[NWPT52]I was listening to a report on NPR this morning about yesterday’s meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush. Blair was asking the US to join major initiatives on global warming and aid for Africa. Of course, in appreciation for Blair’s toadying support for the Iraq war, Bush gave Blair a “cold shoulder.”
But what really stood out in the report, was the footnote on the “Downing Street Memo.”
I wrote about this secret memo way back on May 2, and the story is only now beginning to filter its way into the mainstream US media. Originally leaked to the British press just days before parliamentary elections, the memo reveals that the White House had already decided to invade Iraq as early as July of 2002, and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Had this been a Democratic administration, impeachment hearings would already be under way, but so far the Republicans and their corporate media patrons have managed to keep this issue below the radar. However I’m beginning to see parallels between this story and the way the Watergate scandal slowly built to a media crescendo that brought down a corrupt presidency. The news media is a business, and at some point they simply can’t ignore a story the competition is running with.
Congress needs to investigate this memo so that Americans can learn the truth… and you can help. Rep. John Conyers is asking citizens to sign on to his letter to President Bush asking for full disclosure — over 110,000 have signed thus far. And Sen. Ted Kennedy is urging you to write your Senators and urge them to speak out on the Downing Street Memo.
The Bush White House sent American soldiers to die in the deserts of Iraq, based on a lie. There were no WMDs and there was no tie to 9/11 or Osama bin Laden. And Bush knew it.
God Goldy you guys are a pain in the ass. Saddam was a cold blooded murderer of his owm people that were too repressed to do anything about it. I guess according you we should release Saddam and give him his country back?
Yup. Change the subject.
thats their tactic tho~
“I’m wrong so I”d better change the subect to something I’m right about!”
Clap louder! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
I found a paragragh on it in the Seattle Times this morning— on page 11. At least it was in the paper. You’re exactly right about how Watergate built up. It was the little story that would not go away. We have Bush on tape denying that there is any truth whatsoever in it. Now, if there’s still any MSM journalists out there with any skill and moxie, maybe we can get to the bottom of this thing.
Can you say “high crimes and misdemeanors?” How about “impeachment” and “prison?”
Chuck and J, Milosevicz was a cold blooded murderer of his own people too, so how come he wasn’t a problem?
Oh I forgot, President Cheney will pardon the Shrub on grounds he was too stupid to form the intent necessary for a criminal conviction.
Oh, this is gonna be glorious! So many scandals buried by the corporate MSM, but this one cannot be swept under the rug. BUSH, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Rice, they are ALL going down, and prison terms are not good enough for them.
On to The Hague!
Unless Cheney plays an agnew of this little play, and gets nailed for being a corrupt money-grubber!
Before getting rid of Nixon they got rid of his vice-president, Spiro Agnew (the originator of the phrase, “the Silent Majority”)on the grounds of taking bribes. It shouldn’t be too hard to find something illegal that the Dicksterino C has been involved in. I still say that Tom Delay would make the best president because we could give him cash-money for the results we want and “The hammer” would make it happen.
There is a wealth of evidence that the Neo-conservatives, the extreme Far Right minority of the republican party, planned to invade and conquer Iraq long before the Downing Street memo, long before 9/11. These venomous warmongers will not admit their intention no more than they’ll admit the main reason has always been to secure the petroleum of the region.
At current rates of petroleum consumption worldwide, eventual oil depletion predicts a coming economic depression and the end of globalization. Since there is no replacement for petroleum, there is no means to prevent the collapse of those industries and economies that are dependent upon oil and long-distance transport.
More and more people worldwide will become impoverished and will rightly view those who most profitted from the global economy as responsible. Meanwhile, worldwide opinion will blame the Bush Presidency. George W Bush should be impeached for his abject failure as a leader and policy maker and is a sensible way to deter horrific future acts of terrorism against the innocent citizens of the United States.
10
Yeah, there’s something to be said for a politician who can be honestly bought.
Sirkulat @ 11
“There is a wealth of evidence that the Neo-conservatives, the extreme Far Right minority of the republican party, planned to invade and conquer Iraq long before the Downing Street memo, long before 9/11.”
Indeed! Even George Carlin called it right in his pre-911 book Napalm and Silly Putty (2001):
“If you want to know what happen in the [first] Persian Gulf [war], just remember the first names of the two men who ran that war: Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. Dick and colon. Someone got fucked up the ass. And those brown people better make sure they keep their pants on, because Dick and Colin have come back for an encore.” (pg 243).
Reply to 11
Unfortunately, there’s plenty of oil in Canada’s and Venezuela’s tar sands — much more than in the Middle East. Extracting it is expensive (about $15 a barrel for the low-hanging fruit, more for the harder-to-get stuff) and creates a hell of an environmental mess, but neither is a problem for the oil companies — they’ll just raise the price and walk away from the mess. The Bush administration’s energy policy is the 200-year Petroleum Age will be succeeded by a 200-year Tar Sands Age. Why else do you think Bush is fucking with the Chavez regime in Venezuela?
Chuck @1:
There are lots and lots of bloodthirsty dictators in the world including Saddam. Kim Jong Il makes him look like an altar boy. Trouble is, North Korea doesn’t have oil. Iraq does, and Bush wants to hand his oil buddies a windfall.
Chuck said
God Goldy you guys are a pain in the ass. Saddam was a cold blooded murderer of his owm people that were too repressed to do anything about it. I guess according you we should release Saddam and give him his country back?
So I assume you are volunteering to head over to Dafur right now? There are a whole bunch of people over there being repressed and raped and killed and I don’t hear a FUCKING thing from the right on what to do about that.
Oh but wait…once again – they don’t got no stinking oil….
Re Comment 11 –
You say “…a sensible way to deter horrific future acts of terrorism against the innocent citizens of the United States.”
How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that the 9/11 attacks were concieved, planned and financed during the Clinton years?
It’s pretty clear this goes way beyond who is in the White House. It’s our free and open society and all that comes with it they hate most. We don’t worship their way, women are allowed to drive…, shall I continue?
How do you reconcile it with the fact that when Clinton left office they had done much to get a handle on it…and then Bush dismantled that effort?
The Bush White House sent American soldiers to die in the deserts of Iraq, based on a lie. There were no WMDs and there was no tie to 9/11 or Osama bin Laden. And Bush knew it.
Much of the rest of your post is spot-on, but, here, I’m not so sure. I certainly believe that President Bush is factually and ethically challenged – don’t get me wrong. I just think there are two ways to look at this that do not result in the conclusion that the president is a liar.
First, one could make a reasonable argument that the president had convinced himself of something the facts did not support, much the same way many on the right had convinced themselves that Gregoire and the Dems had stolen the election and that they would win the election challenge court case. They just couldn’t conceive of anything else. One could argue that President Bush could not convince himself that Saddam was not a threat and did not have secret weapons programs we simply hadn’t found yet. If he truly believed what he was saying, he’s not a liar, just self-deluded.
It doesn’t excuse his screw-up. In fact it makes it worse because it establishes that he will send people to kill and die based on his half-baked hunches, not on the best available evidence. But it doesn’t make him a liar… on this.
The other way to think about it that results in a conclusion other than lying is if one separates lying from b.s.ing, as Harry Frankfurt has done. The liar knows the truth and willfuly disregards it, implicitly or explicitly acknowledging that the truth matters. The bullshitter doesn’t care about the truth. In this formulation, if President Bush discounted and disregarded all the intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein was not a threat and did not have a WMD program (and there was plenty out there) and proceeded to say that he did and to use it as a rationale for war because he didn’t care what the intel said, then the president is not a liar but is a bullshitter.
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
Great letter to the editor today
Dino Rossi had the opportunity to concede gracefully Monday, but instead chose to blame others for his defeat and, at the same time, impugn the character of the Washington state Supreme Court.
Rossi said, in his concession speech, “With today’s decision and because of the political makeup of the Washington state Supreme Court, which makes it almost impossible to overturn this ruling, I am ending the election contest.” His statement clearly insinuates that the state Supreme Court would vote along party lines instead of according to the laws of the state.
Rossi owes the court an apology for that statement.
By projecting his concept of political ethics upon the state Supreme Court, Rossi gave us some indication as to how he would govern the state. We can thank Judge John Bridges for his ruling, as the last thing the state of Washington needed was a governor who governed as a party-line activist.
Our free and open society is the thing that the neo-cons hate the most. Reconcile, we all know about terrorists and they’re nothing compared to the neo-cons. Remember in grade school how they taught you that in medieval times the aristocracy developed because they promised people that in exchange for money, land ,and power,that they would protect people fromoutside enemies? This country has’nt been invaded since the war of 1812. We have no real enemies in this world except some tiny ragtag armey of radical muslims who go around blowing themselves. This supposed enemy has been CREATED for our consumption. We need to be protected from them? I mean, come on, really. It’s right in your face and you can’t see or admit it. They “hate our freedom”. Do you think that beggars in New Delhi hate our freedom? If a few of them got together and blew up a few Americans, you’d be offering Bush and Co. your last dime to protect you from the menace. If you want to worry about some homegrown menace just remember the L.A. riots. Those people are still there and they’re still pissed.
I will ask for full disclosure from the White House, if you will ask Ted Kennedy for full disclosure about Chappaquidick….
hehheh
I signed onto the letter, Goldy, as did several family members. Let’s just hope it gets the media talking about the memo at the very least.
How many billions were spent on Cappaquidick? How many American soldiers died at Chappaquiddick? Why do you Reps always refer(Sometimes it’s ludicrous) to the same handful of Dem events. We talk about Watergate and you guys reply with,”How about that free haircut and blowjob that Clinton got?” Don’t you Reps have any sense of proportion? Nixon has his own extra legal police force that performs crimes in an effort to change free elections, and you come back with Gibberings about blowjobs and free haircuts. You’re just stupid, crazy, or your mama was on crack!
THERE MUST BE A MEMO THAT CLINTON WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK AN ASPIRIN FACTORY, OR WAS THAT JUST A WHIM?
dr quest @ 24:
You have the wrong attitude about this.
Our right-wing nutbags are convinced that the Democratic leadership as as or more corrupt than the GOP leadership. The only divergence is whether:
a) they are uber-powerful, have a cabal of silence, and assassinate people who threaten to spill the beans.
b) They’re stupid, incompetent, and are no good at corruption.
Have another glass of Kool-Aid. There. Isn’t that better?
Oh sure..ALL-RIGHTY-WHITEY-
And what about Bush! He really DID attack a wedding party. How ’bout that, huh! Take that almighty-all-righty-cracker-whitey! Nannynannynannyboobooboo!
You Frickin’ Moron. $450 BILLION DOLLARS (AND COUNTING)(THAT’S
BILLION, IDIOT, WITH A “B”)
1650 (AND COUNTING) AMERICAN DEAD
20,000 (AND COUNTING) AMERICAN WOUNDED
10’S OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI’S
FOR A MOTHERF@#$%NG BUSINESS DEAL!!!
Wake the @#$% up. They’re liars and crooks. This “war” that was gonna be over in two months??? They can’t protect the road to the airport anymore. They can’t even protect the Green Zone anymore. They don’t have the troops they don’t have the supplies. And what about the $8.8 BILLION dollars that are missing. Is it in Dick Cheney’s other pants? Or did UPS lose it? It’s been TWO YEARS. NO END IN SIGHT!
Ohhhh…These guys are GOOD. REAL GOOD. It’s a forking Mafia Bustout is what it is. And when it’s over WE all will be holding the bag.
So slumber on my righty brothers. Dream of chaste little blond wives, or big (and stupid) blond husbands, 2.5 perfect, chaste blastoplastic children, bigass SUV’s and biggerass pickemups (WITH gun racks)…sprawling suburbs and sprawling suburban churches (don’t forget a little gay fun on the side!). And you can come over here and braaaayyyy your sanctimonious little asses off (it’s fun to watch you pop off the walls). And we’ll be there, us reality based folk, when you wake up and wonder WTF happened. We’ll be there to help you up and get you going again like we ALWAYS do. Because we care for everybody.
Even you! Nighty Nite!
On Beacon Hill, no less! You little name dropper,you!
Chuch @ 1
Do we need to coin the term “RIGHTIST PINHEAD”? Your denial is typical of the narrow-minded, uninformed train of thought coming from the right these days.
Taking your rationale, we could perhaps infer that you would then advocate removal of such dictators worldwide. Let’s look at a couple of Bush’s buddies that won’t make the top of the list anytime soon:
Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan). You may remember he was the guy that gave us a military base from which to launch operations into Afghanistan. He has no problem with boiling people alive as a method of torture. You also might look at the blood crackdown on demonstrations in the east of the country recently.
Turkmenbashi (aka Saparmurat Niyazov — Turkmenistan). Has created an extensive cult of personality that tolerates no dissent. We like him, because he provides access to the Caspian Sea oil bed.
Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan). — Took over power after his father, Heydar Aliyev (Heydar “Baba”) died in 2003. Long history of human rights abuses that have not improved since his accession to power. We like him, because he also provides access to the Caspian Sea oil bed, and has made our dreams of an oil pipeline to Turkey a reality.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you are hearing of these people for the first time, but many of us on the left have known of them for many years now, and could see the catastrophies in the making… Why do you think there’s been so much talk about Iran recently?
If bush goes down, I’m going to throw the biggest party for all my good lefty friends. There’s not going to be enough weed in seattle for this party.
Fuck you bush.
Chuck:
We can all agree that Saddam was a tyrannical despot.
The problem is that Osama bin Laden has proved to be much more dangerous, is still on the run, and has nothing to do with Iraq.
You and I were lied to by our President and led to believe that Iraq was a major terrorist threat connected to 9/11 and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
In reality, the second Iraq war was the first occassion when civilian contractors were ‘forward deployed’: Kellog, Brown, & Root personnel who secured oil infrastructure while other vital sites were ignored.
The priorities had nothing to do with our safety from terrorism and everything to do with putting certain US oil companies onto mideast soil.
You’re a fool if you think it matters what Saddam was like. That’s the emotional appeal they use to lead you like a lamb.
Heath
Goldy,
Rep. John Conyers is asking citizens to sign on to his letter to President Bush asking for full disclosure – over 110,000 have signed thus far. And Sen. Ted Kennedy is urging you to write your Senators and urge them to speak out on the Downing Street Memo.
Ah, yes…these two purveyors of impartiality and paragons of virtue are calling for it!
Hmmm…I think I’ll wait for somebody impartial like the NYT or Washington Post editorial board to draw conclusions before I write to Congress on this subject.
Did most of the posters today (including Goldy) have any memories before 2003? I’m asking because there seems to be a definite lack of recall the literally hundreds of statements from Democrats about the “FACT” of Saddam’s WMD. Some for your consideration:
“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 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 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 Sens. 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.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 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.
“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. “[W]ithout 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 has 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.
Whether or not the US should have gone to war over Iraq’s WMD was the question; not whether or not Iraq had WMD, as evidenced by these quotes. If you want to aruge over the war, fine, but don’t insult everyone’s intelligence and completely ignore history.
If you’re going to call Bush a liar, then be sure to label all these folks too, Goldy. Bad intelligence does not make you a liar.
Finally, as I’ve asked before, and no one has answered, if you believe this administration is so evil as to “lie” about the WMDs, then why didn’t they plant evidence to justify the war? It would have been easy enough. Why almost lose in 2004 over a lie? Rove (in your book) is evil, but you will admit he’s not stupid.
Jon,
You’re distorting history by dressing up the pig of Bush’s disastrous Iraq policy using other politician’s rhetoric.
I must admit it works well on a lot of people maybe even including you but bottomline it’s bullsh*t and anyone who employs this kind of argument is not credible IMO.
Addendum to 33:
Also, go reread the Downing Street memo. Even the British didn’t question the “fact” that Saddam had WMD capabilites; the question (as I said before) was how much of a threat the WMD truly presented.
Also, answer me this: Why then did Blair, facing much more internal opposition, go along with this ‘lie’?
Jon @ 35
one word: oil.
Britain after depleting the North Sea is now or will soon be an oil importer.
John @ 34: “You’re distorting history by dressing up the pig of Bush’s disastrous Iraq policy using other politician’s rhetoric.”
I’m not debating the war; that remains an open and argueable question, no doubt.
Policy (good or bad) is not the question. The question is very simple: Did these Democrats ‘lie’ or not?
Jon,
All politicians say what they will to advance their respective agendas.
Thanks for not answering the question.
Sorry to be short, but I’m looking for a simple yes or no. If the answer is yes, then what does that say about those Democrats who, while maybe not in favor of war, were in favor of a sanctions regime that was starving thousands while not greatly effecting Saddam?
If the answer is no, then what changed between the Clinton and Bush administrations in regards to Iraq’s capabilites and our intelligence on it? As far as we know now, most of Iraq’s WMD capabilites were gone shortly after the 1991 war.
Again, let’s be very clear: througout the 90’s and in the run up to the war, no leader seriously doubted that Saddam had no WMDs. The question was what threat (if any) those WMD presented.
Of course, you’re looking for a yes or no because you’re not interested in the truth of matter you just want to score debate points.
At least 2 americans are dying each day over there along with countless other Iraqis, this country is approaching 450 billion in the hole on just this war. Bush is on a bamboozlepalooza tour to borrow 6+ trillion to change Social Security which is just a ponzi scheme to inflate the stock market so his backers can have one last big cash out.
What the hell is important to you?
John @ 41: From Goldy’s post: “The Bush White House sent American soldiers to die in the deserts of Iraq, based on a lie. There were no WMDs and there was no tie to 9/11 or Osama bin Laden. And Bush knew it.”
The whole point of the post was that Bush lied, and I’m saying no, based in part from all the things we were told by the Clinton administration and other Democrats during the 90’s and before the war. That’s the ‘truth’ of this matter, isn’t it?
Ok I’ll grant you this.
It was not lies but it was bullshit.
The liar knows the truth but the bullshitter doesn’t care what the truth is.
For exampe the “curveball” intelligence was crap and the German’s told the U.S. they thought so but the Bush Administration stovepiped it to Bush and the Congress.
Google Harry Frankurt’s “On Bullshit” for the details.
Iraq war wasn’t justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The United Nations’ top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.
“I think it’s clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart,” Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency’s investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as “shaky,” and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
“I think they chose to ignore us,” Blix said.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
ElBaradei said he had been “pretty convinced” that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.
Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.
“We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong,” Cheney said. “And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing.”
Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, “I haven’t seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney’s conclusion or statement, so — and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge.”
****************************************************************
Screw you, Jon
Jon,
The list of quotes you cut and pasted from either a chain e-mail or a website has been addressed by the good folks at snopes.com. Their conclusion:
“All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.””
From there, they go on to explain each of the quotes. The only one that I see that supports your position is that of former VP Gore. The rest were going off intel and analysis provided to them by the Bush administration, which was not the totality of the available information. Gore, however, appears to have believed that Iraq had WMDs. However, he also stated in the same speech, “We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups.” If I recall correctly, this was an argument the Bush administration was perfectly happy to allow people to make outright or insinuate, and a point of Goldy’s that you haven’t addressed.
Gore clearly had deep reservations about deposing Saddam through force, and it’s highly likely we would not be in Iraq right now if he were president.
As I said in a previous (partly tongue-in-cheek) post, I don’t think you have to conclude that President Bush knew that Iraq didn’t have WMDs or to believe he lied. He may have actually believed it, and that worries me, given the contents of the DSM. The DSM confirms previous reports that the Bush administration had decided to go to war with Iraq, and they were just looking for a reason. They ignored a lot of evidence, much of it new evidence provided by the new inspection teams, that Iraq’s WMD programs had been effectively gutted. Whether this bad judgment was the result of willful neglect or poor analysis, the result is the same: we’ve got people killing and dying for something that turned out to be completely wrong. If they didn’t know, they should have.
Finally, if you believe President Bush was given bad intel, why did he give George Tenet a Medal of Freedom?
President Bush screwed-up. Colossally. But I don’t believe he lied about his belief that Iraq had WMDs. I do believe he is lying when he denies the contents of the DSM, and I believe the administration ignored available evidence undermining the case for war.
http://snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Oh, and John in #43,
Thanks a-frickin’-lot. (See #19) :-)
Oops. I did #46, and, obviously, the “Ed Wood” post in the Plan B thread.
Ed,
You’re most welcome. :)
If I see far it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.
New bumper sticker:
Laura Ran Over The Wrong Boyfriend
Ed Wood @ 46: “But I don’t believe he lied about his belief that Iraq had WMDs.”
Which is my whole point.
Regarding the quotes, yes, they are from snopes, which is why I put my qualifier in about the debate being about the decision to go to war, not about if WMD existed or not, which your quote from snopes says, and the full text of the quotes also show.
You said:“The rest were going off intel and analysis provided to them by the Bush administration, which was not the totality of the available information. Gore, however, appears to have believed that Iraq had WMDs. However, he also stated in the same speech, “We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups.””
Sorry, but there were several quotes from before 2001, and do you not think that the Democrats quoted after 2001 did not base their position (that WMD did, in fact, exist) at least, in part, in information that they were given in the 90s, and from Clinton appointees like Tenet and William Cohen in the 2001-2002 timeframe?
When did anyone in the Bush Administration say Saddam had shared WMD? Certainly, they, like the Clinton Administration said he could share, and that’s why we (Bush) needed to go in before that happened. Again, that was a legitmate point of debate; but Saddam having WMD was always given in that argument.
You said: “Finally, if you believe President Bush was given bad intel, why did he give George Tenet a Medal of Freedom?”
Considering Tenet told the President a week before the war that the case for WMD was a “slam dunk”, you got me on that point. Also, Tenet’s CIA failed President Clinton on the Pakistani and Indian atomic programs, not to mention 9/11, so why he was lauded, I really don’t agree with or understand.
rujax206:
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
By NICK WADHAMS
ASSOCIATED PRESS
UNITED NATIONS – “Saddam Hussein may have “created a certain ambiguity” about his weapons capabilities before the second Gulf War for two reasons: pride and the threat of Iran, the former top U.S. arms hunter said Tuesday.
Charles Duelfer told the Council on Foreign Relations that it was easy for the U.S. government to misinterpret Saddam’s actions, but that the former dictator didn’t necessarily have only Washington in mind when he shut U.N. inspectors out of weapons sites after 1998.
That left the world to wonder whether he was rebuilding his banned weapons programs.
“There was a greater concern than we could appreciate sitting here in Washington of the threat posed by Iran,” Duelfer said in a rare public appearance. “Our gut feeling for that was not the same as the gut feeling one would have sitting in Baghdad.”
Duelfer’s Iraq Survey Group announced in an Oct. 6 report that it had found no weapons of mass destruction. The suspected presence of the weapons had been a key reason for the U.S. invasion.
Duelfer told the council that there were intelligence failures on both sides. The United States couldn’t discern Saddam’s true motives, and he miscalculated just how much U.S. attitudes had changed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Saddam likely feared renewed conflict with Iran in the years after a brutal 1980-88 war between the two neighbors in which 1 million people died, Duelfer said. In the 1990s, intelligence reports from elsewhere had also begun to raise questions about whether Iran was developing weapons of its own.
“Saddam was certainly aware of the WMD assessments of Iran and he created a certain ambiguity about what his capabilities were,” Duelfer said.
U.S. officials may have also underestimated how much it offended Saddam to have weapons inspectors “poking around their most secure areas.”
Duelfer’s comments were reminiscent of those made by former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who said in 2003 that he believed Iraq had destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction years before, but kept the appearance it had them to deter a military attack.”
Notice the words “most” (not all) and “appearance”. It’s very easy for Blix (and you) a year after the fact to say I told you so; but as Blix’s own comments at the time show, even he wasn’t 100% sure. Argue the points, and don’t revert to senseless comebacks that make you look juvenile.
Jon @ 33 and elsewhere,
First, I think you’re arguing a nuance that’s not worth the distinction. Whether they were an outright lies or just merely bullshit, that claims with respect to WMD formed the primary basis for going to war is still morally bankrupt.
Second, I remember Tony Blair’s argument in favor of the war as being legitimately nuanced from Bush’s argument. Blair’s argument, that it was about Saddam Hussein’s defiance of UN resolutions with respect to openness regarding WMD, and whether or not those resolutions were going to be worth the paper they were printed on. In Blair’s reasoning, to not attack Saddam Hussein was to render future UN resolutions entirely toothless, and the UN irrelevant. I also recall very much wanting to find some way to get Bush and Blair to switch jobs.
Thirdly, there’s the other lie that arguably formed far more of the basis of the public’s support for invading Iraq than WMD: the public perception that Iraq was, in some way, behind 9/11. While the Bush Administration never made the direct connection, they knew full well that the public perception was false and did nothing to change that perception.
When you take an oath in a court of law, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Very clearly, the Bush Administration did not tell the whole truth, and the errors of omissions were as much lies as would have been outright statements of falsehood.
Lastly, with the whole WMD issue, there are really only two possibilities. Bush, as the President of the United States, should have known full well whether or not WMD did in fact existed. The fact of position renders comparisons to members of Congress irrelevant. Either Bush did know that WMD existed, in which case he lied to us, or he didn’t know whether or not WMD existed, in which case he’s not competent to be President of the United States. In either case, I’d say that impeachment is quite appropriate under the high crimes and misdemeanors clause.
Jon,
I don’t think you and I were ever very far apart on this, but we’re not completely in agreement. I think the fact that this administration started a war on what turned out to be incorrect arguments is the key. You can’t just believe you’re right when you start a war; you have to BE right. And I think one of the main reasons they were wrong is that they didn’t use all the information at their disposal because they had already made up their minds what they were going to do.
Regarding some of the specific points you raise:
…there were several quotes from before 2001
All but one of which were before “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons” with air attacks in 1998. The context is important for those quotes because they precede two significant events – the U.S. air raids in Dec. 1998 and the reintroduction of inspectors who couldn’t find any WMDs – both of which make the quotes much less relevant to the question of whether Iraq had WMDs in 2003.
The other was from Secretary Albright in 1999 and looks like an unprepared remark in which her meaning is open to interpretation (though I’m inclined to think she’s of the opinion that Iraq still had WMDs at that time – again, before inspectors could verify).
do you not think that the Democrats quoted after 2001 did not base their position (that WMD did, in fact, exist) at least, in part, in information that they were given in the 90s, and from Clinton appointees like Tenet and William Cohen in the 2001-2002 timeframe?
It’s entirely possible. I’m not in a position to say definitively, but their competence and motives are worthy of scrutiny too.
As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter whether you believe the president lied or not about Iraq’s capabilities. He screwed up any way you slice it. Even if he knew they didn’t have WMDs, he *should* have known, if he was going to start a war over it.
Considering Tenet told the President a week before the war that the case for WMD was a “slam dunk”, you got me on that point. Also, Tenet’s CIA failed President Clinton on the Pakistani and Indian atomic programs, not to mention 9/11, so why he was lauded, I really don’t agree with or understand.
Fair enough. I don’t expect you to blindly defend everything any Republican does. Lord knows I don’t defend every Democrat’s action. I considered speculating why the president would do this (possible reasons ranged from bat-s*** crazy to personal loyalty to Machiavellian cunning), but I’m not going to go there… well, not sober anyway. :-)
– hits “Refresh” –
Or… what Rick said.
Rick @ 52: “First, I think you’re arguing a nuance that’s not worth the distinction. Whether they were an outright lies or just merely bullshit, that claims with respect to WMD formed the primary basis for going to war is still morally bankrupt.”
Either the President of the United States lied or he did not. I think that’s an incredibly important distiniction, given the stakes.
“Second, I remember Tony Blair’s argument in favor of the war as being legitimately nuanced from Bush’s argument.”
Then if Bush made the same argument, you would of been in favor? Bush did make the same argument about the legitmacy of the UN, like Blair.
“Very clearly, the Bush Administration did not tell the whole truth, and the errors of omissions were as much lies as would have been outright statements of falsehood…
Either Bush did know that WMD existed, in which case he lied to us, or he didn’t know whether or not WMD existed, in which case he’s not competent to be President of the United States.”
Well, again, then I point to Bill Clinton, who told the nation and the UN time and time again about the dangers of Saddam’s WMD programs as reason to keep sanctions in place, which were responsible for (by some accounts) the death of thousands of Iraqis. Was Bill Clinton incompetent or was he lying, using your logic? Or since it was Iraqis starving, that is just arguing a nuance?
So, after all that ,is Bush lying or isn’t he? If he’s not lying then why is the D-St. memo saying that the intelligence is to be formed to fit the policy. If you’ve decided on a course of action BEFORE you really know if your excuse for pursuing the action is right or wrong, then you are lying even if your excuse turns out to have been correct. That is clear and succinct.
Another TJ @ 53:“As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter whether you believe the president lied or not about Iraq’s capabilities. He screwed up any way you slice it. Even if he knew they didn’t have WMDs, he *should* have known, if he was going to start a war over it.”
No, I don’t think we’re that far apart on this either, however, I really object to the word “lied”. Saying he lied is just not true, is revisionist history, and is an absolute statement from the side of the aisle that complains the most about absolute positions.
Certainly, I’d like any President to know for sure before going to war, but how was he (or any President) going to be 100% sure? What’s the threshold, especially post 9/11? 50%? 75%? Again, Tenet told Bush that the WMDs were a “slam dunk” a week before. Sounds pretty ‘certain’ to me.
I won’t add much to the debate between jon and john but to say George Bush has no excuse for acting on ‘bad intelligence’. Every day is a bad intelligence day for Duhbya. He’s an incompetent, irrational, reckless dimwit sitting in the White House like a trained monkey, a puppet or a idiotic mascot.
Reconcile, if you’d like to continue, be my guest. But, since the argument that Muslim jihadists hate our freedoms has little to do with the Iraq War, do further expose your folly. Maybe when you see what you’ve got to say all written down you’ll read it and think twice.
Hey! Remember that bulge in Georgy’s crotch after the flight to the aircraft carrier, the USS Lincoln, for the ‘mission accomplished’ photo op? Word around town is that he took viagra before takeoff so that he could pretend to pilot the jet plane. Hah Hah Haaaaaah!
That’s not the point. The memo says the intelligence is to be formed around the policy. The memo clearly says that. The decision to go to war had been formed PRIOR TO any concern with the veracity of WMD reports. I realize it’s fun to wallow in all your trivia but it’s just this kind of crap that buries and kills a story.
All this “memogate” crap is just an attempt by the donks to pull another Watergate. It wont work. Everyone knows the left lies. Rush and the others will expose them.
CounterPunch
February 19, 2003
The Origins of the Bush Iraq War Plan
The 1998 Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz Memo to Clinton
by JASON LEOPOLD
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein’s regime claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.
This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration’s desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush’s future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?
In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were working in the private sector. Both were involved with the right-wing think tank Project for a New American Century, which was established in 1997 by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, to promote global leadership and dictate American foreign policy.
While Clinton was dealing with the worldwide threat from Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wrote to Clinton urging him to use military force against Iraq and remove Hussein from power because the country posed a threat to the United States due to its alleged ability to develop weapons of mass destruction. The Jan 26, 1998 letter sent to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century said a war with Iraq should be initiated even if the United States could not muster support from its allies in the United Nations. Kristol also signed the letter.
“We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War,” says the letter. “In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”
“We urge you to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council,” says the letter.
The full contents of the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz letter can be viewed at http://www.newamericancentury......letter.htm.
Clinton rebuffed the advice from the future Bush Administration officials saying he was focusing his attention on dismantling Al-Qaeda cells, according to a copy of the response Clinton sent to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Kristol.
There’s liars…#$%^ing liars…then there’s the Bush Administration.
Jon @ 54
The important distinction between Blair and Bush is that Blair did not make the argument based on actual WMD. Blair didn’t augment his argument with bullshit, and Bush did. Indeed, Bush so augmented is argument with bullshit that it’s difficult to recall any precise instances where he argued the same point Blair did. As I recall, the only instance was actually Colin Powel during his address to the UN.
Your comparison with Clinton’s argument is specious at best, and more likely just plain disingenuous, because I think you know better. You’re not the typical idiot wingnut who posts here.
But the distinction is obvious and substantial. Clinton’s argument was in favor of the UN sanctions. Clinton’s argument was not in favor of going to war. The fact that both resulted in Iraqi deaths is irrelevant when one considers the fact that one was entirely within the bounds of international law while the other, if it didn’t outright break international law, bent it beyond nearly all recognition.
The only decent bit of planning in this entire mess was the conduct of the war itself. Thank God we at least have comptent military leaders, but they cannot make up for the deficiencies in their Commander in Chief. Bush has had no clear exit strategy, no time-table for pulling out of Iraq, and no outline of specific goals that he seeks to accomplish. Just an ill-defined notion of “democracy” in a country torn apart by three major factions. If democracy eventually survives in Iraq, it will have been despite Bush, and not because of him.
And, with respect to the underlying pretext for even going to war in Iraq, the overall safety and security of the United States and its citizens, the entire Iraq war has been a complete no-op. In the short-run, it might have had the effect of directing terrorists attention away from US soil, but the increased animosity and the long-term risk will have more than made up for any short-run benefit by the time we get well into the future.
We actually had goodwill on our side internationally, and Bush has completely pissed that away for nothing but a few barrels of oil. I suppose this is precisely what we might expect to happen when we have a President from Texas. When history is written, however, I think you’ll find George W. Bush’s legacy cited right next to LBJ’s legacy with respect to the war in Viet Nam.
Rick, I question the competence of our military leaders. Apart from the Abu Ghraib fiasco, which would not have happened if top commanders had paid attention (unless it was ordered from above, which we can’t rule out yet), the military situation is anything but satisfactory. Most serious is the U.S. generals’ failure to take action to seal Iraq’s borders, which has allowed unimpeded movement into the country of insurgent fighters and arms. We have the same situation in Iraq as we had in Vietnam, where the enemy could feed troops and weapons into the battle zone at will. Assuming the insurgency is drawing on external support, as it almost certainly is, this will enable the insurgents to keep fighting indefinitely because they can resupply and replace their losses. As long as this situation prevails, attritioning the adversaries will be futile. Equally bad, our troops are on the defensive, and the enemy controls the time, place, and terms of engagement. This is a prescription for defeat, which is now the probable outcome of this war. The U.S. commanders totally failed to anticipate the insurgency, despite intel warnings, which explains among other things why our troops were sent in without personal and vehicle armor — the occupation troops were not expected to need it, as they were not expected to encounter resistance. Generals are paid to not be wrong about things like that.
Here is a quote from Sidney Blumenthal’s book “The Clinton Wars” at page 797:
“Bush’s approach in most situations seemed a reactive combination of calculations to avoid his father’s mistakes and to reject Clinton’s policies. …
“During the transition between administrations, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger arranged several extensive briefings on [terrorism] for Bush’s incoming national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, and others on the Bush team, including Vice President Cheney. One briefing lasted half a day. Berger told them that Osama bin Laden was an ‘existential threat’ and told them that he wanted ‘to underscore how important this issue is.’ In another briefing, Richard Clarke, head of counterrorism in the NSC, the single most knowledgeable expert in the government, gave them a complete tutorial on the subject. In yet another briefing, CIA officials were brought in to go over all the intelligence available on terrorism.
“Don Kerrick, a three-star general and outgoing deputy national security adviser, overlapped for four months with the new Bush people. He submitted a memo for the new National Security Council warning of the danger of terrorism. ‘We are going to be struck again,’ he wrote. But as Kerrick explained to me, he received no answer to his memo. ‘They didn’t respond,’ he said. ‘They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn’t see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as. They were concentrated on what they thought were higher priorities than terrorism.’ The Principals meeting of national security officials took up terrorism only once, after constant pressure from Clarke, on September 4, 2001, and at that meeting they discussed using unmanned Predator drone spy aircraft, but no decision was made. ‘Unfortunately,’ said Kerrick, ‘September 11 gave them something to focus on.’”
Of course, the greatest failure of all of the Bush Administration was misidentifying Iraq as the attacker, and as the enemy that needed to be fought and defeated.
I just love you guys. I promise I will not use Snopes. You decide to ignore the truth from other sources and focus on the crap that tries to prove your point.
Lets see: I’ll start with this link. Your great NY Slimes forgot to use print ink on this one: http://www.tothepointnews.com/.....48ad22aeda
DO you guys still believe in the UN? Here are their thoughts on Iraq’s WMDs.: http://www.tothepointnews.com/.....48ad22aeda
Damn, the Clinton News Network CNN, reporting on Putin warning Saddam wanted to attack the US. Oh no, the NY Slimes missed this one too? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/.....index.html
There is more to life that than the HA Blog. You guys should navigate to this site every now and then: http://www.americasdebate.com/.....topic=7313
Oh no, :It’s not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for” in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world — French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it — agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today. Add Egypt too. Read Tommy Franks book!!! Remember Vladimir Putin in February, 2005. He said “We thought he had WMDs.”
Damn, Canada thought Saddam had them too? Say it ain’t so lefties, you second favorite country after France: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Ca.....55210.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/.....-cods.html
What about this one: http://www.thevanguard.org/the.....0816.shtml Dame Democrats saying Saddam had WMDs and they didn’t know GWB yet.
Oh no the US News and World Report among others Saddma and Al Qaeda: http://frontpagemag.com/Articl.....p?ID=15919
Where was this in the NY Slimes?
Check this out lefties: http://frontpagemag.com/Articl.....p?ID=10111
I also seem to remember that while donnageddon focused on the cliff notes (summary) of the 9/11 commission, I went into specific pages on the full report and placed excerpts from the “bi-partisan” commission that said there were links between Saddam and & Al-Qaeda. I presented 7 conclusions from the cliff notes and donnageddon shows two about the 9/11 attack. I never said Saddam attacked us, just another diversion by donnageddon.
Clinton’s ex CIA Director reported in this: http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3774
Last but not least here is donnageddons Waterloo. Please read this one: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....230835.asp
Pudster
The FBI has found a handful of Pakistani in California that were supposedly training(maybe like the suvivalists in northern Idaho are training)themselves to be al-Qaida terrorists.How many billions of $$$ will it take for the Bush admin. to neutralize this looming menace in California? Many, I’m suspecting….
Let’s do a little Rumsfeld math on how much it will take to subdue this army of five: According to the U.S. govt., there are approximately 25,000 Al-Qaida members world wide. The U.S. efforts to combat them has so far cost 430 billion $$$. That means that it costs about $11,000,000 to get each terrorist.(And that’s assuming we’ve got all 25,000–which we don’t) So, to neutralize these 5 terrorists it’s going to take $55,000,000.
This should also be front page news everywhere and we should go on orange alert and forget about the DOWNING STREET MEMO. Not a chance,Skippy!
Headless, you who posts on the tax payer dime; if an exploded weapon was traced to these two in California, your big mouth would be one of the first saying why weren’t they stopped, how did this happen, how did they get into the US?
Shut up with your worthless diatribe on the taxpayer’s dime. Wait until school is out and post to your hearts content. Then and only then will anything you write have any credibility [sic]!
Pudster
I assume my post about WMDs is going through the Goldy bloggerator approver will be #65 or 66.
Pudster
Puddwhacker: That temp. disability of yours is going to run out soon. You should have used your time re-training. There’s going to be a 7/11 burrito party for you when you return to the loading dock.
They can stop them without making a media event of it . amedia event so transparent in its purpose that only a Rep. could not see through it. That’s why the neo-cons chose to work within your party.
It’s been over an hour since I submitted the links to this blog and are not posted so here are the links on WMDs you all missed from the NY Slimes, WA Post with my usually great editorial comments:
“http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323”
“http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html”
“http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html”
“http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040816.shtml”
“http://www.tothepointnews.com/article_print.php?id=466&i=a5441fdc1f3ff5af6440df48ad22aeda”
“http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html”
“http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10111”
“http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15919”
“http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp”
“http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7313”
“http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3774”
Pudster
I have eleven links from nine web sites I have tried to post twice, but I guess the bloggerator will not pass them.
thevanguard–cnews-canoe-ca-cnn–tothepointnews–csmonitor–frontpagemag–nationalreview–americasdebate–capmag all have opposing views to HA on WMDs. Unfortunately I can not get them to you for reading consumption.
Pudster
William F. Buckley jr. believes in the total legalization of all street drugs.
Has everyone here actually read the Downing Street memo?
It’s fair to say President Bush led us into war in Iraq based on the lie that Iraq was a looming threat—an immediate threat, perhaps even the greatest threat—to the United States.
The Memo states:
Bush didn’t know Saddam had no WMDs (Goldy went too far there). Most of us reasonably figured that he did, too. But President Bush did know that even if Saddam had such weapons, they were not threatening the United States the way he said they were. He lied when he exaggerated the danger to America in order to get himself a splendid little war. (Bush also knew there was no Iraq connection to the 9/11 terrorists, and he was consciously lying—intentionally misleading the Nation—when he insinuated that there was, stirring up more fear and anger.)
The Memo continues:
We did exactly that . . . but Saddam eventually blinked and let the UN weapons inspectors back in, unrestricted. Which was where things should have stopped—we’d won! Any threat would be defused. That, however, wasn’t Bush’s predetermined objective; to him, it was as if Saddam had called his bluff instead of giving him a pretext for war. (In the end, it didn’t stop Bush from ordering the inspectors out and invading anyway.)
So yes, President Bush sent American soldiers—brave, honorable young men and women who love this country—to die in the deserts of Iraq based on a lie: that we were in imminent danger and needed to invade the Middle East to protect ourselves.
David: One of my eleven links has this as the first paragraph. Goldy isn’t posting them: “In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.
Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam’s lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items – with UN inspection tags still on them — as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.”
Another link starts with this paragraph:”Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.”
Another link posts this:”ASTANA, Kazakhstan (Reuters) — Russian President Vladimir Putin, in comments sure to help President Bush, declared Friday that Russia knew Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had planned terror attacks on U.S. soil and had warned Washington.
Putin said Russian intelligence had been told on several occasions that Saddam’s special forces were preparing to attack U.S. targets inside and outside the United States.
“After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing ‘terrorist acts’ on the United States and beyond its borders,” he told reporters.
“This information was passed on to our American colleagues,” he said. He added, however, that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam’s agents had been involved in any particular attack.”
But they are not being approved for your viewing. Hmmm…? I wonder.
David, send an email to puddybud at netscape dot net for the links and your eyes will be opened to another point of view not seen in the NY Slimes.
Pudster
Well said.
This is an interesting quote from Putin: “At a summit of G8 world industrialized powers at the U.S. resort of Sea Island last week, where he met Bush separately, Putin stepped into the U.S. campaign by chastising U.S. Democrats for attacking the Republican president on Iraq.
He said they had “no moral right” to do so since it had been the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton that had authorized the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. and NATO forces.”
Where was that in the NY Slimes or our fishrag Seattle Slimes?
Pudster
Did the US have UN approval? Yes.
Did Bush have UN approval? No.
Why do you Reps always take situations that are not in the least comparable and set them up side by side as if they were? And it never ends.
PudDarrell, I’ll wait like everyone else for your post to clear the SPAM catcher. Regarding the excerpts you posted:
UNMOVIC: This “story” appears to be from a guest commentator at GOPUSA.com (the GOP web site; it appears under the title “Opinion Central”). It’s dated June 21, 2004 (about a year old). And it appears to be about the al-Qaqaa failures: The U.S. invaded, and then the IAEA sites were looted. (The theory that Saddam smuggled everything out has been discredited.)
Iraqi WMD in the summer of 2000: Maybe there were some back then. Did you read what I wrote above? The problem wasn’t the question of their existence (which would have been taken care of, because the inspectors got back in with unlimited access), but how the Bush adminstration exaggerated the threat. Also, I’m not persuaded much by your cite to CNSnews.com; CNS might as well stand for “Conservative News Source.” I don’t cite MoveOn.org press releases… Find more credible sources.
Putin and rumors of Iraqi plans to attack the U.S.: Yep, Putin actually said that (also in June 2004). But you cut off the article (titled “Russia ‘Warning’ on Saddam Puzzles U.S.”) too soon! Here’s some more:
And, according to the LA Times:
Oh, but I have to go back to the first article about Putin (the one you quoted), because it had this gem at the bottom that brings us back to topic:
I stand by what I wrote about Bush taking us into war on a lie.
Tiny correction: GOPUSA.com isn’t technically “the GOP website,” it’s a pro-GOP website. “The mission of GOPUSA is to spread the conservative message throughout America.
It sounds like something in favor of pus.
hl @ 80: huh?
David: First off, why is it only the NY Slimes and the WA Going Postal newspapers the only fish rags you approve of reading? I thought you said you were an independent? So you get your independent thought from the Slimes and the Postal? I placed the whole eleven links up for reading. I just took the first paragraphs. I wasn’t going to place the whole article from 11 sites here. It would be too much reading for the slow comprehending donnageddon.
You said:”(The theory that Saddam smuggled everything out has been discredited.)” < -- Where has that been discredited? Please provide the links besides the Slimes or the Postal. I want to see a credible site!!! I could not find one. Are you saying the UNMOVIC lied to the Security Council? For this to be discredited means they lied, right? Uhhhh, David: That quote excerpt:"Bush, speaking in Washington Thursday, strenuously asserted there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda even though the independent September 11 commission reported, a day before, that there was no such evidence of collaboration." is refuted by Lee Hamilton in this quote: "Both the Times and the Post based their reporting on a single paragraph, written by the staff of the September 11 Commission, which conceded a few ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but said there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two. The findings, revealed in the commission's last hearing on June 17, were preliminary, and the apparent rush by some in the press to deny any Iraq-al Qaeda relationship left commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton baffled. “I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this,” Hamilton told reporters. “The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.” Lee, it’s because HA and the MSM hate Bush. Only three HA people have said they detest the beheading of innocent people by Al-Qaeda (or AL Qaqaa).
Now, with the release of the commission’s final report, it is clear what Hamilton and Cheney were talking about. The final report details a much more extensive set of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda than the earlier staff statement. It also modifies the original “no collaborative relationship” description, now saying there was “no collaborative operational relationship” (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And it suggests a significant amount of contact and communication between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden.
Now you introduce the LA Slimes as another credible MSM source? Why is a sin that Putin didn’t tell his stuff to the State Department? So if he didn’t use the State Department it can’t be trusted. Wow!!! So, I stand by my original statements.
Pudster
David, going to break my two post rule. To continue, you said:”UNMOVIC: This “story” appears to be from a guest commentator at GOPUSA.com (the GOP web site; it appears under the title “Opinion Central”). It’s dated June 21, 2004 (about a year old). And it appears to be about the al-Qaqaa failures: The U.S. invaded, and then the IAEA sites were looted. (The theory that Saddam smuggled everything out has been discredited.). Dis credited by whom, the NY Slimes, LA Slimes, WA Going Postal? Are you saying UNMOVIC lied to the Security Council? Are you admitting that they falsified their evidence? Please deliver the link that proves this was discredited.
I stand by my links. Read
frontpagemag . com / Articles / Read Article . asp ? ID = 10111. It is enlightening.
Pudster
Tiny correction: GOPUSA.com isn’t technically “the GOP website,” it’s a pro-GOP website. “The mission of GOPUSA is to spread the conservative message throughout America.
Through the use of man-whores: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
PudDarrell: I said, “The theory that Saddam smuggled everything out has been discredited,” and you asked, “Dis credited by whom, the NY Slimes, LA Slimes, WA Going Postal?”
Actually, it was discredited by the professionals in the Iraq Survey Group. The mainstream media reported the facts that the ISG uncovered (see below). In comparison, what do you bring to the table? Speculation.
The “frontpagemag.com” article you just cited was printed in the Washington Times (oh, they don’t have an agenda or bias, do they?) on October 2, 2003, well before the al Qaqaa debacle had even been publicized. It consists of the opinion and (educated) speculation of a former Romanian spy chief, saying that Iraq’s WMDs were probably destroyed upon our invasion. (Which contradicts your thesis that the weapons were smuggled out of Iraq.) Hey, no facts necessary!
“Please deliver the link that proves this was discredited.”
Happy to. Now, although you would perhaps rather live in fantasyland (right-wing echo chambers) than give credence to the mainstream media (i.e., veteran reporters and news organizations with solid reputations), I’m inclined to take notice when I see something like this on the front page:
That would be the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, the Comprehensive Revised Report with Addendums on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (Duelfer Report). Happy reading. (Note that there was evidence of mostly disorganized looting of various sites after we invaded with too few troops to guard everything.)
Anyway, I think you’re missing the point of what I said (now repeatedly) above. Let me expand it a bit to help you understand: Bush was telling the truth when he stated that Iraq had had (and had used) WMDs in the past; he was most likely bullshitting when he said how certain we were about the exact location of Iraq’s WMDs; and he was lying when he cast them as a looming, huge, imminent threat to the United States (especially after UN inspectors were finally back in Iraq, where they could ensure such weapons were not a threat to any country)—and when he said we had no choice but to invade.
…and when he pushed the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Can’t forget that.
David, I give up on your side. Goldy finally placed my links in posts #66 and #72. Did I say Saddam hid them in Syria? No I did not. So why do you throw the WA Going Postal article up for review? They are known for their love of Clinton and hatred of Bush. You, donnageddon and others decided that Lee Hamilton, ex-democrat from Indiana doesn’t agree with your statements and so he is off the reservation. And yes I have all four parts of the report. After page 100, I stopped reading after page 114, when Deurfer talked about how Saddam arrested his lieutenants children to make sure that they were loyal to him.
http://www.mideastweb.org/inspectionreports.htm is the report I looked at first as it was the last report before the war. I found the real report at a UN sister site UNMOVIC 2004 Security Council report and they do say they are not sure if the weapons got out to Europe before or after. David, the operative words here are not sure. What does your side say? They never had them. Well if the parts got out where did they come from? Iraq? I am willing to concede the not sure part.
Regarding the looming large Iraq problem, I will concede that to you. You tried to discredit that Putin reporting what his people knew he said. Either Putin said it or not. If he was willing to meet the press and say in Feb 2005 that he thought Saddam had weapons also. Do you really think I put my trust in the LA Slimes another Clinton loving newspaper? Just because the speculate on the reason? But wait, are you telling me that Putin was not one of those leaders who wanted John Kerry to become president? David tell me that ain’t so!!! :P
Pudster
Pudster
Rick @ 62:“You’re not the typical idiot wingnut who posts here.”
Well, I’ll take that as a compliment, thanks! :)
“The fact that both resulted in Iraqi deaths is irrelevant when one considers the fact that one was entirely within the bounds of international law while the other, if it didn’t outright break international law, bent it beyond nearly all recognition.”
I think if a loved one died because of actions that were or were not sanctioned by international law, that would be irrelevant to you, but that’s beside the point.
Were you as concerned about international law when we bombed the bejeezsus out of Serbia? What UN resolution authorized that one? Just becuase France & Germany went along with it didn’t make it legal. I wasn’t opposed to the action, as the UN or EU wasn’t doing anything about the situation, but it was against international law.
Look, as Puddy has put it in his abrasive way, (no offense), many other nations were also saying Iraq had WMD, so to say that since we haven’t found them, Bush must of been lying, it just plain wrong. Why would you stake your reputation, not to mention your election chances, on a lie? As the Wikipedia entry for Occam’s Razor says: “In its simplest form, Occam’s Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed.” The President’s intelligence folks told him there were WMD; we didn’t find WMD; therefore the intelligence was wrong. You have to assume a lot to come to conclusion he was lying.
“Regarding the looming large Iraq problem, I will concede that to you.”
Enough said.
John, no offense taken, as I know what you are saying, and I am only abrasive to the lefties. Momma said don’t beat around the bush (unlike Jesse Jackson), Donnageddon and her spawn immediately said GWB was lying, no matter what the real evidence says. Why? They hate GWB. Donnageddon and her spawn have not condemned the beheadings. Why? they hate GWB. Doesn’t that say “Nuff Said!” to you Jon? Now it comes out that John Kerry was more of a dullard at Yale than GWB? Do they care that four Ds freshman year JFK lied? No! Why? They hate GWB. THey forget that GWB has his MBA from Harvard. JFK had to get his law degree from BC becuase Harvard didn’t accept him. So much for full disclosure of form 180 by JFK.
Pudster
Yes David, you extract the one sentence you need to unlock your small intellectual prison, but ignore all of the larger issues. Why would Putin put himself to ridicule in the world press when the world press hates Bush? Maybe he did convey those issues to Bush through “secret channels”? Maybe he was concerned about how we would respond to an attack from Saddam, seeing how we decimated Soviet armor in the 1991 Gulf War and what we did to Serbian defenses powered by Soviet armor? Maybe, just maybe Putin wanted to make more arms sales to his “satellite” friends, and they would balk if they saw the true inferiority of their weapons to US made weaponry?
I remember the English newspapers calling us dummies for voting for Bush. Did we call them dummies for removing Blair’s big cushion in Parliament? No. Did we call the French stupid when Dominique De Villepin was put in as Prime Minister in France? No. So I now fully comprehend your “independent” thought process.
Pudster
Pudster, your comments have been losing sense lately. Some of what you post is gibberish; some is just obsessing about irrelevant details; and some is paranoid speculation.
Sorry to see that.
…