else because our guy isn't doing so well these days and neither is his first string".

As for Afghanistan, let's just say that I'm "intimately familiar" with the place and the only way we are leaving there in July 2011 is if we leave it like we left Saigon....hanging off the skids of helicopters. The Taliban is thankful for the strategic blunder of naming our departure date too-that was precious. What may appear as "progress" is just the Taliban melting into the populous for the winter.

As for the poor General(s) who have to make their report in the next month to the President and Congress on our progress there....yikes. They saw what happened to General McCrystal and they know that the President likes to shoot the messenger who brings bad news.

If my vote had helped to put the current administration in place...I'd want to be talking about anything BUT them too.

Anyone in or that has served in the military knew that as soon as the idiot put a date on it, they just decided to sorta sit it out and wait. Now violence is escalating again. Obama has no clue what is really goin on over there. What I do know is that if congress would give us the authority to do the job we need to do, and are trained for, then there would be some changes I am sure of that.

The headlines suggest that the President is "relooking" that whole July 2011 thing and thinking about pushing a new target date out to 2014.

Obama officials moving away from 2011 Afghan date
Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/09/v ... -away.html

This should clear President Obama's conscience too eh? Can we now say that the President "lied" about the July 2011 withdrawal date? This should go over like a lead balloon with his true believers but anyone who had spent 15 minutes at on the ground there would have realized that the 2011 date was too aggressive and telegraphed our intentions to the Taliban.

You left out his "I will close Gitmo". He ran his mouth before doing the research on it. Now we are actually doing the trials down there.

How did this thread go from discussing Bush's book to analyzing Obama's execution of the Bush wars?

Anyhow, here's an interesting read from someone in the UK who has actually read the book:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 29608.html

Bush’s memoirs:
Matthew Norman: How did this wastrel ever find his way to the White House?

It takes a certain minimal intelligence for the truly dim to have a notion of their own dimness, but this is denied George Bush. He has the self-awareness of a bison

May the Lord the former president so ostentatiously worships have mercy on my soul, and those in Iraq without water, electricity and medicine forgive me, but I just cannot suppress a twinge of sympathy for George W Bush

The source of this pity pang isn't the usual one with those struggling bemusedly with the loss of power (Mrs Thatcher literally unable, for example, to dial a phone number). So far as the practicalities, Mr Bush has adapted well. Apparently he concludes his memoir Decision Points with the familiar anecdote of how, within days of leaving Washington, he was picking up his dog's mess with a plastic bag in a Texas park. Evidently he regards this as a cute vignette of the transience of power, as well as his own endearing lack of pomp. Yet what causes the stab of pity is the stupidity at which it hints.

How could anyone in possession of a three-figure IQ (still a moot point with Bush) fail to see what a golden gift that image is to satirists? There he is, in the cartoon in my head, scooping up a couple of Cumberland sausages while following him, shovelling up the Augean Stable-sized steaming pile he left behind in the Oval Office, is Barack Obama at the wheel of an industrial digger.

You can read the rest of the article in the link.

Matthew Norman? Possibly the worst case of Bush derangement syndrome I have ever seen.
This book was never going to be a warts & all biography of the man, instead it contains a short pre-POTUS section and then goes into the important parts of his time in office and understanding of why he did what he did, a way to redeem his administration against all the unfair charges.

Scruffy wrote: It's easy to have a clear conscience when you don't have one to begin with.

It's easy to make mindless statements when you don't have a brain, isn't it scruffy? (figured you could weigh in as an eggspurt)

How soon we forget...
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yes...How soon we forget:

US intelligence report shows war drive against Iran based on lies
by Bill Van Auken
Global Research, December 5, 2007

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=7553


IRAQ - A WAR BASED ON LIES
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=371

SOURCES:

BBC News, "Iraq verdict fills papers", 8 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3053438.stm ]

BBC News, "White House 'warned over Iraq claim'", 9 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3056626.stm ]

BBC News, "Bush under fire over Iraq claims", 9 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3051963.stm ]

BBC News, "CIA 'cleared' Iraq uranium claim", 11 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 058809.stm ]

FURTHER READING:

The Debate - "Iraq War Motives"
[ [url=http://www.thedebate.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.thedebate.org[/url] ]

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
Friday, 15 December 2006

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28545.html



http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-vann061003.htm



http://www.bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm

---

Eric_E_Johansson_President_San_Francisco_Veterans_ for_Peace_Chapter_69:

KAY’S CLEVERNESS: THE TRUTH BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH’S LIES

Do you understand the cleverness of behind the report by David Kay, a Bush appointee in charge of hunting for the absent Weapons of Mass Destruction that he confirmed didn't exist in Iraq which was Mr. Bush's stated reason (now exposed as lies) to take this nation to war? What Mr. Kay did was quite clever but some of his conclusions were also clearly misleading.

Mr. Kay’s report revealed that no Weapons of Mass Destruction could be found in Iraq and that there likely were none since the U.N., inspectors like Scott Ritter and the CIA all did their jobs correctly in the disarming process that occurred during the 1990’s. This fact was revealed by many writers prior to the war although they were ignored as Bush lied the country into supporting an unnecessary, unjust and immoral war that claimed thousands of lives and now over 525 American troops for nothing, nothing except for perhaps the 63% earnings increase at Halliburton or the 93% earnings increase at Chevron/Texaco.

By telling the truth, Mr. Kay had hoped to establish some measure of credibility and honesty that his word and his report to Congress were both rooted in integrity. Certainly, when he told the truth about the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that did give him some measure of credibility, however, then he pointed his finger at U.S. intelligence (the CIA) as the culprit by faulting their intelligence gathering capability. In making such an accusation what Mr. Kay has tried to do is use the credibility he has earned by telling the truth about the lack of WMD to make a case for implicating intelligence agencies for the excuse Bush used to go to war. And this is how the Kay report is clever and partially honest but also clearly misleading and partially deceitful: The intelligence was not bad intelligence, it was cooked intelligence, cooked to support a decision to go to war that had already been made. This intelligence was cooked because of the pressure exerted by Vice President Dick Cheney as he periodically made visits to apply pressure upon mid-level analysts at CIA headquarters, demanding that they produce evidence, no matter how weak, that would support his decision to wage an unnecessary, unjust and immoral war that in the end killed thousands, our own troops and left us in a deepening quagmire of President Bush’s own making.

The cleverness of the David Kay is clear: He is using the credibility that he earned by telling the truth contained within the findings of his report, he is using that measure of credibility to implicate the CIA for their mistaken evidence which was cooked by the Vice President to drum up support for the war in the first place. Thus, ultimately no blame should be assigned to those mid-level personnel or any intelligence apparatus or agency who came under enormous pressure to cook up intelligence to build support for the war as per the Vice President office, an extension of President Bush’s office.

Where should blame be placed? First upon the shoulders of President Bush for allowing the Vice President to act in such an unethical, dictatorial and ruthless manner that led to the needless deaths of a lot of people, many of them American soldiers. Second, upon the shoulders of President Bush for then using such obvious cooked intelligence to drum up support for a war based on the obvious lies he told the American people almost daily. Third, blame should also be placed squarely on the shoulders on CIA Director George Tenet for allowing such behavior by the Vice-President at his agency and for allowing outright lies to be told to the American people without even having even a morsel of moral courage to come forward and reveal the inner acts of betrayal and treason being committed by President Bush or Vice President Cheney. By not coming forward and by allowing such behavior to go unchecked, Director George Tenet betrayed the CIA, he betrayed the integrity of U.S. intelligence and he betrayed the troops who would later die, and he betrayed the American people. His political head should nowadays be served upon a platter. Also at fault is the entire senior management team at the CIA for the very same reasons that their Director is at fault. By not coming forward and by allowing such behavior to go unchecked, I consider every senior manager at the CIA to be a modern-day Benedict Arnold, traitors to America, traitors to the troops and traitors to the American people. I do not fault the CIA but I do clearly fault their management, the Directorship, and above all the President of the United States George W. Bush for his lies, manipulations and betrayal that sent good troops to their graves for nothing but the greed of money, power and domination. You are all cowardly insignificant yellow-belly traitors as far as I’m concerned.

Now, as President Bush appoints and tries to bury the truth by selecting members of his Whitewash Commission to conceal his lies and betrayal to the troops, to America and to the American people, I have but one question for you Mr. Bush, how does it feel to be exposed as the low, cowardly, yellow-belly, misleading, war-mongering, mass-murdering, troops-murdering lying piece of human [fecal material] that you are, sir?

Your needless war which is now sinking-into-a-bloody-civil-war-occupation of Iraq is becoming costly isn’t it sir? It has been transformed from a political asset in a political liability, hasn’t it Mr. Bush?
I have only two words for you Bush: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!! Now eat it.

Long-term implications: Good-bye military industrial complex, you're outta here!!!!!!

---

74. 'Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence', October 2, 2003, http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s ... 22003.html .

75. "Newsmaker: David Kay," News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS TV, October 2, 2003, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 10-02.html .

76. Michael R. Gordon, "Weapons Of Mass Confusion," New York Times on the Web, August 1, 2003. See also Associated Press "Air Force Assessment Before War Said Iraqi Drones Were Minor Threat: U.S. arms experts in Iraq came to same conclusion," Baltimore Sun, August 25, 2003; David Rogers, "Air Force Doubts Drone Threat: Report Says Bush Exaggerated Perils of Unmanned Iraqi Aircraft," Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2003; Joseph Cirincione and Alexis Orton, "The Air Force Dissents," Carnegie Analysis, September 11, 2003, http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/tem ... wsID=5346; Bradley Graham, "Air Force Analysts Feel Vindicated On Iraqi Drones," Washington Post, September 26, 2003, p. 23.

77. Walter Pincus, "Intelligence Report For Iraq War Was 'Hastily Done'," Washington Post, October 24, 2003, p. 18.

78. Thomas Patrick Carroll, "The Intelligence on Iraq's WMD," Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 11, November 2003, http://www.meib.org/articles/0311_iraq1.htm .

79. William M. Arkin, "A Thin Basis For War," Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2003.

80. Jay Taylor, "When Intelligence Reports Become Political Tools . . .," Washington Post, June 29, 2003, p. B2.

84. New York Times, James Risen and Douglas Jehl, "Expert Said to Tell Legislators He Was Pressed to Distort Some Evidence," June 25, 2003.

85. Jason Vest, "The 'Intelligence' Game," The Nation, June 30, 2003, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=vest . See also John Prados, "Iraq: A necessary war?" Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May/June 2003, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 26-33, http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/ ... rados.html .

86. Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, "Cheney's Long Path to War: The Hard Sell: He sifted intelligence." He brooded about threats. And he wanted Saddam gone. "The inside story of how Vice President Cheney bought into shady assumptions and helped persuade a nation to invade Iraq," Newsweek, Nov. 17. 2003.

117. Nancy Gibbs and Michael Ware, "Chasing A Mirage: The U.S. was sure Saddam had WMD, but Iraqi scientists tell TIME the weapons were destroyed long before the war," Time, October 6, 2003, p. 38.

136. Andrew Gumbel "Case for war confected, say top US officials," Independent, 09 November 2003.

---

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_wmd_main.htm

The WMD lies
By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI

<snip>
The reporter who wrote the Newsweek story, John Barry, had recently obtained a transcript of Kamel's 1995 testimony to the UN weapon inspectors, in which Kamel revealed that "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them." You read that right: destroyed them. Barry wrote that Kamel's testimony "raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist." Barry noted that "Kamel was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs." The writer added that a military aide who defected with Kamel "backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks." And Barry revealed that Kamel had also given his story to the CIA and British intelligence in 1995. [22] When the Newsweek article appeared, the CIA denounced it as false, but an original transcript of Kamel's testimony to the UN inspectors was produced that confirmed the story. [23]

The most authoritative dissent from the administration's position on WMDs came from the UN weapons inspectors themselves who returned to Iraq in November 2002, after being withdrawn at the end of 1998. Though critical of Iraq's lack of cooperation, the inspectors never found any weapons or weapons production facilities. At the beginning of June 2003, the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, delivered his final report to the Security Council, saying that he had no evidence that Iraq had continued or resumed its prohibited weapons programs — that "the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items — whether from pre-1991 or later." [24]

After the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, consumers of news releases were treated to numerous alarms about the discovery of WMDs, which served to buoy pro-war opinion. All proved to be false. What appeared to be chemical weapons in metal drums were actually pesticides; a seeming nerve agent was rocket fuel; boxes of white powder thought to be chemical weapons turned out be explosives; and what was proclaimed to be a chemical weapons complex near Naif was nothing of the sort. [38] An arms search unit, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, combed the country for the outlawed weapons, but came up empty. By the first part of May, its embarrassment complete, the unit was preparing to leave the country. [39]

As of mid July 2003, the best evidence that the United States has come up with for Saddam's alleged vast arsenal of WMD involves two trailers, which Washington claims appear to be components of mobile bioweapons production labs. Bush initially misinterpreted this find as evidence that the United States had "found the weapons of mass destruction," and he proclaimed, "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." [40]

The Washington Post article that carried the initial story gently corrected Bush's erroneous claim: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons."

The CIA found no trace of pathogens in the two trailers and only surmised that civilian use of the trailers was "'unlikely' because of the effort and expense required to make the equipment mobile." The CIA report concluded that "production of biological warfare agents 'is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles.'" [Op. cit.]

Now, how does one evaluate the CIA's conclusion? The Agency admits that no trace of any biological agents have been found — that somehow the Iraqis perfectly decontaminated the trailers so that even under the closest scrutiny, with the most sensitive instruments, no physical evidence could be detected. Lacking physical evidence, the CIA falls back on logic — seeking to logically eliminate any possible alternative explanations for the trailers. But if logic is going to be the standard, wouldn't it have been more logical (as well as easier) for the Iraqis simply to destroy the trailers, rather than perform an intensive decontamination effort and then leave them to be found by American investigators?

German Ex-Chancellor: Bush is Lying
Posted: 10 Nov 2010 05:06 PM PST

In his new memoir, President Bush writes that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder gave his full support in January 2002 for Bush's aggressive Iraq policy and would stand behind Bush should the US go to war. On Tuesday, Schroder denied that he ever made such a promise. "I made it clear that, should Iraq ... prove to have provided protection and hospitality to al-Qaida fighters, Germany would reliably stand beside the US," Schroder said. "This connection, however, as it became clear during 2002, was false and constructed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

All of Looney Jerk's citations are post start of the war. TPP's are prior to start of the war. Which should we believe? The Clinton admin set up Bush?