Barnes: Obama not "strong on national security" because he opposed war "when the entire world believed" Saddam had WMD
On the October 6 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, co-host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is "not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is." He explained that when Obama delivered his 2002 speech against going to war with Iraq, "it was back in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point." According to Barnes: "I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be."
From the October 6 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:
MORT KONDRACKE (co-host): What I think is fascinating is the question of whether -- if Obama does well against Hillary, can she not take him, not put him on the ticket as vice presidential running mate? The pressure, especially from African-Americans, will be enormous for her to take him. Now, I don't think she wants to. I'm told that she doesn't really respect him. And I guess what she's hoping is that she can beat him badly enough that she doesn't have to take him and go pick somebody else who can get a state that's in play.
BARNES: Yeah, I doubt that she'll pick him. You know, I've thought for a long time that Obama's not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is. Remember, when he famously came out against the war, it was back in a time when the entire world believed that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point. I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be. But that argument's not going to be used against him in the Democratic primaries. It would, however, by Republicans in a general election.
From Obama's 2002 speech:
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income -- to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Obama has the foresight that rightwingers like Barnes and Kondracke only dream of possessing.
Chumps.
To the extent people in the world "BELIEVED" Saddam had WMD "stockpiled" and ready to use on neighbors, possible invaders, and even deliver across oceans, people got their "factual" information from sources controlled by the Bush White House.
That pre-GW Bush officials believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles and factories was addressed by the Clinton Administration when it launched raids on all known (identified by the best available intelligence, military and otherwise) and suspected weapons sites. They were be biggest bombing raids since VietNam. So, to the extent Clinton believed Saddam's WMD capacity, he took action and DID something about it. This was in 1998.
Of course, the GOP could not have been more DISinterested in terrorism or threats to the USA, they were heavily invested in removing Clinton from office, with a side benefit of crippling President Clinton's ability to act to defend the USA, or indeed pass any legislation to benefit the American People.
So, the INTELLIGENCE chronology was clear. Up TO 1998, any indication of Saddam having WMDs was addressed by a comprehensive bombing campaign aimed at eliminating WMD threat in Iraq. Between 1998 and 2000, our government was focused on removing Clinton from office. In 2001, reports, analysis, and public dissemination of WMD and terrorist information became the province of the Bush Administration.
The record, still being uncovered but fleshed out over the ensuing years, is that the Bush Administration formed policy first (Iraq was to be invaded), and all intelligence information would conform to that goal. Information that was unuseful to that goal was buried, ignored, and kept secret. Information that supported that goal, but that was unreliable, was said to be reliable. And this policy of formulating cherry-picked tidbits of "intelligence" to support an invasion of Iraq was the OFFICIAL OUTPUT of the Bush Administration.
Nobody else ... NOBODY ... had the access to ALL intelligence reports, besides the Bush Administration. Nobody else ... NOBODY ... had the ability to bury some reports, misrepresent others, and even make baseless claims about Iraq's alleged WMD capacity, except the Bush Administration. The ability to CLASSIFY information was held exclusively by the Bush Administration. The ability to block any investigative efforts to determine the truth about Saddam's weapons capacity was held exclusively by the Bush Administration, and they used this blocking power, in the interest of "national security", to prevent any credible reporting about information that contradicted the Bush Administration's official stance.
So, THIS was where the world got its information about Saddam and WMDs: From the Bush White House. From this information, which we now know was almost entirely FALSE ... and which we also now know that the Bush Administration had every opportunity to KNOW was false ... the world's leaders and our own politicians formed their "opinion" about Saddam and WMDs, and also spoke publicly believing information vetted by our own White House had to be the best intelligence possible.
Citing anyone in the world who "agreed" and "believed" that Saddam had WMDs, then, becomes simply reciting the list of people who BELIEVED Bush, and should not have, because BUSH was lying to the world. Quote from people stating they believed Saddam had WMDs in 2001 were based on information provided them by Bush, and Bush cooked the information. These people all believed a liar.
NOW, of course, we all know better than to believe a single thing said by Bush or his Administration.
Well stated, Tex. Now, if we can just get the pampered millionaires posing as journalists to investigate this story....
Here's what the entire world believed.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.europe/
http://www.punchdown.org/rvb/F15/
The point that will keep getting missed is what Obama understood in the first place. It's that regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMD's he was simply not a threat to us. Lots of people have WMD's. The question always is, Are they containable/controllable? If we would ever look at that question instead of the WMD strawman, it becomes blatantly obvious that Saddam was no threat.
Basically they do a bait and switch with Saddam's personality, painting him as some suicide bomber personality. But we all know he was more like a goofy gangster, clutching his riches and cherishing his own pampered butt. He never did anything that threatened his own life. Not really. He wanted to live out his days in his many palaces.
All we need to do is remember that we were actually at war with him in '91 when we know he had WMD's. We were obliterating his army and he STILL didn't use them on us. What changed exactly that we suddenly had to invade and occupy that whole country? It couldn't be any clearer that we invaded because many in the administration wanted us to invade no matter what. All they needed was a bit of hysteria gripping the public in order to launch the thing.
The WMD argument is a colossal strawman. Both sides of the aisle are off base in debating who knew what. Barack Obama knew what anyone could have known. Saddam was no threat. Obama never seems to hesitate to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Wish we had a lot more like him.
Tex:
Given that the Clinton administration left office claiming that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the U.S., your whole argument that Bush lied falls about.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
You offered an interesting argument. Saddam fooled Bill Clinton about his WMD for eight full years. However, George W. Bush, whom you moonbats claim is stupid, immediately figured out that Saddam was bluffing. Instead of sharing this discovery with the American people, he continues with the Clinton administration line that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the U.S. But, somehow, this guy who was smart enough to figure out in a few months what Clinton could not in eight years forgot to plant WMD in Iraq after the invasion.
Great argument there, Tex.
See, here's the difference Kevin.
Clinton thought that he had WMDs, and so he bombed the alleged WMD sites into oblivion, which at the time was decried by republicans as a "wag the dog" campaign to take notice away from the Lewinsky thing going on. Clinton did not, wisely, invade Iraq and take over the country because Saddam might have had WMDs. Also, Clinton did not have the report from UN weapon's inspectors that essentially said they could find no proof of WMDs in Iraq, but hey, let's not forget that Clinton didn't have that same report, because the weapon's inspectors indeed were not allowed into Iraq during Clinton's tenure.
From The You'll Never Read About This Here Dept.
Since we're talking about national security, here's a really interesting decision by Hillary. Makes you wonder what Berger has on the Clintons doesn't it? He must have something, Hillary can't be this dumb. Daily Kos is going nuts over this but I'm sure the leftie apologists here will try to pass it off as nothing.
WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”
Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”
He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment.
Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.
http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html
actually, the "tough review" by clarke was against the bush administration. in general, clarke praised clinton as much more aware. clarke said that when the bushies came back into office after 8 years, it was like they had been "frozen in amber" because they were concentrating on the same things like iraq and missile defense, when the new threat was terrorism.
I think that should actually be filed under the Things that are Off-Topic Department.
I agree! Clinton is irrelevent. The real point that needs to be made is that many observers in the lead up to the war belived that Saddam had next to nothing - including ex weapons inspecter scott ritter. IT IS A LIE THAT SADDAM FOOLED EVERYONE!!!!
Many of the accusations made against saddam's WMD were being debunked before the invasion: aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, mushroom clouds ect...
Also lets not forget weapon inspectors were back in Iraq before the invasion. We were giving them sites to inspect and they all came up dry. Bush, nevertheless was in a big hurry to invade. Now he asks for patience.
didnt staff at the archives say nothing was stolen and in fact berger commited no crime ?
taz, you need to keep up with the news. the clinton campaign, shortly after this "news" item became public, denied, in no uncertain terms, that mr. berger was in any way officially associated with the senator's campaign.
richard clarke excoriated the bush administration's national security failures, not clinton's.
clinton, somewhat hamstrung by a republican congress pissed that he got a blowjob from an attractive young woman, neither his employee nor his wife, was determined to oust him from office. national security wasn't high on the republican's priority list at the time, their lack of sex with good looking young women was.
and really, can you blame them? geez, even newt gingritch, working on his 2nd mistress, and cheating on his 2nd wife, couldn't get a girl in her 20's to go down on him. no wonder he was pissed!
"Clinton thought that he had WMDs, and so he bombed the alleged WMD sites into oblivion, which at the time was decried by republicans as a "wag the dog" campaign to take notice away from the Lewinsky thing going on."
That's wrong on two counts. No one in the GOP leadership accused Clinton of "wagging the dog." Second, Kenneth Pollack, a member of Clinton's national security team, wrote in a 2002 book, "The fact was that only eleven of the ninety-seven targets attacked were WMD facilities because the administration generally did not know were Iraq was concealing its WMD programs."
"Clinton did not, wisely, invade Iraq and take over the country because Saddam might have had WMDs. Also, Clinton did not have the report from UN weapon's inspectors that essentially said they could find no proof of WMDs in Iraq, but hey, let's not forget that Clinton didn't have that same report, because the weapon's inspectors indeed were not allowed into Iraq during Clinton's tenure."
Yes, they were, but Clinton pulled them out after they had been in Iraq for nearly eight years. Hans Blix's team found no proof that Saddam had WMD, but how long were we supposed to give them? If inspectors could not account for Saddam's WMD after eight years, how much confidence could you have that they could account for them in just a few months. As Pollack noted in the same book, "As noted above, there is a consensus among American, British, Swedish, Dutch, and even French former inspectors that it would require twelve to eighteen months just to establish a baseline, let alone actually conduct inspections. And after that, we should never forget that once the inspections were completed we would need to transition to long-term montioring to try to prevent Saddam from reconstituting the WMD programs." (p. 238)
So that is what propagandist Pollack said what did the INSPECTORS SAY?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2829213.stm
It will take several months to check whether Iraq has complied fully with its disarmament obligations, chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix says.
"It will not take years, nor weeks, but months," he told the UN Security Council.
Since THEY were doing the job I think THEY were better equipped to say how long it would take than Pollack who WASNT there and was NOT doing the job
"The fact was that only eleven of the ninety-seven targets attacked were WMD facilities because the administration generally did not know were Iraq was concealing its WMD programs."
These were targets suspected of being WMDs sites. No one knows for sure if those targets were in fact WMDs sites.
Yes, they were, but Clinton pulled them out after they had been in Iraq for nearly eight years.
The inspectors were in there for eight years and Clinton pulled them and bombed suspected sites after the inspectors complained that Saddam was blocking access to certain sites. After the bombing campaign, Saddam accused the inspectors of working in conjunction with the U.S. and Britain in the Bombing campaign and refused to let them back in. The inspectors were re-admitted in 2003.
"As noted above, there is a consensus among American, British, Swedish, Dutch, and even French former inspectors that it would require twelve to eighteen months just to establish a baseline, let alone actually conduct inspections. And after that, we should never forget that once the inspections were completed we would need to transition to long-term montioring to try to prevent Saddam from reconstituting the WMD programs." (p. 238)
So what your saying is that we could have avoided this disaster in Iraq but Bush was hellbent on invading.
'No one in the GOP leadership accused Clinton of "wagging the dog." ' (Kevin)
Kev, you're like a cornucopia of crap.On a slow day, we can go back and find even more layers of your delusions, and then balance that with some reality.
You are a gift.
KEVIN:
That's a TERRIBLE argument. Good thing I didn't MAKE such a terrible argument as you have created out of thin air.
I would suggest you go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote, but that would hint I believed you had a smidgen of ability at reading comprehension.
I'll just let our two posts stand, as a testament to what the typical rightwinger thinks a "rebuttal" looks like.
TEX:
The only thing "terrible" about my argument is that it blew yours completely out of the water.
Not it didnt. In fact it didnt address it at ALL it addressed the strawman argument you were more inclined to argue not the point Tex made. Typical.
No, the straw argument put forth by Tex is that the world took it's cue from the info fed them by the Bush administration - that is ridiculous. Tony Blair would never have joined the Iraq invasion based on Bush alone.........anyone that pushes that idiocy is denying reality.
that's not what the downing street memo said.
So Blair took his country to war based exclusively, as Tex claims, from the Bush White House?
Ah.......ok......fine.
"but the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
No. The British knew that the Bush administration was hell-bent on war and they just hopped aboard. Blair was Bush's b*tch.
Blair took his country to war WITH US based on the fact he was just going to back the US no matter what. The intelligence was irrelevant. It was all about backing the US, nothing else entered into the equation. It wasnt that he was fooled its that he didnt care.
Tony Blair would have joined Bush in invading CANADA if thats what Bush was GOING TO DO. The Downing street memo made clear that they upper echelon of British government was going to back Bush and didnt care SQUAT what the actual intelligence was.
And Tex's reply went right over your head. That seems to be happening a lot, Kevin.
Kevin when one makes a coherent argument one does not need to hype it.
It amazes me that there are still so many chicken-hawk conservatives that still support the failed Iraq invasion. If weakening our military to eliminate these doctored-up "threats" are your idea of national security, then this country can't afford another right-wing president.
Tex, your comment was excellent and instructive. Can you post links to supporting material on that? You make the best case I've seen on that subject yet.
bob
BOB:
I wish to be helpful, so what specifically do you wish sourcing for? My post was a compendium from a vast number of sources, and listing them would be very time consuming (and the usual method is for someone to challenge one or more of may assertions, and then there is a specific to "prove up" in rebuttal.
In this instance, you might note, NOT A SINGLE RIGHTWINGER saw fit to challenge a single assertion of FACT that I made (which was wise, because I dealt only in provable facts!).
So, I'll help in the specific, but will not at this time go into sourcing every single event that went into formulating my posting. Sorry.
"because he opposed war "when the entire world believed" Saddam had WMD"
So Barrack is weak on terror because he was ahead of his time seeing through the bullcrap coming from the direction of the right-wing's "lets-attack-a-country-that-had-nothing-to-do-with-9/11" idealogs....... yeah.....ok....
"when the entire world believed Saddam had WMD'S"
Uh, I remember marching with hundreds of thousands of people on February 15, 2003 who didn't believe the lies.
We were a small percentage of people in the world that marched in every major city on Planet Earth that day. Tens of millions of us didn't believe the lies.
And we marched in Helsinki, and Paris, and Rome, and Stockholm, Sydney, Melbourne, Aukland, London, Brussels, Antwerp, Athens, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, San Francisco, Ney York, Washington, D.C.
Hundreds of millions of us. Calling you liars to your faces.
Uh, didn't remember that, did you? Gone down the rabbit-hole of history? Nuh-uh. History will remember the hundreds of millions of us who didn't believe that Saddam had WMDs.
Just because you say "the entire world believed..." doesn't make us believe it now, any more than it did then.
Liar!
I guess he's somewhat like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Americans who fought for the Spanish Republic in the Civil War of the 1930's. They were excoriated until Pear Harbor, after which they were termed "premature anti-fascists."
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The "Beltway Boneheads" proclaim that everybody thought their lies were true, everybody listen to us before!!
Please tell me whom other than the village idiot would rely on these boneheads for anything?? If you are please look back on their analysis, and history of complete distortions, lies, and completely stupid analysis since 2001 and realize they are not journalists, or pundits, they are propagandist for a FAILED Republican party!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I'm no fan of Barnes or Kondracke, but to say Obama has foresight is ridiculous. Remember his comments regarding Pakistan ? Helloooooo.
Absolutely right. It would be absurd to actually go after Bin Laden and al Qaeda.
What happens to most people once they get to D.C.? Do they enter into a mass mind fog of stupidity and timidity?
These beltway "boys" must have been sprayed with DDT, because they emit toxic fumes.
Hold on a minute Barney..the ENTIRE world did not believe the GREATEST LIE. Guys like you did. Pres Bush and Dick Cheney didn't even believe it.(Back to --would they send in the Infantry to attack a nut who "HAS" and who used WMD's.--- They knew he didn't. For the BELTWAY BOYS...Your BELTS seem to be WAY too high. Unloosen them from your necks, the loss of oxygen is causing you to get dumber as time goes on.
"Unloosen them"
UNloosening them would be a great idea...but it would decrease the oxygen, not increase it!
Hold on a minute Barney..the ENTIRE world did not believe the GREATEST LIE.
( princeofwheels )
FROM SNOPES.COM
"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. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
So Democrats are war-mongering, lying mass murderers too. What's new?
quote: "So Democrats are war-mongering, lying mass murderers too. What's new?"
In November 2000 Sadam Hussein changed reserve currency to the Euro.
UNSCOM inspectors were in the country and had they been allowed to finish their job, there was only one outcome. And that was the UN declaration that he had NO WMDs. And the sanctions would be lifted.
The rulers of the world could not allow that to happen. For two reasons.
1. If Saddam Hussein was allowed to sell Iraqi Oil on the world market, the price of oil would go down.
2. If he was allowed to sell oil on the world market in Euros, then China, Japan, India etc. would not need to keep large amounts of US dollars.
The world bankers could not allow that to happen.
you will notice that most of the clinton quotes are from before december 1998, when clinton launched operation desert fox [see link], a bombing campaign to destroy the sites that saddam has not allowed access to. what he did not do is try a foolish invasion. and sen. bob graham, then head of the senate intelligence committee, voted against the use of force resolution in october 2002, saying he was unconvinced by the bush administration.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/
It was NOT about WMD, but about making sure inspections were stopped so sanctions could continue. The head of the UNSCOM mission was to announce Iraq was WMD-free just prior to be ordered out by the Clinton regime. No inspectors meant more lies about Iraq which meant more sanctions which meant higher oil prices for Saudi profits. Clinton killed for OIL.
"chief u.n. weapons inspector richard butler claims in a report to the u.n. security council that iraq has failed to cooperate fully with his team of arms experts."
"before he received butler's report tuesday, annan indicated that iraq's cooperation had fallen short of his expectations...". not quite what you're saying. the quotes are from a link contained in the link i posted already.
"letter signed by Senator Bob Graham..."
And what was Senator Bob Graham doing on the morning of $9.11?
He was having breakfast with General Mahmoud. Head of the Pakistani ISI.
The very same General Mahmoud who wired $100,000.00 to Mohammad Atta in Delray Beach, Florida in the summer of 2001.
In fact, on the morning of $9.11, both Chairmen of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, Porter Goss who later became head of the CIA, and Senator Bob Graham were having breakfast with the financier of $9.11
Read this.... Why Clinton Is Culpable: Iraq's WMD myth. The guy before Bulter, Rolf Ekeus, was to certify Iraq in compliance with UN resolution 687, but Clinton's gang derailed the process. http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew09292007.html
If a Republican commits a war crime, you scream bloody murder. If a Democrat bombs people, you find excuses. Your "morality" is very selective and very amoral. Frankly, I don't expect you to read that article and to just keep yelling "where's the proof?!" like every other conservative.
frankly, you have no right to make any such assumption that i would not read the article and it's typical of your arrogance that you would say that. here is what ekeus said in 2003 to jim lehrer about his debriefing of saddam's son-in-law in 1995, which is mentioned in the link you posted: "...they [iraq] had taken the decision not to produce during the prevailing circumstances, any new biological, chemical weapons, but instead develop the quality...and small batches of production to develop quality." a couple lines later, he says "they had very much the iranian situation in mind."
so obviously he was saying in 2003 that the weapons they had were destroyed, but they still had the intention of making and using them in an "iranian situation". saddam invaded iran in the 80s, and then when it became clear he might lose the war, then he used chemical weapons on the iranian troops. so there was no assurance that he would not reconstitute his program at any time. and as i quoted u.n. head kofi annan above, he was not satisfied with their level of cooperation. as i said it was foolish to invade. that did not mean trust saddam.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/ekeus_9-22.html
"That night, in three hours of detailed questioning from Ekeus and two technical experts, Kamel was categorical. The UN inspection teams had done a good job. When Saddam was finally persuaded that failure to dispose of the relevant weapons systems would have very serious consequences, he issued the order and Kamel carried it out. As he told Ekeus that night, "All weapons, biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." (The UNSCOM record of the session can ne viewed at http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf). "
Guess you didn't read the article... I figured as much. Anything to protect Clinton the war criminal.
guess you did not read my post. that interview was in 1995 and that is only the word of one person. that does not mean nothing happened after that and as i quoted ekeus, he felt that they had destroyed their actual physical stocks, but decided to work on the "quality" of their existing weapons lines. he makes that very clear in the lehrer interview i provided from 2003. you make your usual unsubstantiated charges. clinton only wanted to keep the sanctions because he wanted to prop up "saudi profits".
Ritter said destroyed, Kamel said destroyed, the evidence from the inspectors said destroyed, the scientists interviewed after the Bush invasion said destroyed, the evidence on the ground says destroyed...all prior to Desert Fox. But if Clinton the war criminal says that's why he bombed, it must be true, right? Defending an unnecessary bombing spree, simply because a Democrat did it. Bad on you.
Clinton is not the issue here. Yea maybe ol' bill has blood on his hands, but this is just a diversion. The issue is that Barnes et al continue the big lie that everyone was fooled in order to provide cover for Bush, who it appears has much much more blood on his hands, as well as treasure down the drain.
This "everyone was fooled" meme won't go away due to the simple fact that media is not doing its job and without accountability this stuff just echos around continually.
you're ignoring what i repeatedly wrote, red. i said that the existing weapons had been destroyed. but what ekeus told lehrer in 2003 is that "my feeling is very clearly that the iraqi policy long before the [2003] war was to build capability to develop it's capability to produce weapons for the conflict situation, not to produce for storage, and create a problem for storage management". in other words, it was not simply a matter of they destroyed all the weapons and that was it. they required more monitoring. and where is your proof that the bombing was done to keep up saudi profits.
to be specific, the sanctions were to protect saudi profits. where is the proof?
A. Iraq was about to be certified in compliance with the UN resolution when Madeleine Albright changed the goalposts to "regime change". Inspectors were then thrown out because of CIA agents infiltrating the inspectors. Eventually they were allowed back in.
B. The monitoring ENDED completely when Clinton and Blair told the inspectors to leave after ONE day of resumed inspections and began bombing the crap out of the place. It was Clinton who DENIED inspectors access to Iraq that day and until the Blix inspections, not Saddam.
C. The ones who benefited most by Iraq's oil fields being severely restricted in output were the Saudis, very big arms customers and very big investors for the USA. They got richer and bought more US arms and stock shares.
So, Clinton and his gang of criminals perpetuated the MYTH of Iraqi wmd programs and drove the inspectors out by their actions. So one regime lied, the next regime lied, all to keep up world oil prices and kill arabs. So Democrats cannot claim Bush lied to them, they began the lies before Bush even came on the scenes.
saddam was not only required by resolutions to destroy all his existing weapons, but that future possible development would be monitored. and as i have pointed out, now for the third time, u.n. chief kofi annan said that iraq had not cooperated. and as for saudi arabia, you're usually arguing that it's israel that is controlling clinton. now it's saudi arabia, an enemy of israel.
"you're usually arguing that it's israel that is controlling clinton. now it's saudi arabia, an enemy of israel."
RedKing said nothing about anyone being CONTROLLED by anyone - he pointed out that the Saudis were the group that most benefited from that action. You can try to refute that, but don't put words in RK's mouth - it's disingenuous at best.
maybe you should actually read the posts carefully before you accuse me of putting words in his mouth. this is him yesterday at 10:03: "no inspections meant more lies about iraq which meant more sanctions which meant higher profits for the saudis. clinton killed for oil." unless i miss my guess, he was saying that clinton did it to benefit the saudis.
make that sunday at 1003pm.
MEFIRST:
You're apparently ignorant of the fact that the Clinton administration continued to say Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the U.S. AFTER Operation Desert Fox in December 2001.
Here are just two press releases from January 2001:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
Yeah they were wrong. How about AFTER the inspectors were IN Iraq going wherever they wanted and putting all the old assumptions in doubt? There were STILL a few dems they were wrong. Hold them accountable what they DIDNT do and what Bush DID do is tell specific and outright lies, like making up an IAEA report that never existed pulling it directly out of his ass and saying it made a claim that was the polar opposite of the IAEA's actual position. Or sending 12 reports to congress saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges AFTER our scientists, OUR EXPERTS in the field said it was unlikely they would be used that way at all even RIDICULING the very idea. One scientist saying there were a lot of things on the market better suited for GCs including aluminum cans.
actually no, kevin. richard holbrooke says in the second link that the u.s. should continue the sanctions as long as saddam had the "potential" to make wmd.
- billiybobjones7678, I realize thast this is a website where you can post anonymously, and I realize that the average dittohead doesn't really have a concept of shame, even face to face, but seriously....
After your straight-up surrender and admission of being full of sh*t this past week, don't you feel the least bit awkward posting here and expecting anyone to take you seriously?
Really, I want to know, Mr registered Democrat/conservative- college logic professor-who-doesn't understand -and-can't even-properly refer-to-a -false-dichotomy?
Do you have any sense of self-worth?
Speaking of false dichotomies, I'm pretty certain what convinced our Federal Government on the topic of naughty Saddam's WMDs was "You're either with us or against us" rather than the aerial photos of pipes and empty desert...
Every ONE of those examples is from BEFORE the inspectors had gone BACK into Iraq, checking into the questionable sites and finding NOTHING, calling all the old assumptions into doubt. Also the CLAIM was the whole world believed Saddam had WMDS. NO they didnt.
http://www.sundayherald.com/34271
The British intelligence source said the best Humint(human intelligence from agents) on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq. 'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there --
The claim is simply FALSE and showing a few Democrats who thought differently doesnt change that at all.
but we all know that the French are well ...the french. Arent they part of the axis of Evil?
(CONT.)"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002."There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[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.
from snopes.com
Why are you posting these comments?
You could ask vysotsk who seems to understand!
What you posted are beliefs and I don't fault anyone for their beliefs. If Bush said he believed in Santa Claus, my reaction would be: "Oh, that's cute. But if he turned around and said he's sending out the army in full force to catch the guy who has been breaking into homes every Christmas, my reaction would be totally different.
Let me be the first to inform you that those people you quoted do not comprise "the entire world." Obama was far from the only one unsatisfied with the administrations rationale(s) for war.
Hans von Spennik, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, wrote in 2001: "Iraq today is no longer a military threat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence."
In January 2000, Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, told President George Bush: “Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors found no evidence of nuclear weapons in 2002.
I could go on, but what would be the point? WMD's haven't been found, and yet the Bush administration's defenders today perversely claim that those who opposed the war were then and are now wrong and weak on national security precisely because they turned out to be right.
I'm sure you could go on. But then I could cite more evidence about how most of the intelligence services in the world agreed that Saddam had WMDs.
The point, of course, is that Bush and his administration were hardly alone in their views about the threat posed by Iraq.
And if people are going to criticize GWB, they had better be fair and note that most of the leading Dems were in agreement.
You've only succeeded in proving that Dems can be lied to too.
I'm sure you could go on. But then I could cite more evidence about how most of the intelligence services in the world agreed that Saddam had WMDs.
The other intelligence agencies had no way of knowing if Saddam still possessed the weapons he had acquired during the eighties and that's why they wanted the inspectors in Iraq. And if the other intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had WMDs, why the big presentation by Colin Powell in front of the UN Security Council?
The point, of course, is that Bush and his administration were hardly alone in their views about the threat posed by Iraq.
Agreed, the Bush administration enjoyed the company of a great many who were tragically incorrect, including the Democrats you listed -- Democrats who deserve harsh criticism for not listening to war's opponents.
Again, though: how does this reflect badly on Obama's judgment with respect to national security?
They had company who were wrong, but, two important allies--France and Germany believed there were no WMD. The right wing sicked their machine on them (remember Freedom Fries, Freedom toast, etc?) and soon the nuts fell from the trees to get as many of our soldiers killed as possible. Yet, you think Democrats should be treated harshly.
I've said this before: You guys might as well say "We're Republicans--we're a bunch of f*ck-ups, so since Democrats didn't stop us, they're to blame."
You might also include in this list our Canadian neighbors who were also not convinced that Iraq posed an imminent threat to us and refused to join the coalition of the willing (to be fooled).
Don't forget Russia:
VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data which would support the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And we have not received from our partners such information as yet."
I'm really embarrassed now. Considering my name, how could I have forgotten Mother Russia?
Hey VYSOTSKY, don't forget that Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell also said Saddam Hussein was not a threat and didn't have WMDs, in Febuary of 2001.
Ah, yes, but that was in February of 2001, and the world changed after September 11th of that year, or hadn't you heard? Following 9/11, the speed of light was reduced by 1/3rd, the force of gravity was increased by two percent, the diameter of Earth's orbit contracted by a quarter of a million miles, and silly concepts like diplomacy and fact-checking were obsolesced. So you can't possibly hold Powell and Rice to their pre-9/11 statements, since their validity officially expired on the morning of September 12th.
VYSOTSKY,
It sounds as if your trying to make another tie-in that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 with this latest post of yours......
Don't you think its about time that you guys give up that lame line?
Saddam was scum and deserved what he got, but it was done based on what is now known to be lies and distorted cherry-picked intellegence.
This alone is a war crime if there ever was one that was committed in our name!
Do you like the idea that America is becoming no better than the tyrants that we claim to hate?
That we as a people seem to be willing to turn away from the very ideals that make this country great? Liberty, Freedom, the Bill of Rights.....
Do you like that we American's now seem to have little care that our government tortures! As tempting as it may be to get even, by lowering ourselves to this level, how can we possibly claim to be the good guys?
I want to get the bad guys too! But not to the destruction of our Constitution, the ignoring of Habeas Corpus and the Rule of Law!
If we keep allowing these crimes against humanity to keep taking place in our name, we are just as guilty as those that are pulling the strings!
You think there's any chance God would let any of us into heaven if we keep this up?
"It sounds as if your trying to make another tie-in that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 with this latest post of yours......
Don't you think its about time that you guys give up that lame line?"
Captain: I agree with the sentiments expressed in your post but, with respects, I'd suggest Vysotsky was being facetious (though I know factually that the speed of light did change after 9/11).
Dear Captain,
Do you actually think that I believe that the laws of physics changed on September 11th as well? I really didn't think that I needed to state overtly that I was being sarcastic, but for the record: I was mocking the position of those who claim that all the rules changed after 9/11. Please read my other posts if you have any doubts about my position on this. In the meantime, I'd suggest that you direct your outrage at someone who disagrees with you.
Sincerely,
-V
V,
I humbly appologize for spouting off in your direction.
You are right when you say that it is nearly impossible to know when one is being sarcastic.......
My post stands as I say it, to those that do think that way.
But to you, again, I'm sorry for jumping toward you on this, I should have noticed the sarcasism in your post and failed to read some of your past ones to have known better......
But the way the right-wing goes off on their tantrums, its hard to take the needed deep breathe before proceeding.
CaptFoster
Apology gladly accepted, Captain, though I feel I should take some responsibility here. The scary thing is that my post was only slightly more absurd than those of genuine supporters and rationalizers of the Bush administration's phenomenal foreign policy blunders. These are troubling times when parody and satire resemble reality.
Very true, Vysotsky. It's happened to me on this site. What I thought was a completely over-the-top absurd satire of right-wing logic has been answered with dead earnest arguments.
And just as I was wondering how anybody could have taken it as serious, some dittohead posts with the same comments that I made as a joke. I've learned to be more careful.
And I just cited The Sunday Herald showing the British claiming the French had the best intelligence in the region and they did NOT believe it.
I could cite more evidence about how most of the intelligence services in the world agreed that Saddam had WMDs. (billy surrendermonkey)
Funny that your "world opinion" on the subject is made up of quotes from before the Bush administration, and (American) people who got their info. from the same.
You're not having a very good week, are you, professor?
You only prove the point that our country is sick from within, when propaganda can be so strong the even elected leaders are certifiable idiots. I knew, as did millions of others, that Bush was lying about everything. The fact that some - even Democrats - believed his lies is a pox on them - something they will have to answer for.
The question you need to ask yourself is this: What are you getting out of this? What is it you find satisfying about arguing about history while men and women and children are dying today and will be tomorrow? How does this satisfy you? How does this allow you to sleep more soundly?
You have no idea what is important and are therefore no more than a child. Children should be seen but not heard. Silence thyself. Listen. Learn. Be important instead of a raving, whining, cry-baby.
Most of those comments that BJ posted were beliefs based upon what Saddam did in the past. When the inspectors were allowed unfettered access before the Iraq invasion [and nothing was being found], all that rhetoric about Saddam having WMDs should have stopped and for the most part it did. But that didn't stop an administration hellbent on invading an unarmed nation.
When the inspectors were allowed unfettered access before the Iraq invasion
Somehow I just do not remember Sadam being that cooperative with the inspectors.
Saddam allowed the inspectors to investigate any site they wanted and they couldn't find anything. The inspectors were given a list by the Bush administration of suspected WMDs sites and they couldn't find anything. The inspectors were pulled by the Bush administration and the invasion was commenced.
Then you've got a selective memory.
Do some research on Saddam's treatment of the inspectors. I think you'll find that this neocon notion that they were constantly frustrated is an abject fantasy.
Saddam was hardly able to hide anything from anyone.
Yeah. What Loonz said...
IF you had read what the inspectors THEMSELVES SAID, like a lot of us lefties did you would have KNOWN that they were encountering NO obstruction and going where ever they wanted unanounced.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm
Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites, 44 of which were new. All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival. The UNMOVIC has identified and started the destruction of approximately 50 litres of mustard declared by Iraq.
In assessing the degree of Iraq’s cooperation with the inspection process, the report makes a distinction between cooperation on “process” and cooperation on “substance”. In general, Iraq has been helpful on “process” and has, from the outset, satisfied the demand for prompt access to any site. Regarding cooperation on “substance’’, the report notes that the declaration of 7 December has not been found to provide new evidence or data that may help to resolve outstanding disarmament issues.
BILLIY:
Somehow, we are not surprised that you are willfully ignorant.
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector wrote the book "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know " before the war, oulining how defanged saddam was.
This was written in Sept 2002 and accurately described an Iraq without WMD's or a connection to Al queda.
Of course this was pretty much ignored before the war so everyone just remembers what Rush, Hanity, BO and the administration was saying and therefore "everyone" was fooled.
What is it with you right-wingers? I've seen you guys peddle that exact same snopes article countless times, while always leaving out the part immediately after the quotes where it explicitly says this:
"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 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 General 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."
Then, of course, it proceeds to show the context for most, if not all of those quotes.
And no offense, but what's with the other Libs here not even bothering to check the link out before just taking the guy's post at face value?
Just from paying attention to regular news I was not convinced. I thought it was pretty obvious that the WMD thing was not really germane to Bush's decision.
Donald Rumsfeld..."We know where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are, we just can't find them." That about sums up the entire thinking process of this Administration.
The thing from SNOPES.com is good, some TalkJock here in Pittsburgh reads it everytime his beloved Republan Party is behind the 8 ball. Could you possibly supply quotes from these same people a few years and many deaths later? I believe that some of them have admitted they were wrong. Ooops, no one is permitted to change their minds. But back to square ONE, OBAMA never change his mind. Come to think of it, if the Joe Wilson wasn't around...ahhhh, forget it. I didn't see any of his quotes in the Snopes thing.
Yogi Berra: "We may be lost but at least we are making good time"
No matter how you try to include all the Senators in the problem, Bush and company are the liars in this mess. They are the ones who controlled the intel aparatus and made all those horrible, untrue statements about Sadaam. The facts are clear. The UNSCOM inspectors had not found one bit of evidence about WMDs. There was no rush to start this war except by the administration. It is more likely that Bush, out of some psychological need to outdo his daddy, took us to war based on a big fat lie.
Bleat all you want to, this administration is responsible for this mess. That some Democrats and Republicans tumbled to their lies probably reflects on their ability to know a lie when they hear oine, but in the end, this Administration is responsible for their war mongering that precipitated this war.
"Remember that time Barack was right when everyone else was wrong? Because he was right, that means he's wrong on national security."
How can you even believe the words coming out of your own mouth?
what would a WMD be definied as? would it be a weapon that could be used to kill tens of thousands of people? because Saddam had bio-chemical weapons locked away in underground bunkers that a single one could kill that many people. also that was one of the reasons of the war, whereas the other was that fact that Saddam helped Osama. people believe that is true, but someone who funds Osama's terrorist group, has his officials meet face to face with Osama, and creates a save haven for Osama, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorists groups wouldnt be considered a helpful hand? Saddam was one piece of the terrorist puzzle that has been completed. but of course many people would not know that because all they listen to is the midea. I'm sorry to say but you people need to stop basing your own opinions on what you hear in the media and find someone that can give you the whole truth and not the bits and pieces of each side. any type of liberal or conservative media (CNN=liberal and Fox News= conservative) are not going to give you the complete coverage on the war. Those of you who also believe that this is a "holy war" between Bush (who is a stated Christian) and muslims are incorrect. we saved a whole group of muslims that were being terminated by Saddam and his followers. Saddam had the capabilities of being a Hitler in our time but thanks to our soldiers we stopped him before he could cause damage throughout the world. we now just have to keep his followers and those who want to destroy freedom under control.
The silly propaganda you just posted here is flat out wrong and frankly ridiculous. Iraq did NOT have chemical weapons that is a lie. Check out Kay and Duelfers reports for yourself. Meetings do NOT constitute anything but keeping an eye on each other. The CIA used to have meetings with the KGB. Doesnt mean they were taking long walks in the moonlight. The Senate intelligence comittee looking into this very thing said the exact opposite of your delusionary post. That there was NOT collaborative relationship between al Queda and Iraq. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Your post was one long delusional fantasy.
Whenever the Righties decide to attack Obama for his so-called weakness on National Security like these two bums have, they should be forced to read the entire speech. What are the odds of the Right-wingees reading an entire speech? Does anyone think Rush (Mr. Edit) would edit this speech?
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
Right there, Obama nailed it.
Bush was not willing to let inspectors finish their job, had he done so he would have learned what Obama already knew. There were no WMD's, & no imminent threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors.
But Bush never cared about learning the truth.
He just did what the BOYS told him to do. And that is his LEGACY.
"And remember, when Copernicus put forth a theory of a sun-centered cosmology, this was at a time when the whole European world believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe. And yet, Copernicus was going against them at that point. I don't think that shows that he is very strong on astronomy..."
"I am in favor of dumb wars." --BilliyBobJones7678
Feb 6, 2002: George Tenet testifies that Iraq is still a concern, but threat from North Korea or Iran is greater. He testifies that Saddam still wants to reconstitute its nuclear program, but there is no evidence that he is doing so right now.
July 2002: Senator Bob Graham requests report from the intelligence community about the threat from Iraq because no official report had been created that validated the numerous charges seen in the news.
July 23, 2002: DSM: Prime Minister's Meeting, 23 July, 2002. The minutes of a top-secret meeting reveal that Bush had decided to go to war against Iraq and Britain will help provide evidence to sell the war to the world.Matthew Rycroft, Downing Street, foreign policy aide, Times, UK, May 1, 2005. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Late Sept 2002: Senator Bob Graham requests that the NIE report get declassified so it can be released to the public. He says that the report the committee saw made clear that Iraq was not an imminent threat based on all available evidence.
Oct 1, 2002: Tenet produces a declassified National Intelligence Estimate which does not contain any of the nuances or caveats included in original report.
Oct 7, 2002: Tenet reports that the CIA can declassify further parts of the Iraq threat report but that still avoids providing the caveats or disputed points.
Recapping: George Tenet testifies in early Feb that Saddam is not worth worrying about. Senator Bob Graham who was the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee does not hear any secret evidence coming before his committee that indicts Saddam is actively reconstituting a Nuclear program (the newspapers are full of these reports) and asks that the CIA produce that NIE Kevin discussed to provide the evidence that Saddam really is rebuilding a nuclear program. The classified NIE was filled with all kinds of caveats and disputed points that indicated the evidence was very bad. Graham asks that the CIA provide a declassified version that shows how shaky the evidence really is and they don't.
Meanwhile in the UK, surely Blair's cabinet had all the real evidence of how dangerous Saddam was, but what do we find out they knew? That Saddam was less of a threat than his neighbors. So much for the British also believing Saddam was an imminent threat.
In September 2002, Scott Ritter stepped in the path of the White House’s PR blitz, challenging the administration and quickly becoming one of very few prominent critics of the looming war. In a Chicago Tribune op-ed (9/10/02), Ritter exposed a deception on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney that should have sent reporters scurrying to catch up. Cheney claimed in an August 2002 speech (8/26/02) that the Iraqi regime had been “very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents,” and continued “to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago.” To back this up, Cheney added, “We’ve gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors, including Saddam’s own son-in-law”—a reference to Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former Iraqi weapons chief and Iraq’s highest ranking defector. (See Extra!, 5–6/03.)Ritter pointed out that Cheney was omitting an inconvenient part of Kamel’s story: Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a U.N. special commission, Hussein Kamal reiterated his main point—that nothing was left. “All chemical weapons were destroyed,” he said. “I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.”
Lets see here....Obama....no military service or experience, Clinton....no military service or experience, Edwards....no military service or experience.... I think a national health care plan would be a good idea under a Democrat president... if Amadinajihad gets his way and follows up on his promises many Americans are going to need it......right here in the good old USA.
So your belief is that Ahmadinejad is trying to get you?
Lets see here.....Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.... no military experience, Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney..... no military experience, but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30 day month mission to France, Fred Thompson…… no military experience.
We will never get health care for all Americans, but another ill-advised war without diplomacy......almost guaranteed (if Junior hasn't beaten them to the punch).
What promises are those? The ones you just pulled out your...?
Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Quinn, Kristol, ...
Did I miss anyone? Of course! Every conservative who wanted this war so badly. EVERY ONE! OK, there was that Powell guy, but he was swiftboated by his own party.
Kerry... what happened the real war hero? Maybe real war heros are afraid to run for fear the chickenhawks convince their sheeple that they are really not heros.
Its time every single person with common sense (that would be us, the majority of the people who did not want this war, want GWB & Co to be ousted, etc) start to raise our voices.
What now, chickenhawks? You want to know who is wearing a flag pin?
What about Oliver North, David Hunt, and John McCain? Did you forget about them?
Now what would Ollie North know about arms in foriegn countries?
*( Rinohunter sitting quietly in the corner, twiddling thumbs)* Zing!
He (North) knows a lot about selling arms to a foreign country (Iran). Just ask Reagan or Bush (41).
You are SOOO brainwashed. At least Bush had serious experience DODGING military service. There is no such thing as a Democrat President there are DemocratIC presidents and ReNAMBLAcan presidents
Thanks for displaying your cowardice and stupidity. Let's see..GW Bush: went AWOL after securing sopt in the national guard to avoid service; Dick Cheney: no military experience and 5 deferments to avoid service; Condi Rice: no military service; not a clue; Rudi Giuliani: No military service; Mitt Romney: no military service; has his kids stump for him and claims its a substitute for military service. Shall I go on troll? As far as your pants-pissing over Iran, if you really think that country has any remote hope of posing a serious threat to the US you need to go live under your mommy's bed so she can be there to change your diapers when you soil them. Why are right wingers such faubulists and cowards?
if Amadinajihad gets his way and follows up on his promises ... - FreakyTroll
Here's a reality check for you: Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority under the Iranian constitution to act against the US. In Iran the president doesn't control the military. The president doesn't conduct foreign affairs. The president doesn't control any nuclear program they may or may not have going. The president of Iran's primary area of influence is domestic policy.
Ahmadinejad is a blowhard, full of bluff and bluster playing to his political base. They like to hear him say the things that make American neocons wet their pants, but his words are simply words. They don't actually represent a threat to the US.
Whew...I feel much better now...
A rational person should when relieved of an uncomfortable delusion.
So says Nevil Chamberlin you re-visionist pee-brain. You dare to call US cowards when we are looking at what people in power SAY, point blank they are going to do to us and Isreal. WE ARE CONNECTINT the dots you bafoon. If we do it your way we wait for a mushroom cloud over Isreal and then say, " Why didn't we know Iran was going to do that?" Why didn't Bush do something, millions dead, it's ALL Bush's fault... You guys SO easily forget history. Oh, that's right, you wnet to be brain washed in some Lib university but some Commie Prof. that re-write history to make America look like the great evil empire, instead of the LIBERATOR it has been. If we DO NOT act, and Isreal or some US city gets hit, what then ? PLEASE answer that one question. I'd rather, this time, error on the worried side and not WAIT till it goes boom. I take folks at their word, Death to America IS what the radical Muslims want, the tell us so over and over and over. But some refuse to believe.
MGARNETT wishes to give us a history lesson: PART I:
MG: “So says Nevil Chamberlin (sic. Neville Chamberlain) you re-visionist (sic) pee-brain (sic).”
RESPONSE: Neville Chamberlain famously ignored a growing threat that was marked by the unprovoked invasion of a series of sovereign nations. The PARALLEL in this instance is the USA invading Iraq, in a “pre-emptive” strike. Drawing parallels only works if there are clear similarities (such as Germany’s enormous build-up of war-making machinery, not seen in Iraq.)
MG: “You dare to call US cowards when we are looking at what people in power SAY, point blank they are going to do to us and Isreal. (sic)”
RESPONSE: America saw Nikita Khrushchev famously claim “WE WILL BURY YOU!” By your “logic,” America should have simply invaded immediately, at great cost in lives, treasure, and perhaps EVERYTHING (if we lost). Instead, we adopted a non-confrontational COLD WAR which we won without firing a shot. HISTORY is not your friend, MGARNETT, when promoting warmongering over any other avenue.
MG: “WE ARE CONNECTINT (sic) the dots you bafoon (sic).”
RESPONSE: If anything, this Administration has a dire malady of seeing spots before its eyes. Time and again, those “spots” were illusions, delusions, or fabrications … so suggesting a “connecting of dots” is a GOOD plan, is ludicrous. It’s insane to bet BLOOD on such a scheme.
MG: “If we do it your way we wait for a mushroom cloud over Isreal (sic) and then say, "Why didn't we know Iran was going to do that?" Why didn't Bush do something, millions dead, it's ALL Bush's fault. You guys SO easily forget history.”
RESPONSE: Two occasions, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On both occasions, any feeling that the president should have “seen it coming” was completely overwhelmed by support and a coming together of the American People rallying around the Leader. The only way to prevent a possible “mushroom cloud” is to attack and kill every single human being that MIGHT have or be able to obtain the makings of a nuclear device to use against a perceived enemy. Barring this particular type of genocide (which would span the globe and result in MILLIONS dead – and mostly INNOCENTS), we all understand that such an attack is POSSIBLE, so all we can do is work through intelligence, cooperation with other nations, and good police work to make such a scenario improbable. If it happens, nobody will blame the president (unless he or she was DEMONSTRABLY NOT doing their job of vigorously pursuing peaceful avenues such as diplomacy).
The other insanity is to believe that an operation like 9/11 cannot possibly take place as long as our troops are on the ground in Iraq. What in the world would anything going on in Iraq do to prevent such an attack by a small terrorist cell here? Not a damned thing, is the answer.
MGARNETT wishes to give us a history lesson, PART II:
MG: “Oh, that's right, you wnet (sic) to be brain washed in some Lib university but some Commie Prof. that re-write history to make America look like the great evil empire, instead of the LIBERATOR it has been.”
RESPONSE: The United States is a World Power with enormous capabilities. That power is not GOOD or BAD, it exists. How that power is USED, with wisdom or ignorance, with foresight of short-sightedness, with deliberation or haste … determines if that use of power will be seen as GOOD or EVIL. It doesn’t take a “Liberal Professor” to tell an intelligent people that every action taken in their name will have consequences, and will be judged on the particulars of TRUTH and REALITY. For example, GW Bush said invading Iraq was justified to eliminate the threat of WMDs held by Saddam. IN REALITY, Saddam had no such WMDs. HISTORY (not Liberal Professors), will show a WAR that was instigated on FALSE PREMISES. Such a war is WRONG, by all moral guidelines, universal to civilized peoples. Your notion that anything the USA DOES is “GOOD”, by definition, disconnects you from your own soul, from reasoning power, from the ability to judge between right and wrong, from morality and decency and any claim on humanity. You are rendered incapable of judging ANYTHING on its true merits; your mind has already been closed to anything but blind fealty.
MG: “If we DO NOT act, and Isreal or some US city gets hit, what then? PLEASE answer that one question.”
RESPONSE: We will respond, HOPEFULLY with more wisdom and success than GW Bush has been able to muster. For a proper response, one that makes America safer, and one that unites the world against “evildoers,” we will need a different, BETTER President. We cannot, and SHOULD not, embark on a “pre-emptive” crusade to kill every possible threat, every potential enemy, in the world. This “DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT’S WRONG” idea is completely WRONGHEADED and bereft of rational thought.
MG: “I'd rather, this time, error (sic) on the worried side and not WAIT till it goes boom. I take folks at their word, Death to America IS what the radical Muslims want, the tell us so over and over and over. But some refuse to believe.”
RESPONSE: WE BELIEVE that there are indeed people in the world who not only wish America harm, but are willing to sacrifice their own lives bringing damage to America. We also realize that those particular people are not a nation, nor a state, nor even a region. They are small groups of fanatics (criminals) who are spread out in the world, operating in secret in over 60 separate nations. Combatting the threat they pose is not to be solved by military invasions and regime changes. We need to take them out, systematically, through intelligence, cooperation with other nations, hard police work and then surgical strikes by special forces. You do not rid your house of cockroaches by burning the house down. It WORKS, but it is infinitely insane in its overreaction. You advocate such overreaction, and you are infinitely WRONG.
Typical revisionist history again Tex, you are a lier. Period. Here is your answer to part of my questions / statments:
Tex wrote:
RESPONSE: Two occasions, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On both occasions, any feeling that the president should have “seen it coming” was completely overwhelmed by support and a coming together of the American People rallying around the Leader.
My point: The ENDLESS investigations by the Congress into what did Bush know, when did he know it, the 911 Commision all blaming Bush. Tyoical of you to only tell part of the story. People remember that Bush was raped for being asleep at the wheel and NOT connecting the dots and not reading the daily briefs.
*** For the sake of this post will say that Bush was TOTALY wrong about the threat of 911 accuring, he DID NOT pay attention to the signs, he missed the dots, he is a dumb redneck and a idiot.
Could it be that THIS TIME he IS paying attention to the warning sign like a SITTING DICTATOR telling the entire world that HE WILL DESTROY ISREAL and KILL AMERICANS.
Maybe he is getting someone that CAN read to read the daily briefs to him, (since he's too stupid to read), maybe they ARE finaly paying attention ?
Is this possible ?
When and if any attack happens AGAIN, as apposed to the lie Tex stated, Bush will be BLAMED for ignoring all the signs, being asleep at the wheel, being an idiot and failing to connect the dots.
Tyoical lib spin from Tex, but the facts show the truth.
NO either you are a LIAR or a MORON. There was NO investigation into the use of intelligence by Bush. THAT never happened. You are so brainwashed you just spew out what you WISH were true. You live on Planet Wingnut where reality has no ability to penetrate the atmosphere. Tex was RIGHT and YOU are a moron.
You dont have to try so hard to show you are a complete moron without the intellect God gave a common earthworm. You have already shown this is true. Regurgitating Limborg talking points without the slightest connection to reality isnt really saying anything RANT away moron. If you ever get around to having something to say TO us instead of AT us, get back to us until then dont miss the shortbus when it stops at your house.
I assume, then, that you were a big Wes Clark supporter in 2004 based on your belief that the more military you are, the better capable you are to run the country.
By the way, just your mention of Ahmadinijad scared me so much, I went out and built a bomb shelter out of flag pins in my back yard. I feel much safer now.
I'm trying to come up with a way to make this sentiment more idiotic. I'm drawing a blank.
The fact that Barak Obama was against the war from the beginning shows that he "smart" on national security. You can't just be "tough" but you have to be "smart" as well.
In fact, this is almost like saying that Galileo was not "strong" on astrology because at a time when "the entire world" thought Earth was the center of the universe (or at least the solar system), Galileo opposed that idea.
Really liked your idea, except you meant to say astronomy - not astrology.
Just sayin...
Yep! I just looked it up and you're totally right. Thanks!
I have few responses to this:
Not only was Obama smart enough to oppose the war from the beginning,he was only leading Democratic candidate to do so.
Back in the bad old days when Saddam Hussein was our friend he got a lot of his weapons of mass destruction from the US government to aid in his war with Iran. This deal was brokered by none other than Donald Rumsfeld.[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Chavez, you're making the zombies cry ! Stop that!
Which brings up the question. What's worse a damp zombie, or a stiff idiot.
Speaking of which. I much impressed with Billy's vetting of the Federalist Society. Two hours max for a clean bill of leagal health. I confess I'd still be considerring who and what to dig deaper into at that point.
I suppose it is a marketable skill.
Can somebody explain to me the concept of the Beltway Boys? There are two pro-republican, pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-democrat conservatives - Barnes has been one for many years since he took Pat Buchanan's place on the McLaughlin Group and Kondracke has directly stated on the Beltway Boys that he stopped being a Democrat in 1975, after the Democratic congress cut off Vietnam War funding. It's clear that there aren't any balanced conservative Republican-progressive Democrat formats on any station but this show is really a cartoon parody of fair and balanced. Heads I win - tails you lose.
The entire world did not believe that Iraq had WMDs. England was the only country to stand with us because everyone else knew why we wanted to attach them. I actually was hoping that we found something because otherwise, I had to realize we went to war for oil or personal interest which I didn't want to believe for a second, but that is exactly what happened and what I was afraid of. Also, Obama said he was opposed to dumb wars like this one! Obama knew Iraq was a huge mistake. He said we should be after the terrorists that now occupy the Pakistan mountains. We are responsible for the deaths of 700,000 Iraqis that had nothing to do with 911. That makes me feel horror and shame.
When the war was beginning, I hoped for the sake of our country's world standing that we would actually find something that represented a threat. However, I didn't actually expect to.
What I expected was that after the government had fallen we would find some old, degraded stores of chemical weapons (I thought finding biological or nuclear programs was highly unlikely) that had been hidden. I then expected the right-wing spin machine to kick into high gear over-hyping these finds to pretend they were of great significance, kind of like how they over-hyped that canister containing faint traces of old, degraded sarin gas. I truly believe that the administration expected something similar they could point to as justification and was surprised that they found virtually nothing.
I don't believe this administration truly believed Iraq represented a significant threat to the US or to its neighbors.
BILLJ:
Iraq posed a serious threat to American interests, oil companies who coveted access to Iraq's oil fields.
An invasion was required to allow the exploitation of Iraq's natural resources to commence, and there was NO DOWNSIDE. After all, the all-volunteer military VOLUNTEERS to die for the greater glory of American industry's bottom line.
Tex -
I fear that if they had found the remnants of old programs that they could have over-hyped then there would truly have been no downside as far as the neocons are concerned. I think they would still have the support of a number of their followers who have abandoned them in light of the facts.
They're only suffering now because the colossally huge degree to which they were wrong.
I think it's apparent, if you read books like "Hubris", that the NeoCons thought we could annex Iraq as a defacto American colony, exploit it's oil and use it as a foothold to transform the Middle East into a capitalist utopia. I think some of these idiots still believe we can do that. Unfortunately, they were able to draq President Numbnuts along by the nose, and convinced him that he was doing something for which they'd add his smirk to Mt. Rushmore.
I hate to admit it, but it's possible that Bush didn't lie, but believed all the crap that Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were feeding him. Lies were told, no doubt, but it is a possibility that George W. Bush was not so much dishonest, but just stupid.
Then, again, if Rush Limbaugh is right, and Bush is much smarter than we think...we could safely assume that he really did lie.
Dishonest of stupid...we report, you decide.
That should be "dishonest OR stupid".
No, I think it's actually "dishonest and stupid," isn't it?
So the big question is, was Bush stupid or dishonest?
Gee, it gets tough when both options are so easy to believe.
So the big question is, was Bush stupid or dishonest? Gee, it gets tough when both options are so easy to believe"
You forgot the third option: both
After all, they aren't mutually exclusive
That's an excellent point.
Tony Blair and his Government may have stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush, but don't EVER think for one minute that the people of England, or the United Kingdom to be more precise, were behind that stand. We held the biggest anti-war rallies that this country has ever seen and most people did not believe for one second that the UN Inspectors were given the opportunity to fulfill their UN madate.
I'm sure Blair had his reasons...maybe the BBC will get to the bottom of it, since our worthless lapdog press corps seems unwilling to open that can of worms.
I heard today that the British have announced another big troop withdrawal from Iraq. Will Puddinhead George still insist that this is a "multinational effort"?
It's smoke and mirrors. Gordon Brown needs to distance himself from Tony Blair, we already had a similar announcement last week in a cynical press conference from Basra. He was attempting to pull headlines away from the Conservative Party conference but it backfired quite spectacularly (at last!).
David Cameron: "You promised a thousand of our troops would be brought back before Christmas - but isn't it the case that 500 of them had already been announced and 270 of them were already back in the country?"
It does appear that today's announcement goes a bit further, but I really believe that this is just to try to recover from the disastrous last week in his political life.
Nothing infuriates me more than when I hear a rightie say the whole world thought Saddam had WMD. No they did not, particularly world wide intelligence agencies who dismissed some of our evidence of WMD before Powell even made his infamous speech at the UN. More needs to get out in the MSM about the avaliable information that disputed the yellow cake, the nuclear threat, the aluminum tubes, the drones etc. available before we went to war.
This may be the best distillation of why MMFA is necessary. According to this numbnuts "journalist", Obama is unworthy to be president because he wasn't stupified by the shameless jingoism fostered by the NeoClowns' war propaganda. I realize that, to some Conservative Neanderthals, shooting first and asking questions later is a virtue. Well, that may work in old John Wayne movies, but this ain't the wild west, and going to war isn't the same as a barroom brawl, or a football game, or a Hollywood cavalry charge. It would actually be refreshing to have a President who isn't so easily fooled, and who isn't a dumbass like our current Moron in Chief, and who has the intelligence to know the difference between "self defense" and starting an unnecessary war.
This is the most rediculous bunch of bull fodder I've ever heard.
What in the world would make you think that he is weak on security when the rest of the world thought Sadaam had WMD.
Nobody in the African American Urban communities, who have been lied to repeatedly for the last forty years, thought these guys were telling the truth.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool this Race ever again. Those that do support this war, are usually the Gay or warmongering brats, who never did anything by play soldier.
My husband and I said "Watch George go to Iraq after Sadaam, to avenge his DADDY, and he did.
Hans Blitze the Nuke Inspector screamed it on the media, weeks before George told them to get out or the can't be responsible for their safety.
And as far as Obama hooking up with Hillary's ticket, the man has morals.
Something neither Clinton seems to respect. Why tie a cement baggage block around his neck, during the Election.
If I was him, I'd pick Edwards. Like I said, the man has morals.
Next time do your homework. It's not her choice for him, it's his decision.
Sillary is about the same stuff on a different day by a different corporate whore.
Obama doesn't have the need to lower himself to the Clinton's standards, taking front money from any and everybody who has a vested interest in passing a corporate welfare bill.
You want this to keep going on, VOTE FOR MORE CLINTONIAN BS.
But if you are tired of floundering in the muck and mire of dirty political games and corruption, VOTE FOR OBAMA AND EDWARDS.
TELL WASHINGTON DC ELITE MANIPULATORS AND LOBBYIST, YOU ARE SICK OF THE BULL.
VOTE OBAMA FOR CLEAR THINKING AND COMMONS SENSE.
Here is an interesting snippet that runs contrary to most opinions cited here today.
Let's review what we know. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Thanks to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE" (my emphasis). We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress. This helps explains why John Kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." It's why Sen. Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And it's why Hillary Clinton said in 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."
Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."
In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008415
From the Silberman-Robb report:
"[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information."
If I remember correctly, the Republican Senate kept promising to look into how the intelligence was used, but never got around to it. I think we're still waiting for that "report". As I'm sure you are aware, not everyone accepts the objectivity of the Silberman-Robb commission.
THAT cherry picks from the NIE which included dissenting reports from the State Dept intelligence arm. That said there was NO direct evidence of stockpiles nor were they the ONLY ones
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html
SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]
SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]
OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]
Scott Ritter knew there were no weapons, and stated so emphatically. Remember that? Remember how the Jingofascists accused him of being on Saddam's payroll? To my knowledge, nobody has apologized for that.
Amen to that.
And they should.
In fact, they should all have to bear a brand somewhere that is visible, so that we will all know them by their sign.
My guess they never will. My late wife called it the unforgivable sin. HAVING BEEN RIGHT
Then please explain this:
I am a musician. I also surf the web.
I knew before the war started that the reasons for war were based on lies. I knew that WMD would never be found. I am not surprised that WMD were never found. I am not surprised that Iraq has turned into a bloodbath. Nor am I surprised that some are making a fortune off of blood, death, destruction and misery
Explain, please, how I could be that much more intelligent and informed than government leaders.
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/AA, your two posts seem to contradict each other. The information in your second post leads one to believe that there were caveats which the Bush administration chose to ignore. I think this is called "cherrypicking". Read "Hubris" if you haven't already. Unless the authors are lying, somebody in the administration had to know that the WMD case was exaggerated.
Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Why is Bush unilaterally dismissing intelligence reports and why is the former CIA director allowing him to do so. The CIA is suppose to dismiss or affirm intelligence reports, not Bush.
I believe the CIA actually had relatives of Iraqi scientists risk their lives to investigate what their relatives were up to and their opinions of the existance of WMD's. All of them reported that there was nothing. The CIA report was marginalized within the management of the CIA. I don't remember the source but maybe someone out there remembers this.
Also I beleive there was a group: Vetran intellegence Professionals for Sanity - they wrote an open letter to the administration challenging the invation.
Sorry Neocon trolls but it was never a "slam dunk" but more like a "bait & switch"
Concerning VIPS, you're quite right. This is the group founded by Ray McGovern, the man who positively smacked down Donald Rumsfeld, calling him out in a Q and A.
I have to wonder, AA, what you make of that Salon.com story you cited. According to it, Bush discarded accurate information about Iraq's lack of WMDs and Congress never had access to that data. This means that Bush had the truth delivered to him on a platter and he rejected it. This also means that the Bush administration's later defense that Congress and the President based their judgments on the same data is false.
So... how does this help your case?
vysotsky , I don't think it does help his case, but it is entertaining. I check in on this site during the day when I'm at work, but often don't have time to read some of the more rambling copy/paste jobs or the pile of links provided by the GOP reps.
It's funny how often it happens, when I check back and have more time, that the sources and quotes from the rightys are completely self-defeating.
Do you think they find these items themselves, and just are so set in their positions that they misinterpret them, or would a better bet be that these sources are spammed around by righty sites, and explained as backing up the Republican position?
Either way, it's lotsa fun.
AA:
Your clip concludes, "In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false."
"serious", in this context, would mean SANE and SOBER.
We are dealing with a president who is NEITHER. So, such speculations are useless.
We also have to consider the ideology that may have been driving those pushing for war. Could it be that they felt the end justified the means? It's hard to say what any of them were thinking, but there are plenty of quotes from various sources which indicate this.
We certainly have enough witnesses and documents to warrant an investigation. If we had a press corps that was worth a damn, they already would have done it.
Per Fred Barnes:
To be strong on security matters you must drink the KoolAid.
Oh yeah!.
Fred Barnes - dumber than Mariah Carey
I am new to this site and I do not get it. What I see in this article is Fred Barnes' opinion about Obama's will to wage war and then a 2002 Obama speech that supports Barnes' opinion. Is there a point to be made here? Did Barnes do something that I am missing other than have an opinion that I do not agree with?
You apparantly think an opinion stated as fact cannot be misinformation. So YOU molest small furry animals. The incredibly STUPID and completely without logic ASSERTION here amounts to Barnes saying Osama was RIGHT about WMDs. We were WRONG so you cant trust Obama on National Security because he is smarter than we are.
At first I thought this was a title from an Onion article, but I guess truth is substantially funnier than fiction.
1. Obama didn't get brainwashed into the Bush Administration's Iraq scheme, therefore he's weak on national security. 2. We did get brainwashed into the Bush Administration's Iraq scheme, therefore we're strong on national security.
This then leads to the peculiar conclusion:
3. One must be brainwashed to be strong on national security.
Yes, the US Empire LIES when it wants to blow up countries and steal their resources, whether it be a Repub or Dem in office. BOTH are war parties, run by the arms industry. They make up all kinds of bs to keep us in a state of fear and submission. War Crimes, Inc. is a bi-partisan operation.
I guess MM is NOT doing a good enough job of altering the news you Libs see...
Holy Bleep Batman,
The Libs have gone way, way, way too far this time, and ANY American is going to see this as a HUGE invasion by our Goverment to squash Freedom of Speach. Herery Waxman is now sending his "goon hit squad" to investigate a PRIVATE US CITIZEN, actualy several of them. Rush, Sean, Mark and others are on the "hit" list of Waxman and his CONGRESSIONAL oversite commity, it says NOTHING about his PUBLIC oversite powers... In what will be seen by MANY who are NOT active in politics, on EITHER side, as a direct assult of our liberties. THANK YOU wacky Libs for pushing more and more that were on the fence to OUR side toward freedom and away from Gov involvment in the PRIVATE sector. A Congress with an 13% approval rating is now showing it's true colors and WILL cause a huge backlash against Dems. Again, I say Thank You Libs for helping us reclaim the House, Sen., and the WH in 2008 ! WTG and full speed ahead with your Commie silencing of the Media of any and all opposition when you can not compete in the open market. People WII and ARE seeing thru this farce. Republicans are about to strike back HARD. Watch the news later part of NEXT week as to our plan. We are about to blow the lid off this whole election cycle
Hey, it's the "Bad MGarnett". Can we look forward to a visit from the melancholy, remorseful "Good Mgarnett" in the near future?
I was about to ask the same thing...hey, manic mcdepressive, pick an act kid...can't we all just get along LOL
He stuck this at the end of the BillyBob thread last night too. I guess he must think it is important or something. Riotously funny is actually what it is. Comic relief of the highest order. Thanks Gar.
Waxman is not Media Matters. Where has media matters called for censorship?
Oh I forget, quoting them directly and not approving of what they say is censorship. We should only quote them when we agree with them.
Republicans are about to strike back HARD. Watch the news later part of NEXT week as to our plan.
LOL Did you get a decoder ring with your secret plans!
Everybody tune into Little Orphan Annie and remember to eat your Ovaltine!
Gar fails to realize that it is too late. Last night Bill Clinton and George Soros hatched a plot to buy the entire United States. It was a done deal when Clinton secretly negotiated with the Chinese to go ahead with plans to convert its trillion dollar holdings in US T-Bills and other foreign currencies into shares of a hedge fund secretly controlled by Soros, Warren Buffet, and Hugo Chavez. They will then buy the entire United States in the largest display of the power of the free market ever witnessed since the rise of capitalism. Before the Republicans can strike with their plan to turn the election in their favor The United States will be returned to England on the condition that they permit saturation of the US media with 24 hour a day speeches by Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ward Churchill, and our own Tommy (after all it all has to be Fair and Balanced). Soros is tight lipped about the rest of his plans but I am certain it will be something really big. Sorry Gar but you may not realize your dream. No more Freedom Fries. Just greasy fish and chips laced with salt and malt vinegar, wrapped in a grease stained page of the London Times of course. All to be washed down with warm beer. God save the Queen.
You are delusional. Thank YOU for being an excellent example of how incredibly delusional you Limborg are. You have lost all touch with reality and inane rants like yours allow all to see that what you REALLY need is to increase your medication. No one in their right mind takes you far rightwingnuts seriously all you do is reapeat whatever the Limborg assignment for the day is and its pathetic
You mean we might finally learn about the extent of vote caging in the last two elections MG? Is that the same Goon Squad that seems so helpless getting any info from the Justice Department?
MMFA seems to be taking the day off. On the other hand I keep running accross MMFA ads on other sites and I don't surf that widely. I don't recall seeing such ads before, interesting.
"Barnes: Obama not "strong on national security" because he opposed war "when the entire world believed" Saddam had WMD"
Shouldn't he have said, "when the entire world was fooled into believing" ?
Back on topic:
Could one of you RW-nuts please try and explain just how blaming Osama for having been right when they were all wrong makes an iota of sense?
*poke*
Obama.
What? 'The entire world' was actually suspicious of everything emanating from 'rootin' tootin' willy nilly' Bush propaganda machine. Laughable B-movie bravado 'with us or against us' banter topping the list... I fear Obama is ahead of his time, or wherever America is these days...
ROB:
Please don't help the rightwing by typing "Osama" when you mean "Obama".
Please don't help the rightwing by typing "Osama" when you mean "Obama".
Excellent advice Tex, especially since the typical Faux News Kook-Aid drinker doesn't know there is a difference.
If Obama didn't want to be called Osama, he shouldn't have chosen to be a radical Muslim.
That's the way I heard it, anyway.
So Obama practiced restraint, common sense, and did not react hysterically with fear and anger to the horrible events of 9/11. Oh and he did not politically exploit 9/11 and was right about Iraq.
Barnes is so right, totally unqualified for the position.
He's not the kind of person we need when that person has a finger on our nukes and military. We need someone whom God talks to and tells him what to do, someone who shoots first and asks questions later, or actually better if they don't ask any questions and also must not know know jack about global history, politics, religion or culture, especially middle east history, politics, religion or culture.
That's the guy we want in charge!
Obama hit it exactly on the nose. It is amazing how he got it right down to the aftermath. I had not seen this before.
<>Until now I have not been very supportive of any candidate. This may not be enough to push me over the edge, but it does strongly incline me to consider him.I have to agree.
I have not been a fan of Obama's "let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps" approach to Iraq - he seems to be buying the Democratic party line that it's somehow the Iraqis' fault that they can't stand on their own after we've systematically destroyed their infrastructure and government. As the country who committed this act of terror against an innocent people, we are obligated to repair that which we have broken.
Still, I don't believe there is ONE leading candidate and maybe only ONE non-leading candidate (Kucinich?) that seems willing to take responsibility for the mess we've made and move forward to repair the damage in a serious way.
Obama probably hasn't worshipped at the Georgia Guidestones.
Oh well. There's always time for making the rounds and paying one's dues in order to become a member in good standing.
"pre-GW Bush officials believed Saddam had WMD stockpiles and factories was addressed by the Clinton Administration when it launched raids on all known (identified by the best available intelligence, military and otherwise) and suspected weapons sites. They were be biggest bombing raids since VietNam. So, to the extent Clinton believed Saddam's WMD capacity, he took action and DID something about it. This was in 1998."
A History lesson here. The military action ceased against Iraq in 1998 only because leftist in Ohio embarrassed Madeline Halfbright and Sandy the the Burgler at Mershon Audtitorium on "The Ohio State University." during a nationally televised town hall. The ringleader was George Petrakis, the then chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, and today a known socialist teaching at Columbus State. The Clinton's who were reeling from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, were afraid of losing key leftist support from the mainstream power sources in the party. This would have lead to a lack of protection in the left-leaning news media.
The Clintons knew WMD's existed in 2002 because they knew it from 1998. The whole Bush lied paradigm is incorrect. There is a reason republicans are portrayed as elephants----we don't forget!
Your take on this is interesting delusional but interesting. Bush ABSOLUTLY lied. There is NO reasonable argument he didnt. On Sept 7.2002 when he made up an IAEA report that never existed, that he pulled directly out of his ass, he lied. And NO Iraq didnt have any WMDs in 2002. Educate yourself reading the Kay and Duelfer reports. Or keep regurgitating the Limborg talking points that everyone with any capacity for higher brain function knows is nothing but long ago debunked propaganda and continue to embarass yourself. Its all the same to me.
20 years of radio talk show hosts' lies on audiotape
If ever there was a need for the Fairness Doctrine-my 3 hour audiotape is EXHIBIT #1 !
Lies that mediamatters.org missed:
medical lies; consumer product lies; lies "refuting" the toxicity of certain consumer products; intentional mis-quotes of governemnt officials.....
I invite members of the press and the US Congress to hear these tapes.
Michael Corman
misterfact@yahoo.com
Of all the pretzel logic. In order to be a"Serious" foreign policy person, you have to be as obtuse as Fred Barnes. Hendrik Hertzberg, in an interview today called WaPos' editorial page pathetic. By extension, Fred....
I think Barnes has hit on the truth here. We have been having so much trouble in the world because we keep thinking we want leaders with a clue. Strong leaders dont have a clue. Lucky we had the Supreme Court to pick our President for us.
Obama is on the mark, and I don't understand why more people don't shout down the typical republican comment that "Everyone thought they had WMD." How does that silly comment justify a war? It doesn't, yet Democrat after Democrat and American and American let them get away with making that silly statement as if it justifies the sacrifice of a single soldier's life. What bother's me more is there was not one shred of evidence that any WMD was left. The UN weapon inspectors had destroyed all WMD found, so how could we justify a war on an assumption? Why isn't this president being brought up on charges of an illegal war? I believe the actions of this administration are criminal as they out-right lied about a nuclear threat. There was no justification for that statement either.