Ooops….
In his final report, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said yesterday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has gone “as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an 18-month investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible,” wrote Charles Duelfer, who led the Iraq Survey Group. “After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted.”
No WMDs in in Iraq? Let’s see now, how can we spin this? Um… uh… I know: mission accomplished!
You still awake at this hour? Isn’t that VCR a peach.
You couldn’t find a way to blame the Dominionists?
Logan’s deposition is on-line and you want to re-hash this??
C’mon Goldy!
I suppose Logan’s stellar background of being a former shoe salesman with a high school education clearly qualifies Logan to manage the Election Dept. of the what, one of the largest Counties in the Country????
436 pages of joy.
Read today’s Seattle Times Goldy.
Does that make Logan look good??
Get on the subject.
Oh LAWYER X….YOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Stay on topic, Cynical. You’ll have plenty of opportunity to comment on Logan’s deposition. All you have to do is hold your horses for a short time. If you lack the patience for that, then hold your Horse’s Ass.
I have to say that when I watched Powell’s presentation to the U.N. on TV, I was persuaded. I also feel compelled to add, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that Clinton was fooled, too. So it is difficult for me to judge Bush too harshly for being wrong about WMDs. It appears Saddam played a game of bluff that succeeded all too well, and he violated numerous U.N. resolutions, therefore I feel the blame for the U.S. invading Iraq should fall primarily on Saddam. However, there is plenty of reason to find fault with the Bush administration for the planning and execution of the war, and their gaming of intelligence data also is an issue. Can’t comment further right now as I have to go somewhere.
Cynical… in case you somehow forgot, we have men and women dying over in Iraq so this is still very real.
There is no more sacred duty for a president then the decision to take the country into war. This president pulled a con on the American people to sell a neo-con scheme to dominate the Middle East.
Now you can argue that the ends justify the means, but this cynical manipulation of the public trust is truly reprehensible and much more significant then anything Logan says or the Rossi PR team cooks up today.
Alan @ 5 You were meant to be persuaded… sort of like which hand soap to buy.
The real game was not at the UN, that was just PR. The real crime was in the manipulation of intelligence, the ways in which they eliminated dissent, and knowingly pushed claims they knew were lies to trump up thier war.
Nindid–
Dying in Iraq so we can continue to have free and fair elections among other things.
Alan @ 5
“I have to say that when I watched Powell’s presentation to the U.N. on TV, I was persuaded.”
Geez, when I watched Powell I was completely embarrassed—there was so much build-up before that presentation at the U.N. His presentation looked embarrassingly weak, and I lost all respect for Powell at that point. But, I was deeply suspicious of Bush’s motives, and the sudden “Iraq is a gathering threat” propaganda coming from the Bush administration.
“I also feel compelled to add, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that Clinton was fooled, too.”
He may have been, but the difference between Bush and Clinton is in the actions (or restraint) used in light of the uncertainty of the information.
The fact is, the U.N. inspection teams had an extremely detailed understanding of the fate of the weapons (based on having “human intelligence” on the ground in Iraq, with almost unfettered access) when Butler pulled the inspectors out in 1998. By that time the AEC was able to certify compliance (i.e. that Iraq had no nuclear/atomic capabilities or weapons), but held off that certification as a courtesy to UNSCOM in order to entice further cooperation over biological and chemical weapons.
The whole problem with the UNSCOM certification was that Iraqis destroyed a small percentage of their C/B weapons in unverifiable ways—stuff was dumped into the ground without documentation. This was a very bad mistake on the part of the Iraqis, and made it impossible for UNSCOM to say with 100% confidence that all weapons were destroyed. They could document that 90%+ were destroyed, but they could not document with certainty the last 5-10%. For the biological weapons, this was merely an academic exercise—the weapons were manufactured in the 1980s and were long past their shelf life. So, the “ground truth” from the UNSCOM inspectors was that Iraq could potentially have small amounts of useful chemical weapons, no delivery systems, and no further manufacturing capabilities for banned weapons.
“So it is difficult for me to judge Bush too harshly for being wrong about WMDs.“
Not me. I want to see Bush on trial in The Hague after he completes his term.
dj: “Not me. I want to see Bush on trial in The Hague after he completes his term.”
Don’t forget folks like Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, and Jose-Maria Aznar who were also convinced by their intelligence folks that Saddam had WMDs, oh wait, they’re not George W., so that’s ok.
jon @ 10
You raise a good point. Where do you draw the line for those who lead an illegal war and those who follow along. I have no problems with other leaders being tried. But, for the 1,574 dead and 11,888 wounded U.S. soldiers, the many U.S. civilians killed, the ~200 dead coalition soldiers, and the 10,000 to 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, I sincerely want to see justice done.
Are MIG 27’s buried in the sand WMDs? They are Russian made high tech nuclear delivery systems. Sorry, Goldy. You hate Bush so much you sound like a terrorist suck up.
dj @ 11: Are you also going to haul Bill Clinton to The Hauge for the people killed becuase of the punitive raids he ordered against Iraq in the 90s, or for his support of the sanctions?
cynical @ 3
is there something wrong with having a diploma and working for a shoe store? This sounds suspiciously like the Disdain of the Coastal Elites for the hardworking everyman.
And I suspect you may be leaving out a job or two between “shoe salesman” and head of elections…
Jon @ 12 DJ can certainly speak for himself, but you seem to be equating any military action against Iraq with Bush’s stampede over international law.
Cynical @ 8 – I noticed you completely avoided Bush’s first propagnda campaign in favor of his second one. If Iraq did not posses any weapons that could threaten the US, how precisely was it worth the cost in money – $XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX and rising – presitge, and lives?
And if you are suddenly in favor of sending American soldiers into guerilla wars to roust out dictators, where will you send our boys next?
I somehow doubt you were ever a grunt on the ground getting jobbed by the man-with-a-plan. It seems so easy for some to put other guys asses on the line.
For me, the issue never was about whether Iraq had WMD. The important question was whether Iraq was a significant threat to the U.S. — and this was an issue on which the Administration was more isolated in its mistake.
I always supposed the Saddam might be hiding some stockpiles of chemical weapons that had escaped destruction after the Gulf War. So what? Artillery shells loaded with mustard gas and sarin, decaying in the Iraq desert, were not a significant threat to the United States. Saddam wasn’t alone in possessing this kind of material and he wasn’t going to attack us with them.
Nor did his possession of these materials increase the terrorist threat to us. The simple fact is that if terrorists wanted to release chemical agents in the U.S., they could easily manufacture these agents using technology that is readily available and, in some cases, over a hundred years old. (Mustard gas was invented in the 1860s; sarin in 1938.) However, chemical weapons are notoriously difficult to deploy effectively and a good old-fashioned truck bomb is likely to produce much more destruction. In any case, terrorists didn’t need Saddam’s help if they were inclined to attempt this kind of attack.
The Bush Administration made a deliberate effort to avoid distinguishing between various categories of WMD. The purpose was to conflate outmoded chemical weapons (which Iraq may have had) with the more terrifying possibility of nuclear weapons (of which there was no credible evidence). Administration officials deliberately invoked images of “mushroom clouds” as part of this effort when they had nothing to support these claims. This was a naked propaganda technique and the care with which the Administration pursued it was enough to make me suspicious of the whole enterprise.
Nindid: I’m trying to find out dj’s war crimes/crimes against humanity threshold. I think Clinton was justified under UN resolutions for his actions, as was Bush. For me, there are two issues here, the jusification for war and the go-ahead to go to war. The jusification was there; the ‘is it worth it’ question is certainly up for debate.
Nindid…
I agree with you completely on the issue of Iraq and your position on it.
This whoe fiasco has been about oil, profits, etc….
Nindid @ 14
Exactly!
Jon @ 12
I was unhappy about some of the military actions by Bill Clinton, but he made an effort to keep the military actions within the scope of U.N. Resolutions and the U.N. Charter. If it would help haul Bush’s ass and his crony’s to The Hague, I don’t object to Clinton being tried; but, I doubt he would be convicted.
Dj @ 19: Can’t say I agree with you, but you are consistent, which is, I think, good.
Jon @ 17 Fair enough… but you know, for all the crap Clinton got about lawyer-like word twisting, Bush seems to employ this even more – constantly stringing together misleading sales pitches that are not techniquely lies, but highly decitful. Anyone of us could probably list off 10-12 without trying. If there is any justice, for all of Bush’s self-styled worship of Reagan, he will go down as the “Great Deciever.” Whether you think deception in favor of causes you agree with is good or bad is up to you.
Your point about being sanctioned by UN resolutions only works if you adopt Bush’s lawyers interpretation. Clinton worked with internation organizations and rallied people to our casuse, even when there was much initial opposition. And oh yes, I don’t remember the secretary-general of the UN calling Serbia an “illegal war.” Maybe I just missed that part.
Zip @2,
It’s all the Dominionists fault. There, you satisfied?
Cynical @3,
There’s an old joke that takes too long to tell, but the punchline is: “Patience jackass, patience.”
That said, I find it ironic that with all the anti-intellectualism coming from the right, you would now diminish Logan for being a hard-working average Joe who pulls himself up by his bootstraps through hard work and his God-given natural talents.
Alan @5,
The far-right forces in the Bush administration actually hit two birds with one stone through Powell’s testimony. First, they used his stature to bolster the case for their invasion of Iraq, and in the process managed to discredit and minimize the GOP’s moderate wing’s greatest threat to the right-wing’s political hegemony. Powell is no longer a viable candidate.
By the way, I should add to all this, that either the Bush administration was lying, or this represents the second catastrophic intelligence failure that occurred on Bush’s watch. (The first being 9/11, of course.)
Choose your poison.
Nindid: “And oh yes, I don’t remember the secretary-general of the UN calling Serbia an “illegal war.” Maybe I just missed that part.”
The Secretary-General is not a judge, so whether or not he calls a war illegal or not does not make it so. And since you brought it up, what UN resolution authorized our involvement (and killing) in the former Yugoslavia? If the justification of a war is an explicit UN resolution, doesn’t it make our war against Serbia “more illegal” than Iraq?
Goldy: “By the way, I should add to all this, that either the Bush administration was lying, or this represents the second catastrophic intelligence failure that occurred on Bush’s watch. (The first being 9/11, of course.)”
Oh yes, we have to blame the guy for being in office a whole 9 months and absolve the guy in office eight years previous. The intelligence failures are many more than the two you mentioned don’t forget Pakistan’s and India’s nuclear programs were “overlooked” in the 90’s, too. Before anybody jumps all over me, both sides are to blame for the poor intelligence we have been getting for the last 30 years.
Also, I don’t see how anybody can say Bush was lying, as the facts don’t support it. How? If you are so evil as to concoct this huge lie (and one you know will be found out) months before an election, wouldn’t you plant some evidence?
I love the Orwellian use of “debriefing”. I worked on the F/A-18 Program in the early 80s. When I left, I was debriefed for 8 hours. I doubt it was anything like the “debriefing” experience of WMD-related detainees. I had coffee and dougnuts for breakfast, pizza delivered for lunch, and was allowed to go home early with all kinds of cool memorabilia.
If there are are no WMD, how can there be WMD-related detainees? Wouldn’t the findings suggest the detainees were likely innocent civilians, “debriefed” innocent civilians? Perhaps they were WMD program related activities detainees. Speaking of which, maybe they should start a search for these “WMD program related activities” and at least document that terrifying threat to the public.
Jon @ 25 To blame everything on ‘bad intelligence’ is to miss the point here. Bush did not receive bad intelligence, he made it up.
While some in the intelligence community believed that probably Iraq possesed some limited WMD’s, it was far from certain.
What Bush did was eliminate all the intelligence that said their were unlikely to be WMD’s or that minimized thier threat and greatly exaggerated all the information that suggested it might be there. And if that was not enough, they actually created their own little intelligence office to provide them with favorable information.
But let’s simplify it down to one instance for here… Jon, do you believe that when they got up and said that the smoking gun was going to come in the form of a “mushroom cloud” that they lied?
They knew full well that Iraq did not have and would not have nuclear capability. It was the turning point in Bush’s PR campaign to sell the war and it worked.
Jon @ 17
“For me, there are two issues here, the jusification for war and the go-ahead to go to war. The jusification was there; the ‘is it worth it’ question is certainly up for debate.”
We agree there are two issues, and I can respect your opinion on the first issue, even if I disagree. In my opinion, Bush had no mandate to take military action against Iraq by any U.N. Resolution (or by the Charter).
Kofi Annan warned the U.S. of this about a week before the U.S. attacked, “If the U.S. and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the Charter.” And, as you probably know, after the war he was roped into admitting that the U.S. invasion violated international law. Admittedly, Annan is not the final authority, which is why I support a trip to the Netherlands for Bush in 2009.
Nindid: “Bush did not receive bad intelligence, he made it up.”
Then Karl Rove must be either an evil idiot or an evil genius. Why you would go to war before an election on a lie (and then not gem up evidence after the fact) would be quite stupid, so it seems to me that they believed Iraq had the WMDs.
As far as your “mushroom cloud” quote, please cite it for me. I want to read the context before I comment further on it.
dj: “Kofi Annan warned the U.S. of this about a week before the U.S. attacked….Admittedly, Annan is not the final authority, which is why I support a trip to the Netherlands for Bush in 2009.”
I understand your point, but please try to understand what I said previously…Clinton didn’t get a UN resolution (because of an obvious Russian veto), and what threat did Serbia pose against us? At least Bush made some attempt of a self-defense argument along with a resolutions violations argument (I realize that wasn’t enough for many, granted). So, my question stands: Is Bill Clinton also guilty of war crimes?
If Saddam did not have WMD, why did he not just say so, let in the inspectors, and be done with it? He’d still be in power today if he had, and still be killing off Iraqis by the thousands. Instead, he fought all attempts to prove otherwise. Looks like a guilty man to me. Just cause we can’t find them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
By the way, for all of you on the war crimes kick, what about Iran? They are making credible hints that they have a nuclear bomb, and plan to use it to wipe out the US. Do we just sit around until they do so? Is it illegal to destroy the areas that we think are suspicious? You tell me – what would you do?
This was not the only time this nice little line was used, but here is one example….
He leads in with the accusations about trying to buy aluminum tubes and uranuium from Niger which he knew were already discredited and then launched into this.
“Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
– George “The Great Deceiver” Bush, October 7, 2002
The ‘bad intelligence’ here is that the CIA dismissed these claims and Bush & Co begged, borrowed and bullied them into submission. This is not a case of the noble King George getting bad advice from evil ministers… the king is the problem.
Janet @ 31 – Well heck… I guess that settles it. He MUST have had weapons then. Let’s pack up and go home folks.
Seriously, this is such a revisionist take on history that I don’t know where to start. Well, how about the fact that he DID allow inspectors in and they did not find anything. They only pulled out a week or two before we invaded…
Here is a hint – maybe Fox News is not the best place for facts.
Jon @ 30
“Is Bill Clinton also guilty of war crimes?”
As I suggested before, if there is compelling evidence that he violated international law, he should be tried. I’ve no problem with that.
Janet S @ 31
“If Saddam did not have WMD, why did he not just say so, let in the inspectors….”
He did and he did.
“….what about Iran? They are making credible hints that they have a nuclear bomb, and plan to use it to wipe out the US.”
Where do you find this crap? Iran has made “credible hints” that they have an nuclear energy program. I’ve not seen reports that they plan to “wipe out the U.S.” Got a credible source?
janet @ 31
you are misinformed. Saddam DID let in the inspectors. There was not a single facility that was refused entry by UNSCOM in the fall of 2002. Not one. That you think he’d still be in power if only he cooperated a little more–absurd. Don’t you recall the fulminations from the administration that it was too late for compliance?
Iran is NOT making credible hints they have a bomb. They are doing quite the opposite, and at this stage there is no real evidence to suggest otherwise.
The Bush administration was told by the UN as early as October 2002 that Saddam had NO nuclear capabilities. This determination was finalized and published on the eve of the war. The Bush administration had this information, but continued to assert that there was a grave threat of nuclear arms from Iraq. That, straight up, was a lie. They knew it was not true, but they said it anyway.
Janet: Saddam did say he had no WMD and he did admit inspectors — Bush warned the inspectors to leave because we were going to attack. Saddam maintained some ambiguity in his rhetoric mainly to impress the locals that he was still a strong leader (dictator) and to keep other local regimes off-balance. None of that should have mattered to us. As I stated @ 17, possible possession of archaic chemical weapons was not a threat to the U.S. — certainly not one worth the horrible cost in lives that has followed Bush’s aggression.
The argument that “just because we can’t found them doesn’t mean they don’t exist” is transparently pathetic. However, for the true believers, it’s also one that can never be answered, so I will leave you to your delusion. I think most of us can see that the WMD threat was a sham. That would seem to include the Bush Administration because they apparently accept the findings of their own numerous investigations and have backed away from this argument as justification for the war.
I will agree with you on the war crimes rhetoric. It’s going nowhere and it’s a distraction. Bush and his party need to be held accountable here in America.
As for Iran “making credible hints that they have a nuclear bomb, and plan to use it to wipe out the US” — I have no idea what you are talking about.
Goldy @ 23–
I do commend Logan for his ability to move up to an elite position. Granted, he has spent almost his entire career working in highly bureaucratic positions. There are not too many high school grads that earn well over $100,000 + a diamond benefit package in government, are there??? To listen to DonSux/Alan, all the educated idiots in government are grossly underpaid and unappreciated.
I believe that a job like Director of KingCo Elections requires a strong knowledge of system, internal controls, statistics and stellar management experience. I think Mr. Logan was in over his head and the citizens of Washington are paying a huge price. That KingCo job did not come with any time for training wheels. Huge problems were already identified and needed to be immediately corrected.
Logan may possess knowledge of statutes and an ability to articulate many County Auditors lack. BUT THAT ISN’T THE JOB HE WAS HIRED TO DO!!!
I’ve almost finished reading the deposition. Clearly, the man was in over his head. I think he’s trying, for the most part, to be helpful and truthful. THAT’s WHAT YOU DO AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNDER OATH!! His helpful & truthfulness is not what he must be evaluated on. IT’S HIS ACTIONS! He didn’t follow the law, his own policies & procedures by his own admissions.
Goldy, you look pathetic defending Logan rather than seeking the truth. I don’t expect any balance from you…you are an advocate for KingCo Elections and Mr. Sims. Admit it.
Clinton acted multilaterally, within the scope of NATO. It was a combined European military response to a European crisis. To try to even begin to compare the two wars fails immediately. Bush rejected multilateralism.
Cynical @ 38
and what’s the impact of all that? An election that turned out to have been run pretty well, all things considered–and certainly better than many around the country.
TJ: Cynical’s trolling is just one of the prices we pay for an open board — but let’s not feed him when he tries to hijack the thread to a completely different topic.
JCH @ 12
Are you completly retarded, or is it tempoary? READ the friggen articles, dipshit, it’s not goldy spining..IT’S THE FINDINGS OF OUR OFFICALS!
He fooled you, and 51% of the country…suckers. In simple terms, GWB organized a bogus plot, and used it to overthrow another countries gov’ment (corrupt or not) and replace it with our own. I do believe there are international laws against that…but theyre cowards, so Bush will probably walk.
Janet De-bunkers @ all – Wow – this type of information and eloquence is what I love about blogs. Thanks all.
scottd @ 41
point taken–you’re right.
tj–
You can’t help yourself!!
I don’t mind being your punching bag for you frustration with what happened in KingCo!!
Get it off your chest MB…it’ll do ya good.
but since I’m reading the deposition, I cannot resist putting Logan’s resume’ into the record here:
before being KC Director of REALS:
*State Elections Director, SoS’s office
*Kitsap County Clerk
*Chief Deputy Auditor, Kitsap
*Certification and Training Manager, Elections, SoS’s office
*Supervisor of Elections, Kitsap
*Various positions, Kitsap Auditor’s Office
(at this point, Rossi’s counsel asks, “and before that?” and Logan’s response is “I was in high school. Sold shoes at Lamont’s.” )
Seems like he MIGHT have picked up a little info about how WA elections work before getting hired for his current job, eh?
Cyn @ 45
You’re right; I’m addicted to truth, and setting straight those who try to push off distortions and lies.
We actually found the WMD. They were hidden all this time in WHAT A DICK Cheney’s trunk!
JCH @ 12
I would not classify a MiG-27 as a WMD. In fact, I wouldn’t even call it a “weapon.” It’s a weapons platform that is useless without actual weapons to deliver. Sure, a MiG-27 can deliver a nuclear bomb, but so can a shipping container or a car. Does that make shipping containers and cars WMDs? No.
If you want to call a MiG-27 a “delivery system,” I could go along with that.
I won’t even reply to Janet S’s posts above, they are so absurd. We can always count on Janet to be over-the-top, but she’s really outdone herself today.
Goldy — from the vantage point of hindsight your argument makes sense. However, let’s not lose sight of the fact Clinton also believed Saddam had WMDs, or that: (1) Saddam had possessed chemical weapons in the past, and used them against Kurds and Iranians, (2) had a nuclear weapons program in the past, until Israel bombed his reactor, (3) was developing and testing delivery systems including long-range missiles and ultra-long range artillery, (4) led the world to believe he had WMDs, (5) his cooperation with inspectors was recalcitrant at best and at times nonexistent, i.e. he behaved like a man with secrets to hide, (6) Saddam had engaged in genocide in the past.
If you try to fool the cops into thinking you’re armed, you shouldn’t be surprised when they shoot you.
I don’t believe Bush invaded Iraq because of WMDs. This was the rationale chosen by the schemers in his administration because it was the one they thought was most likely to stick to the wall. It’s now clear that Bush, Cheney, and their underlings gamed the intelligence to pump up the WMD threat. I don’t believe for one second Powell was part of this; he was duped by these liars. There are other things wrong with the WMD rationale, as well. Although Bush sold the WMDs as a gathering and potentially grave threat to the U.S., Iraq did not remotely have a capability to deliver such weapons to U.S. targets, nor is there any reason to believe the U.S. was his intended target.
What Saddam was all about was Arab hegemony under his leadership. He wanted to unite the Arab world, and if other Arab states didn’t cooperate, he intended to force their cooperation. The purpose of Saddam’s military buildup and weapons programs was to intimidate his Arab neighbors into collaborating with his ultimate vision of a pan-Arab state or collection of states under his thumb. Of course, this was just an intermediate goal. Where he planned to go with it, almost certainly, pointed in the direction of Israel rather than the U.S.
So WHY did Bush attack Iraq? A clue is found in the evidence that his intention of attacking Iraq predated the 2000 election. This does point toward some grand scheme, either to seize oil supplies, or for a larger purpose such as changing the political dynamic of the Middle East by seizing a country in the region and establishing an American military presence there. I think the most telling thing is that Paul Wolfowitz, who had laid out the neocons’ intentions of using American military power to impose American hegemony on large swaths of the globe including the Middle East, was given the #2 position in the Pentagon. This strongly suggests that Bush bought into the neocon strategy of world domination, which is bolstered by the influence of similarly-thinking neocons (e.g., Douglas Feith, who was imbedded in State to keep an eye on things there) in his administration. Of course, a desire to control the world’s oil supply in the post-Peak Oil era is completely consistent with, and certainly could be a key motivation behind, a dominion strategy. The difference is that a dominion strategy is not limited in its aims just to oil.
Regardless of whether the Iraq war was a bad judgment call, an oil grab, or the opening stage of a new policy of imperialism, the Bushies have grossly mismanaged the Iraq war, and displayed their military incompetence for the entire world to see.
Their blunders are so manifold, it is difficult to know where to begin.
1. Diplomatic incompetence — wrecking long-standing alliances on which the West’s security depended during the Cold War, and alienating long-standing allies.
2. Overconfidence and arrogance.
3. Overriding the advice of military commanders for political expendience. General Shinseki, chairman of the joint chiefs, told Bush it would take 500,000 men to occupy Iraq. However, deploying that number of troops to Iraq was politically inconvenient, so Shinseki was sacked for telling the truth, replaced by a more pliable general who would say what the commander-in-chief wanted to hear.
4. As a result, the U.S. went into Iraq with insufficient forces to (a) prevent an insurgency, and (b) seal the borders to prevent outsiders from feeding the insurgency with men and weapons. In fact, the U.S. made no attempt at all to close Iraq’s borders, and support for the insurgents poured in.
5. The U.S. has allowed itself to get sucked into an urban guerrilla war it can’t possibly win.
6. The Bushies, in addition to attempting to fight a war with a force one-third of the size its top military commander — who has been proved right by events — advised them would be needed, inadequately armed the troops, resulting in many avoidable deths of American soldiers. The unarmored Humvees is the worst of these fiascos, but by no means the only one.
7. The torture policy is not only sheer stupidity of the first magnitude, but they couldn’t even arrest and torture the bad guys. Mostly, they arrested and tortured innocent civilians. There are all kinds of reasons why authorizing torture (and despite official denials and window-dressing prosecutions of low-level functionaries, it’s pretty damned obvious it was authorized) was a stupid fucking thing to do, including:
a. Torture doesn’t work, because you get worthless information. According to people with expertise in this sort of thing, the guilty subjects feed you disinformation and the innocent subjects make shit up so you’ll stop torturing them.
b. Torture invites retaliation. From now on, American soldiers everywhere are fair game for counter-atrocities. That’s why our military has always been against torturing enemy prisoners.
c. Torturing prisoners invariably hardens the enemy’s resistance. You don’t surrender to people who are torturing your guys. You don’t even negotiate with them. And when an invading or occupying army tortures noncombatant civilians who possess no useful information, it turns the civilian population against the occupiers, and turns a goodly number of enraged noncombatants into combatants. We couldn’t have given the bad guys a more effective recruiting tool if we had tried.
d. By torturing people, America has lost all the moral high ground it once claimed, and now — for all time to come — will be seen by the rest of the world as a nation that committed brutal atrocities. We have lowered ourselves to the same level as the Japanese and Nazis.
e. You WILL get caught. Somebody will talk.
8. As we did in Vietnam, in Iraq we are allowing the enemy to choose the time, ground, and terms of battle. Once again, we’re send our troops out to find the enemy by walking around until they get shot at. You would think we’d have learned, but some fuckers never learn anything no matter how many lives they succeed in throwing away.
9. The Bushies invaded Iraq with no occupation plan, no plan to pacify the country, and no exit strategy. How fucking stupid can you get?
So — 1,500+ dead and nearly 12,000 wounded, and $300 billion later — we’re stuck in a quagmire we can’t win, and can’t exit from, because that would create a power vacuum that either terrorists or another unruly dictator would fill. We’re STUCK. As in sand, or mud, or quicksand. We have no choice but to keep bleeding. And here are the consequences of being stuck:
The war will continue to stress the economy and contribute to deficits.
Americans will continue to lose their eyes, arms, legs, and lives.
The U.S. has no military reserve available for a genuine emergency elsewhere.
The military will be debilitated and suffer severe morale problems.
Forced service extensions, repeated Iraq tours, and endless casualties will devastate recruiting, destroy the volunteer military, and force the nation to either scale back its military forces or institute a draft.
No oil will flow from Iraq while the conflict continues, and the war will siphon oil away from the consumer supply that does exist, keeping fuel prices high through the entire economy with the usual economic consequences: Inflation and recession.
Maybe this paroxysm is something America has to go through to purge a buildup of excess testosterone from its system — a collective enema, if you will. We go through these cycles of right-wing rah-rah militarism every 30 years or so, and we always end up with a lot of dead bodies. After the wingnut militarists and incompetents are discredited again for the umpteenth time, the country is wary and avoids military adventurism until a new generation comes along, and like all the generations preceding insists on learning the same lesson all over again, the hard way.
Good morning, Vietnam!
Alan @ 54
Amen!
Mr Cynical If I change a few words in your last post we could be looking at the future:
Clearly, the man was in over his head. I think he was trying, for the most part, to be helpful and truthful. THAT’s WHAT YOU DO AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNDER OATH!! His helpful & truthfulness is not what he must be evaluated on. IT’S HIS ACTIONS! He didn’t follow the law, his own policies & procedures by his own admissions.
MR Cynical, you look pathetic defending GWB rather than seeking the truth. I don’t expect any balance from you…you are an advocate for the right wing extremists and ‘Just Us Sunday’. Admit it.
Cyn @ 38
I think Logan is in over his head, but it didn’t make a bit of difference in the governor’s race. ROSSI LOST! Get over it.
Jon @25…….Yes, why didn’t the evil President just plant the evidence using the evil CIA and other alphabet soup-groups?
Because he’s an honest guy……and you won’t get any of these intellectual midgets on here to ever admit that. On one hand he is Dr.Evil to them….but in the same breath he isn’t. Funny, isn’t it? He’s wickedly clever and devious and then in the next breath he is an incompetant fool that can barely read. They can’t decide.
But then you are talking to the group that are vegans but drive mercedes with l-e-a-t-h-e-r seats.LOL.
# 58 You Said “Because he’s an honest guy”…. LOL, not really, because he is such an idiot and Daddy placed the protection around him to keep him in place. An absolute bumbling idiot, probably would not pass a 4th grade English exam “NATURAL GAS IS HEMISPHERIC. I LIKE TO CALL IT HEMISPHERIC IN NATURE BECAUSE IT IS A PRODUCT THAT WE CAN FIND IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.” – G.W.BUSH
Ghost @ 58 – I actually remember quite vividly remarking to my family when it became clear that Bush was going to have his little war no matter what that we better dang well find evidence or we were going to blow our credibility with the world.
Really I think the answer is most likely that it was all geared towards domestic politics anyway and turning this into a ‘noble crusade for freedom’ ™ was more effective then planting evidence that no one would likely believe anyway. You can only say ‘trust me’ once and get away with it. Some of the people some of the time and all that…
In any case, you have an awfully wierd definition of honest if it means not committing fraud to back up a lie.
Read away folks. Here’s a great quote from the report to the President…
“On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.”
oh, ouch! Talk about shock and awe!! Get the FACTS here…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/....._index.htm
…and more details here…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....ar2005.pdf
There’s good stuff in there to help educate those on either side of the fence. Depending on how you lean it could prove good case FOR the invasion (if you’re a warmonger) or the actual facts as could have been discovered without loosing plus 15 thousand American troops (not to mention the tens of thousand Iraqis).
POSER @59……..and DamnageD…….Well I guess Bill Clinton is a warmonger and illiterate fool too then, huh? Because you must be the only two people on the planet that didn’t hear him and almost everyone else in the Democratic party say they thought Saddam had WMD’s……..
Love the spin though. You still can’t answer the question….if he is such an evil guy why not plant the stuff? Wouldn’t be hard to do would it? Isn’t that what all of you are always accusing him of? Machiavelian moves like that?
How about this….no one likes war ,but, the world, and especially the Iraqi people, are so much better off without Saddam.It would have been easier I guess if you could just talk rotten little dictators to death because then the UN would actually have a use. But until we figure out how to do that, this is what has to happen.
No one likes war, anymore than people want dirty air and water, but there has to be a balance and common sense….and it seems to me that some of you forget quite often that we are all on the same team here. This self-loathing-american B.S. is getting old.
christmasghost @ 62
“Because you must be the only two people on the planet that didn’t hear him …. say they thought Saddam had WMD’s……..”
You must be kind of slow, huh christmasghost? There are two differences. A minor difference is that Clinton thought Iraq might have weapons. BushCo asserted it as the truth, many many times.
The more important difference is that Clinton didn’t get people killed, injured, and mutulated over it. BushCo did. Oh. . . and they squandered a few hundred billion dollars in the process.
And even his daddy, was against him going into iraq, as was evident in his speech at tufts university.
But that “curious george, when he gets mad at someone, he just cant let go”
Like a chimp flingin poo, he is.
Most people know he fkd up. Its not news. Still hasn’t been to a military funeral.
mission accomplished alright.
Looks like all well in iraq today, according to the papers.
christmasfruitcake
I didnt mention ANY of that shit. I’m not trying to point fingers, just offer the facts coming from the gov’ment studies. Just sharing the info. Make of it what you will, but the talk of maybe “Saddam has this or that” still dosent change the FACT HE DIDNT. Get that thru your friggen thick skull. The FACT is…FACT! They didnt exist. Could he, would he, Sam I am? well maybe if the UN could have finished their job, we would have known without losing AMERICANS.
You speak to “balance and common sense”…then READ the fucking documents. Its not spin, its the info provided to the President and staff. How is that unbalanced? I never said the Iraqis are NOT better off. Thats not the point. The point IS the “intelegence” was bullshit, and he ran with it, AND WILL NOT ADMIT ERROR. Yes, Saddam is filth, and so was his office, but they did not kill thousands of americans @ 9/11, did they? Bush took focus off the target (Binladin) and tried to brainwash the world into a invasion of another country.
And by the way, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF CALLING ME “SELF-LOATHING UNAMERICAN”, asshole! I am on your the team, if youd just listen!
Of course there were no WMD. It’s not as if the Bush administration has ever told the truth before or since then.
“I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky” said that paragon of truth.
Eugenics @ 67
You fucked up the quote. He said ” … Miss Lewinsky.” But that reminds me of another frequent misquotation by Bush. People keep repeating “You are either with us or against us.” But, Shrub said no such thing. He said, “You are either with us or you are with the Terrorists”
Ghost @62
“You still can’t answer the question….if he is such an evil guy why not plant the stuff? Wouldn’t be hard to do would it? Isn’t that what all of you are always accusing him of? Machiavelian moves like that?”
Maybe you just missed my comment above…. I’ll repeat it for you.
“Really I think the answer is most likely that it was all geared towards domestic politics anyway and turning this into a ‘noble crusade for freedom’ ™ was more effective then planting evidence that no one would likely believe anyway. You can only say ‘trust me’ once and get away with it. Some of the people some of the time and all that…”
He is still ‘Machiavelian’, just not a stupid one. If they decide to simply change the rationale for the war from WMD’s to Iraqi freedom, then there is no need blowing whatever credibility you might have by getting caught planting WMD’s. And you know that if the evidence was not legit it would receive so much scrutiny that it would likely come out.
LOOSE WING NUT @ 65….
And by the way, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF CALLING ME “SELF-LOATHING UNAMERICAN”, asshole! I am on your the team, if youd just listen!
Hey loonie toons……..try actually reading what I wrote. I never said you were unAmerican……maybe when you read it you had a mental freudian slip huh? heh heh heh……..
Anyway….don’t get your knickers in a knot….go back and read it again. I would never call you or anyone else unAmerican…it’s so overused.
And once again, try asking the Iraqi people how they feel about it. There is a movie that was made by handing out videocams to regular people in Iraq and they went around filming and then brought the cameras back and they made a documentary about it.
The mind is a terrible thing to waste……….
I’ll recant the comment about the name calling…I did read it wrong, I admit.
I wont, however recant the rest. I’m sure the Iraqis are thankful; in fact I know a good portion of them LOVE us. That’s not the point! I’m happy for them, really I am…but the fact is we didn’t NEED to go in there. We didn’t need to loose KIDS for an illegal government takeover. The US has enough to work on without sticking its dick in places it doesn’t belong.
And have we forgotten about BinLaudin? That POS is STILL LOOSE!! For Gods sake, he ordered the attacks on US, and we went for Saddam? Is this some form of Texas target practice…shoot the wrong way and hope the target moves into your way?
DamnageD……..you know, i just don’t buy the whole” the american government is so evil” BS….really, who would? when you listen to the people that are saying it you know without a doubt that they are also the very same people that wouldn’t be bitching at all if this were john kerry or bill clinton doing it.
the american government is not some separate entity…it is a REFLECTION OF US. sometimes one party is in the white house, and sometimes the other is.that’s just the way it is. if our government is evil…then so are we.it’s really as simple as that.i have been all over the world and if you really think that there is some utopia out there that is better than the U.S. you are sadly mistaken.
but everything needs improvement. what did we really find out about ourselves after 9/11?
you can look at it two ways.[1] we discovered that our intelligence community wasn’t doing as good a job as it needed to.understatement of the century. or[2] you could blame and say….it was all clinton’s fault. he was in the whitehouse, he was in charge, and maybe if he hadn’t been playing hide the cigar with a certain intern this wouldn’t have happened.
maybe…,.but i doubt it.
as soon as we stop pointing fingers and realize that with very few exceptions we all want the same things and we are all americans…just different “parties” sometimes….the sooner we can start to actually pull TOGETHER to fix the problems we all face.have you ever accomplished anything in your life by pointing your finger and whining?
and to accuse the president of the united states of being so morally bankrupt as to put all our lives at risk for silly reasons is just plain stupid and childish.i didn’t like bill clinton at all, thought he was a disaster as a president.but do i think he would harm the U.S. just for some childish reason deliberately? no.do i think he was a narcissistic sociopath ….yes.but that was by far more hillary’s problem than ours. although it might not be a bad idea to ‘vet’ candidates mentally first…although i have no idea who would do that.i thought bill clinton was a classic example of poor impulse control boy-interupted.was he a monster? no way.
and neither is george bush.look at his sharpest critics……when people move into name calling and morphing someone’s name, i don’t know about you but i stop listening. what they are saying just says alot more about them than who they are talking about……..unless you are deliberately trying to needle someone, morphing their name childishly is really kinda stupid to say the least….as in bushie, curious george, chimp boy….ad nauseum.
BREAKING NEWS!: The WMD’s were moved to SYRIA while we were preparing to go to war! FLASH! Some jets were found totally buried in the sand of Iraq to conceal them from inspectors. Flash! Even UN agents on site BEFORE our troops arrived told of large convoys of trucks coming to remove arms during the night for the last month or so prior to our guys arriving. Flash! You are choosing to ignore facts that even YOUR side has verified! FLASH! GET A LIFE AND BUY A CLUE!
CG
I get you point and agree with a number of you comments, but let me make my self clear on a few things, then lets put this to bed.
a) i’m linking to documents that show that there is a huge lieklyhood the premise of invading Iraq was BS.
b) considering the above; I , as an American citizen would expect the leader of this great country to admit some fault. Be responsible for his actions, is that too much to ask?
I’m not pointing fingers, nor would I care what side of the fence our leader was on. My point is not WHO, its simple culpability. Like the rest of us in like, ya fuck something up, you pay for it. Enron or World Com for example.
Dont read too much into what i’m saying.
FLASH
it’s nobodies side….read the reports
FLASH!
Whisling sources are better than the governments!
FLASH!
Why dont you go work for the CIA, maybe they will buy your BS!
DamnageD..i agree with you on several points “in theory” too.i don’t think it would serve any purpose, much less be a very smart thing to do for the leader of the most powerful nation in the world [i know….but that’s what we get called] to admit to mistakes like that to the world. i’m sure you remember that bin laden misinterpreted clinton’s hesitation to bomb the living shit out of him as weakness. he called us paper tigers. my family lived in that part of the world for awhile and weakness is not something that is respected in any way shape or form.i can honestly say, not being a big clinton fan, that i wouldn’t want him to say he “made a mistake” either if he were in the white house. this isn’t arrogance on bush’s part……this is a big game of chess with the world watching and the last thing you want to do is blink first.
christmasvacation@lalaland,
The sign of a mans greatness, is his ability to confront his weakness and failings, head on with strength, and security, in the knowledge he is a human being like the rest of us, and a better one, by how broad are his shoulders.
the shrub, has none of the traits of a good leader.
only today, he ran to the basement when a blip formed on the radar.
he reinforces daily to the world, just how small he really is.
@78
Can I get an “Amen”?
AllHatAndNoHorse@78……….oh sure….did you tell bill clinton that? will you remember that when hillary is running? no ,you won’t.
typical……..and then damnaged jumps in too. there really is no reasoning with tank brains is there? but i tried. you couldn’t refute anything on substance so you call the president a shrub and then the other one suddennly gets ‘religion’…….and that’s the best you can do?
oh, and your horrible morphing of my name really stings…heh heh heh…….see what i mean about the boy interrupted mentality?
good grief…you think adults could actually come up with something better.
Pop quiz for you brilliant libs…
Who said this?
John R. bolton’s nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sent shivers through the 191-member organization and the international community. All were stunned at the choice of a man whose unilateralist and unrealistic attitudes toward international issues have made the world a less safe place.
His nomination appeared more appalling since the Bush administration had previously announced it planned to repair its image
His intimidation of intelligence analysts has been confirmed by the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. For instance, Carl Ford, former chief of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told the senators that bolton is a “serial abuser who bullied subordinates… an 800-pound gorilla.” He said bolton “abuses his power and authority over little people.” “He’s a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy.” He accused bolton of seeking the dismissal of a State Department official with whom he disagreed.
Was it
A) Ted Kennedy
B) Nancy Pelosi
C) Harry Reid
D) New York Times editorial
E) Washington Post editorial
If I didn’t already know the answer my guess would have been the New York Times. But the answer is none of the above.
So, who is it puking up these democrat talking points?
The answer is here
I’m taking bets the libs will studiously avoid talking avout this one.
dj @ 63: “There are two differences. A minor difference is that Clinton thought Iraq might have weapons. BushCo asserted it as the truth, many many times.”
HUH?????? I apologize for the length, but dj, I have to take you to task on this one:
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 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.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Let’s a have a rational debate over the war, certainly, but nobody can debate the fact that Clinton Administration made no bones about Saddam’s WMD capabilites.
@ 80
So where exactly in 78 was “shrub” mentioned? You can call me “tank brained” all you’d like and continue to accept the lies and cowardice our current Pres displays. Fine, that extra strength cranial bleach served by the current admin has done its job.
But you say I “couldn’t refute anything on substance”, but what substance have you provided to refute? I have provided links to (and read) the docs being submitted from our own appointed sources, and am compelled to accept that. You have something of “substance” for us to review that gives a detailed report, i’d love to read that to.
At least if the info I based my argument on were proved wrong, id be man enough to recant my opinion based of bad info, something I didn’t learn for our current leadership.
DamnageD..did you actually, even for a moment ,think about anything i said? did you address the issue of ,as a nation, we cannot afford to blink first? this isn’t a spat over who gets the last fresh tofu at the corner health food store you know. the world is an even scarier and more dangerous place than silly seattle.
DamnageD…..AllHatAndNoHorse….are you one and the same or something? because i call one of you a tank brain does not mean it refers to the other as well. try to keep not only your wacky ideas, but personas separate as well,okay?
The Iraq war is about oil, plain and simple. Not oil company profits mind you – oil, itself. The administration is well aware that we may have already passed Peak Oil, and if not we will soon. Therefore, in the mind of the shrub, the logical thing to do is grab as much oil as quickly as possible before the rest of the world can.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to work. Peak Oil is here, and the world is unprepared for it (least of all the U.S.), and therefore we are probably going to be facing a huge worldwide population loss and decline in standard of living during our lifetimes.
And just how exactly do we get oil out of this war? What? They weren’t selling us the oil before? The war was cheaper? See how silly this arguement is?
And calling the president “the shrub”….oh brother, whatever floats your boat I guess, but what does it really accomplish anyway?
May I assume that you were a supporter of Clinton and you probably not only didn’t appreciate it when people called him childish names….but also, what did you think about the people calling the names? Did it make you want to listen to them? Did it make their points valid to you in any way?
Christmasparanoia@YouveFallenAndCantGetUp,
Trying to paint an heroic face on shrubs clumsy oil grab, is quite silly at this point, it is.
wmd, turned into spreading democracy, it did.
We’re building permanent bases to protect the oil fields, we are.
We’re building pipelines to get the oil to port, yes.
This oil grab has been planned since the seventies, it has.
Throwing clintons, or keneddy’s, or kerry’s or whatever you like to detract from the oil grab, is dishonest, or exposes your lack of intelligence, it does.
selling us oil, is not what this administration has in mind for iraq.
with contracts in china, russia, france, and germany, iraq was not under tight enough control for shrub and crew.
shrub takes a step to gain access and control over the reserves,
he does.
grand plan ,it was.
backfired, it did.
call names, and speak down, in attempt to influence with your denial.
make you look smarter, it wont.
Actually I prefer to call both Clinton and Bush childish names …
its more fun that way
Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who commanded the successful U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, said Thursday that he saw persuasive evidence that Saddam Hussein had transferred his weapons of mass destruction to Syria.
“We saw all kinds of suspicious activity which, all of us could have speculated, meant for certain that weapons were being moved into Syria,” the top military man told WWRL Radio’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. {Democrats are dumber than rocks!]
If any of that were remotely true, gwdummy would already be telling lies about it.