CARTER CALLS BUSH A LIAR!

Search

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,441
Tokens
Published on Monday, March 22, 2004

Carter Savages Blair and Bush: 'Their War was Based on Lies'
by Andrew Buncombe in Atlanta

Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticized George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations". The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgment to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.

In an interview with The Independent on the first anniversary of the American and British invasion of Iraq, Mr Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981, said the two leaders probably knew that many of the claims being made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were based on imperfect intelligence.

He said: "There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently. That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for [the] 9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence ... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."

Before the war Mr Carter made clear his opposition to a unilateral attack and said the US did not have the authority to create a "Pax Americana". During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in December 2002 he warned of the danger of "uncontrollable violence" if countries sought to resolve problems without United Nations input.

His latest comments, made during an interview at the Carter Center in Atlanta, are notable for their condemnation of the two serving leaders. It is extremely rare for a former US president to criticize an incumbent, or a British prime minister. Mr Carter's comments will add to the mounting pressure on Mr Bush and Mr Blair.

Mr Carter said he believed the momentum for the invasion came from Washington and that many of Mr Bush's senior advisers had long ago signaled their desire to remove Saddam by force. Once a decision had been taken to go to war, every effort was made to find a reason for doing do, he said.

"I think the basic reason was made not in London but in Washington. I think that Bush Jnr was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq. I think it was that commitment of Bush that prevailed over, I think, the better judgment of Tony Blair and Tony Blair became an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush policy".

Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qaida before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy.

With an eye to November's presidential elections, Mr Bush sought on Friday to use the anniversary of the Iraq invasion to say that differences between the US and opponents of the war belonged "to the past".

Speaking at the White House, he told about 80 foreign ambassadors: "There is no neutral ground in the fight between civilization and terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy."

But in the US and Britain, and elsewhere, there is growing anger among people who believe the war in Iraq was at best a deadly distraction and at worst an impediment to the war against al-Qa'ida - diverting resources and energy from countering those groups responsible for attacks such as the train bombings in Madrid.

Over the weekend millions of anti-war protesters poured on to the streets of cities around the world to call for the withdrawal of US-led troops from Iraq. It was estimated that in Rome - which saw the biggest crowds - up to one million turned out.

Mr Carter, 79, has recently published a novel. The Hornet's Nest is centered on America's revolutionary war against the British. That period had many lessons for the present day, Mr Carter said.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,026
Tokens
Is this the same Carter that let our hostages languish in Iran?

Yea we care what he has to say ROTFLMAO,

the most overrated peanut farmer in the history of the planet,

a babbling moron that almost led our country into third world status.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Hold on Sodium your being much to harsh on a man that helped N. Korea become a nuclear power.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
303
Tokens
Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qaida before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy.

just so you know, richard clarke was and still is a vocal critic of the clinton policies also. after the uss cole incident, he met with the clinton cabinet with probable locations of osama or at a minimun terrorist training camps that should be struck immediately. clinton decided not to based on the "weak" cabinet that he put together.

these are the reactions of the principals in the clinton joke house:

This is how Clarke remembers the meeting, which has never before been described in the press. . . . SCUMBAG NUMBER 1 Attorney General Janet Reno insisted that they had no clear idea who had actually carried out the attack. The "Justice [Department] also noted, as always, that any use of force had to be consistent with international law, i.e. not retaliation but self protection from future attack," Clarke told the author. Reno could not be reached for comment.
SCUMBAG NUMBER 2 Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet joined Reno in insisting on an investigation before launching a retaliatory strike. Tenet "did not want a months-long investigation," CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said. "He simply believed that before the United States attacked, it ought to know for sure who was behind the Cole bombing." While Tenet noted that the CIA had not reached a conclusion about what terror group was behind the surprise attack on the USS Cole, "he said personally he thought that it would turn out to be al Qaeda," Clarke recalls.
SCUMBAG NUMBER 3 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike — but for diplomatic reasons. "We're desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians," Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, "Bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time." Some two weeks earlier, Ariel Sharon had visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which touched off a wave of violence known as the "second Intifada" and threatened to completely destroy the Clinton Administration's hopes for Middle East peace settlement.
Mr. Clarke remembers other objections from the State Department. "State noted that we had been bombing Iraq and Serbia and were getting the reputation internationally as a mad bomber nation that could only address its problems that way." "It would be irresponsible," a spokeswoman for Albright told the author, for the Secretary of State, as America's chief diplomat, not to consider the diplomatic impact of a missile strike that might try but would quite likely fail to kill bin Laden.
Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been going on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internal ally. . . .
SCUMBAG NUMBER 4 Secretary of Defense Cohen also did not favor a retaliatory strike, according to Mr. Clarke. The attack "was not sufficient provocation," Clarke remembers Cohen saying, or words to that effect. Cohen thought that any military strike needed a "clear and compelling justification," Clarke recalls. (Cohen, despite repeated phone calls over more than one week, failed to respond to interview requests.) Cohen also noted that General Anthony Zinni, then head of CENTCOM, was concerned that a major bombing campaign would cause domestic unrest in Pakistan (where bin Laden enjoyed strong support among extremists) and hurt the U.S. military's relationship with that nation.
Mr. Cohen's views were perfectly in accord with those of the top uniformed officers and Clinton's political appointees at the Pentagon, Sheehan told the author. "It was the entire Pentagon," he added. The chief lesson that the Defense Department seemed to draw from the assault on the USS Cole was the need for better security for its ships, what was invariably called "force protection." Listening to Cohen and later talking to top military officers, Sheehan, a former member of Special Forces before joining the State Department, told the author that he was "stunned" and "taken aback" by their views. "This phenomenon I cannot explain," he said. Why didn't they want to go hit back at those who had just murdered American servicemen without warning or provocation?

we all need to stop trying to put blame on a particular party, it is clear bill clinton was asleep at the wheel, and george has another agenda going on that we will never know the full details of.

it makes me wish other people could have supported john mccain like myself in 2000, what the US needs right now is a man of integrity in the white house because we have gone at least 12 years without one and maybe more but that is ancient history.

as for jimmy carter, he proved himself to be pretty weak in terms of foreign policy so while i agree with his statements, he doesnt really have the authority of making those claims and i imagine if it wasnt an election year, he wouldnt be.

im planning on reading clarkes book, but be prepared to get pretty upset at the us government because this guy lets you know how this all happened. he was the head guy under reagan, bush sr, clinton, and bush jr. so please no partisan talk, lets discuss what he says in the book without screwing the reasons he said them based on our own beliefs

have a great day
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
303
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Caesar:
Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qaida before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy.

just so you know, richard clarke was and still is a vocal critic of the clinton policies also. after the uss cole incident, he met with the clinton cabinet with probable locations of osama or at a minimun terrorist training camps that should be struck immediately. clinton decided not to based on the "weak" cabinet that he put together.

these are the reactions of the principals in the clinton joke house:

This is how Clarke remembers the meeting, which has never before been described in the press.
.
. . SCUMBAG NUMBER 1 Attorney General Janet Reno insisted that they had no clear idea who had actually carried out the attack. The "Justice [Department] also noted, as always, that any use of force had to be consistent with international law, i.e. not retaliation but self protection from future attack," Clarke told the author. Reno could not be reached for comment.

SCUMBAG NUMBER 2 Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet joined Reno in insisting on an investigation before launching a retaliatory strike. Tenet "did not want a months-long investigation," CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said. "He simply believed that before the United States attacked, it ought to know for sure who was behind the Cole bombing." While Tenet noted that the CIA had not reached a conclusion about what terror group was behind the surprise attack on the USS Cole, "he said personally he thought that it would turn out to be al Qaeda," Clarke recalls.

SCUMBAG NUMBER 3 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike — but for diplomatic reasons. "We're desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians," Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, "Bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time." Some two weeks earlier, Ariel Sharon had visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which touched off a wave of violence known as the "second Intifada" and threatened to completely destroy the Clinton Administration's hopes for Middle East peace settlement.
Mr. Clarke remembers other objections from the State Department. "State noted that we had been bombing Iraq and Serbia and were getting the reputation internationally as a mad bomber nation that could only address its problems that way." "It would be irresponsible," a spokeswoman for Albright told the author, for the Secretary of State, as America's chief diplomat, not to consider the diplomatic impact of a missile strike that might try but would quite likely fail to kill bin Laden.
Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been going on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internal ally. . .
.
SCUMBAG NUMBER 4 Secretary of Defense Cohen also did not favor a retaliatory strike, according to Mr. Clarke. The attack "was not sufficient provocation," Clarke remembers Cohen saying, or words to that effect. Cohen thought that any military strike needed a "clear and compelling justification," Clarke recalls. (Cohen, despite repeated phone calls over more than one week, failed to respond to interview requests.) Cohen also noted that General Anthony Zinni, then head of CENTCOM, was concerned that a major bombing campaign would cause domestic unrest in Pakistan (where bin Laden enjoyed strong support among extremists) and hurt the U.S. military's relationship with that nation.
Mr. Cohen's views were perfectly in accord with those of the top uniformed officers and Clinton's political appointees at the Pentagon, Sheehan told the author. "It was the entire Pentagon," he added. The chief lesson that the Defense Department seemed to draw from the assault on the USS Cole was the need for better security for its ships, what was invariably called "force protection." Listening to Cohen and later talking to top military officers, Sheehan, a former member of Special Forces before joining the State Department, told the author that he was "stunned" and "taken aback" by their views. "This phenomenon I cannot explain," he said. Why didn't they want to go hit back at those who had just murdered American servicemen without warning or provocation?

we all need to stop trying to put blame on a particular party, it is clear bill clinton was asleep at the wheel, and george has another agenda going on that we will never know the full details of.

it makes me wish other people could have supported john mccain like myself in 2000, what the US needs right now is a man of integrity in the white house because we have gone at least 12 years without one and maybe more but that is ancient history.

as for jimmy carter, he proved himself to be pretty weak in terms of foreign policy so while i agree with his statements, he doesnt really have the authority of making those claims and i imagine if it wasnt an election year, he wouldnt be.

im planning on reading clarkes book, but be prepared to get pretty upset at the us government because this guy lets you know how this all happened. he was the head guy under reagan, bush sr, clinton, and bush jr. so please no partisan talk, lets discuss what he says in the book without screwing the reasons he said them based on our own beliefs

have a great day<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Just caught some white house press confrence...they were blastin Clark and his Qerry connection.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,797
Messages
13,573,231
Members
100,869
Latest member
yaseenamrez
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com