Weekly Standard's Hayes offered distortions -- old and new -- in his continued attacks on Wilson
In his October 25 Daily Standard online column, Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen F. Hayes resumed his attacks on former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. For his renewed assault on Wilson, Hayes revisited a number of the falsehoods and distortions included in his previous article -- a lengthy piece in the October 24 edition of The Weekly Standard, that was debunked by Media Matters for America -- and presented some new falsehoods and distortions regarding the outing of Wilson's wife, the formerly undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Wilson, a former diplomat specializing in Africa, was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a reported sale of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. Wilson concluded there was little evidence to support such a claim and reported his findings to the CIA. After President Bush referenced the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium transaction in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for the impending invasion of Iraq, Wilson publicly announced his findings in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. In a column published eight days later, nationally syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Novak wrote: "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger." The White House allegedly attempted to discredit Wilson by suggesting that Plame recommended him for the mission. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating whether any laws were violated in connection with the leak of Plame's identity.
In his Daily Standard column, Hayes criticized an October 25 Washington Post article for reporting that "Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections." According to Hayes:
First, it is far from clear that Bush's claim has been invalidated by postwar inspections. Weapons inspections in 2003 and 2004 have little bearing on whether Iraq sought uranium in 1999. And the British review of prewar intelligence (known as the Butler report) concluded that the claim was -- and remains -- solid. Even Wilson's own reporting about a 1999 meeting between Nigerien government officials and an Iraqi delegation seemed to corroborate earlier reports, dating back to October 2001, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.
Yet Hayes ignored the fact that White House officials and the CIA acknowledged that Bush's now-infamous "16 words" from his 2003 State of the Union address -- "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- should not have been included in the address. Additionally, the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" (pdf) concluded that the available intelligence did not support this claim after October 2002. On July 22, 2003, then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley acknowledged: "I should have asked that the 16 words be taken out" [New York Times, 7/23/03]. On July 11, 2003, then-CIA director George Tenet stated publicly: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president." Moreover, the Senate Intelligence Committee's report concluded: "Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence." While the Butler report (pdf) did conclude that Bush's statement was "well-founded," it provided no new evidence supporting an Iraq-Niger transaction but instead relied on unnamed "intelligence assessments at the time."
Hayes, in claiming that "Wilson's own reporting about a 1999 meeting between Nigerien government officials and an Iraqi delegation seemed to corroborate earlier reports ... that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger," failed to note that this was just the CIA's interpretation of Wilson's findings. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) held the opposing view that Wilson's findings confirmed their belief that Niger was unwilling and unable to supply uranium to Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that INR's assessment was correct. Also, as he did in his previous article, Hayes presented only half of Wilson's key findings -- omitting a portion that bolstered INR's interpretation. He again made no mention of Wilson's meeting with Niger's former minister of mines (as described in the Senate Intelligence Committee report), who claimed that there had been no unauthorized uranium sales and that it would be "difficult, if not impossible" to arrange such a sale given the tight controls of a French mining consortium that controls Niger's uranium industry.
Hayes went on to criticize the October 25 Post article for presenting "as an ambiguity" the disputed claim that Plame suggested Wilson for the trip. According to Hayes, there is no ambiguity:
By the CIA's own account, Mrs. Wilson was "involved" in sending her husband to Niger. So his [Wilson's] denial is, again, false. Furthermore, the Senate Intelligence Committee report makes clear that Mrs. Wilson was instrumental in facilitating her husband's trip to Niger. She suggested him for the job, even writing a memo to her superiors detailing his qualifications for the mission. She introduced him at the subsequent meeting about the trip. And, upon his return, she was present for his debriefing, which was conducted by two CIA officials in their home.
Contrary to Hayes's assertion, the Senate Intelligence Committee report does not "make clear that Mrs. Wilson was instrumental in facilitating her husband's trip to Niger." As Media Matters noted the last time Hayes made this false claim, the committee drew no official conclusion regarding Plame's involvement in the origins of Wilson's mission. Hayes's assertion that Plame "introduced [Wilson] at the subsequent meeting about the trip" has reportedly been disputed by the CIA, which has claimed that the CIA agent whom an INR memo recorded as describing Plame's role at the 2002 meeting could not have attended it. Additionally, Hayes's allegation that Plame "was present for his debriefing" is misleading at best. Wilson was debriefed by the CIA at his home in Washington, DC; the Senate Intelligence Committee report noted that "although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief."
Finally, Hayes falsely suggested that Wilson lied when claiming, "I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent." Hayes contrasted this statement with a May 6, 2003, op-ed by New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, in which Kristof wrote: "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." Of this passage, Hayes wrote: "Was this Wilson? We cannot be certain. But both Kristof and Wilson have acknowledged that he was a primary source for the piece." But even if Kristof was referring to Wilson, the statements are not contradictory. Kristof noted that Wilson "was dispatched to Niger"; but Kristof did not claim that Cheney's office had dispatched Wilson. As Media Matters for America noted [anchor at "Wilson said that Cheney"], Wilson has never claimed Cheney's office sent him to Niger; instead, Wilson has maintained that he was dispatched by the CIA, which was responding to a request from Cheney's office to investigate the purported uranium transaction.
I recommend going to the Comedy Central site to see the Daily Show video with Jon Stewart interviewing Bill Krystal. I have to give Bill some credit for going on the show (of course he wants to sell his book also), and I have to say that I think he was as honest as he could be, but he was clearly squirming in trying to defend the current state of the Bush administration.
In advance of what is to come, the Republicans are already trying to build talking points that will be needed to avoid the impeachment of Mr. Bush. The Republicans are now focused on Joseph Wilson's claim that the administration lied about Iraq seeking yellow cake uranium. By saying Wilson's claim was untrue, there will be no serious claim to lies leading our country to war and no foundation for impeachment. Yes, the Republicans are looking pass the indictments with this defense to the worse case scenario. Talking about seeing the "writing on the wall;" this is a natural lock step defense that speaks to the almost inborn predictable unity of the Republican Party.
Joseph
I really hate this guy. I mean he is the MOST SHAMELESS, DESPICABLE, right-wing LIAR of them ALL! How does this a$$hole live with himself? They trot this lying piece of dung out to repeat all their BIGGEST LIES, like the "connection". What a joke, yet this scum pulls down big bucks to lie to his fellow Americans. Stephen Hayes, you are a pathetic liar, human scum, and a disgrace to the First Amendment.
Stephen Hayes gets my vote for MMFA's misinformer of the year award. O'Reilly on his best day wouldn't repeat all these lies in one sitting.
Supporters of the Bush administration--and critics of Wilson--keep pointing to the meeting held in 1999 between representatives of Iraq and representatives of Niger to "explore expanding commercial relations," which Wilson reported, as proof that an overture to buy uranium was made. This despite the fact that no explicit discussion of uranium took place; the Nigerian official who spoke to Wilson merely speculated that he felt the Iraqi overture was preliminary to Iraq wanting to buy uranium. All this is is his presumption. Okay...now, let's assume his presumption is true. How can the Bush administration or British intel turn that ambiguous and inconclusive overture into "recently sought to buy significant quantities of yellowcake uranium?" That would be as if, to use an analogy made on another Wilson forum here, I went to a car dealership to inquire about establishing a line of credit, but never pursued it. Would it be fair for someone to later claim I had made an attempt to buy a car from that dealership? No. Would it be fair to make the claim that I had approached the dealership about establishing a relationship which I hoped would lead to my purchasing a car from them? Yes. Would it be fair to claim I had "sought to buy a fleet of Rolls Royces" from the dealership? Of course not! (Although, is uranium the ONLY thing of value to be had from Niger? If they export other products, then even to assume Iraq was putting out feelers to buy uranium based on this meeting is baseless speculation.)
Unless there are other intelligence reports which substantiate other, more explicit meetings between Iraqi and Nigerian representatives where specifics were discussed, it is intellectually dishonest--and a manipulation of intelligence, as Wilson characterized it to begin with--to claim the 1999 meeting as any kind of support for the Bush administration's claim.
Moreover, has anyone pointed out that a meeting in 1999--no matter what was discussed--could not have accurately been described in a SOTU speech in 2003,four years later, as "recent?"
And, as a digression, it has been reported recently that Cheney allegedly learned of Plame's identity and status from George Tenet. If this is true, doesn't this show just how craven and despicable Tenet is, that he, as head of the CIA, was willing to rat out one of his own agents to a man he had to know would use the information to seek payback for Wilson's criticisms? It would seem to be that the head of the CIA, before anyone else, should be concerned with protecting the identities of his covert agents, even to the White House. Why would Cheney need or want to know about Ms. Plame, if not for reasons of political skullduggery?
What a repugnant crew.
as Wilson characterized it to begin with--to claim the 1999 meeting as any kind of support for the Bush administration's claim.
by robert1014 - Thursday October 27, 2005 08:40:39 AM EST
While we're on the subject of being intellectually dishonest, I might note that the "Bush administration claim" that you refer to was that BRITISH INTELLIGENCE had made this claim, not the Bush Administration. It's also worth noting that British Intelligence STILL STANDS BY THAT CLAIM TODAY. I mean, if you're interested at all in accuracy.
Yet British intelligence has offered no support for their claims. I was not of the understanding that we were in the practice of attacking other countries on the basis of unsupported and unexamined information provided by other countries.
It's easy to say "we stand by our claim" if they're not willing--for reasons of "national security," of course--to put forth their data and allow it to be anaylyzed and appraised.
Given that all we have to consider is the vague overtures made in 1999 by Iraq to Niger, as well as the forged documents provided by Italian intelligence, we hardly have a basis to presume a nuclear threat by Saddam, but every reason to assume dishonesty by the Bush administration.
by robert1014 - Thursday October 27, 2005 09:05:03 AM EST
Had this been the ONLY data that motivated our actions, you MIGHT have a good point, but this was just one grain of sand, in a mountain of beach as it were that have been covered exhaustingly on this site. I merely was pointing out the "intellectual dishonesty" of your post.
"Had this been the ONLY data that motivated our actions, you MIGHT have a good point, but this was just one grain of sand, in a mountain of beach as it were that have been covered exhaustingly on this site. I merely was pointing out the "intellectual dishonesty" of your post."
All the other data we had merely undermined any presumptions that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons programs. The data available at the time, even cherry-picked as it was by the Bush administration to prop up their claims of a threat by Saddam, AT MOST could have only supported a speculation that Saddam might be interested AT SOME INDERTIMINATE FUTURE TIME in trying to reestablish his nuclear programs. For Bush and Rice to fear-monger with claims of imminent mushroom clouds in American cities was a shameful lie, and one they knew to be so. For Cheney to fear-monger that Saddam could have access to working nuclear missles within a year's time was a lie, and one he knew to be so.
by robert1014 - Thursday October 27, 2005 09:20:43 AM EST
Like I said, the reasons have been bantered around here in nauseating detail and I really don't care to travel that road again. Suffice it to say that at the time the decision had to be made, the President and 77 Senators and the UN agreed that Saddam was a menace and a threat, and the President and those 77 Senators decided to invade Iraq. It's also noteworthy that at that time, it appeared that an overwhelming majority of the American people supported the action if one believes polls (which I do not for the most part), and the President's actions were approved of by a majority of the voting public in November of last year (that "poll" I DO believe).
" and the President and those 77 Senators decided to invade Iraq."
Just had to point out your bald-faced lie. What the Senate voted on was not invasion. It was giving the president authorization to put pressure on Saddam. The pressure worked and inspectors were let back in. The bastard invaded anyway.
Under our Constitution, which the members of the U.S. Congress take an oath to support and defend, the president is precluded from waging war without an express declaration of war from Congress. In October 2002, the members of the U.S. Senate (in a 77-23 vote), along with their counterparts in the House of Representatives (296-133), voted to delegate their power to declare war to the President.
There you have it Scott, in black and white.
Please provide links for copied and pasted quotes. Thank you.
open_mind,
The quote was a summary of what was passed in Oct 2002.....the vote gave Bush the authority to go to War.
Do you have a link to where the summary is? What did you copy and paste it from? Not trying to be difficult. I just like to see original sources of info like that.
Or you can read the actual resolution here: [link to www.whitehouse.gov]
The interesting part is Section 3(b).
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
*****************
open_mind,
Here is CNN's reporting of the vote.
"Here is CNN's reporting of the vote."
Tommy you are are a funny man. Bush didn't declare war. So if as you say they ceded that power to him, he didn't use it. On top of that, you want us to go by a reporters framing of the vote rather than actually reading the resolution itself? It's good to know that in the intervening months you haven't had some sort of Phenonmenon-esque intelligence boost. We need your comic relief.
Scott,
Get a grip - Bush can't declare War, only Congress can. They gave their authorization for Bush to invade if Sadaam didn't turn over WMD's......can you grasp that now?
"Get a grip - Bush can't declare War, only Congress can. They gave their authorization for Bush to invade if Sadaam didn't turn over WMD's......can you grasp that now?" --Tommy
----------------------------------------------------
Did we ever declare war then? That is the one dot you didn't connect in your argument.
"Get a grip - Bush can't declare War, only Congress can."
You said that they gave him that power. Do you even read your own posts?
"They gave their authorization for Bush to invade if Sadaam didn't turn over WMD's......can you grasp that now?"
Invade wasn't a word used. Force was the word used. Force can be a cruise missle or air sorties. Plus, Saddam didn't have to turn over WMDs. He simply had to comply with the UN sanctions. We now know that he had no WMDs to turn over.
Still good old weak Tommy. God bless ye.
On top of that, you want us to go by a reporters framing of the vote rather than actually reading the resolution itself" Scotty
You are right, we should go by your interpretation of the resolution instead. Silly us for trying to point out your error!
"You are right, we should go by your interpretation of the resolution instead."
No read it yourself, Scooter. Sagra posted the link.
Full text of quote:
Under our Constitution, which the members of the U.S. Congress take an oath to support and defend, the president is precluded from waging war without an express declaration of war from Congress. In October 2002, the members of the U.S. Senate (in a 77-23 vote), along with their counterparts in the House of Representatives (296-133), voted to delegate their power to declare war to the president, thereby effectively washing their hands of any responsibility for the death and destruction that a war would bring both to the United States and to the Iraqi people.
That abrogation of constitutional responsibility was done amidst tremendous patriotic fervor. “We’re supporting you and the troops, Mr. President, which is what every flag-waving, patriotic American should be doing,” was the common refrain among those members of Congress voting in favor of the resolution.
Exactly open_mind,
The entire post doesn't change the context of it - which Scott was incorrect on. The rest of the text wasn't relevant to Scott's inaccurate assertion which is why I didn't include it......but it doesn't change the vote or it's intent.
My assertion was correct. The resolution cedes the power and discretion to Bush. It doesn't say to invade Iraq. In fact, the word invade isn't even in the resolution. On top of that, it has a condition that all other means of forcing compliance have been exhausted. They weren't. The inspectors were on the ground and were kicked out by this irresponsible human being we currently call the president.
The vote was dispicable in many ways. The most important of which was giving a reckless president power of discretion when it comes to war. However, it was not a vote for war. Characterization as such is blatantly false.
Scott,
The resolution was very clear - it authorized the use of US Armed Foces against Iraq through military force, now you can parse words and say it doesn't say "invade" but you just look even more foolish.
The President was authorized to use our military to enforce the UN Security Council's resolutions reagrding Iraq....that is a fact. He was also authorized to use our military as he determined it's necessity to protect our interest, when at that time everyone, including Clinton, concluded that Sadaam had WMD's.
So don't manipulate the facts to make your unsubstantiated points, as silly as they are.
tommy - Thursday October 27, 2005 03:39:20 PM EST
Not everyone, not at THAT time, the inspectors were IN Iraq, the doubt was spreading. Ritter didnt believe it. I didnt believe it, not everyone beleived it THEN. You say it gave him authorization to enforce the UN resolution which called on Iraq to give up the WMDs we now KNOW they didnt have? Scott doesnt need my help but he DID make a good point, reading part 3b of the resolution makes clear that the authorization was contingent upon conditions Bush did NOT comply with.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
************************
Here's 3b, what are you referring to, exactly? Do you have evidence that Bush did not comply?
tommy - Thursday October 27, 2005 03:55:55 PM EST
It appears on the face of it he didnt comply. Are you going to claim that Bush made a reasonable determination that :further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I mean the inspectors WERE in Iraq, the determination about Iraq complying with the relevant resolutions, that is that Iraq had in fact BEEN disarmed which we now know to be the case was HAPPENING, how can you even claim that this section was complied with?
Thanks for the help Solon. Of course there were conditions. Otherwise it would be the authorization for the immediate use of force. The conditions weren't met. Bush had plans to invade from the start and the Congress handed him a free ticket to push forward his dastardly plans. I'll never forgive the coward Democrats for hedging their bets and voting for the resolution. But they didn't vote for war. A reading of the debate surrounding the resolution makes that abundantly clear.
Scott Johnson - Thursday October 27, 2005 04:03:19 PM EST
You consistantly do just fine without my help, I do appreciate the support though. I agree with your assesment both of Bush AND the dems. I see it as a reasonable point of view
Thanks. And in a big I'm gone. Take care.
I'm no expert, but I've heard others say this ceding of authority to declare war by Congress to Bush was not merely cowardly, but unConstitutional. In short, they did that which they have no legal authority to do. The Constitutional authority given to Congress to declare war not only prevents a reckless President from unilaterally attacking other countries, (in theory, anyway), but it requires that Congress give due diligence and consideration to the question of waging war. If Congress simply cedes that authority to the President, the check-and-balance function is voided, but so is the requirement that Congress live up to its obligation to consider these grave matters of state, and to bear responsibility for the decisions that are made.
Very few in Washington at this time can be free of the taint of cowardice and abrogation of duty and responsibility in the matter of our illegal war against Iraq. Democrat or Republican, they're nearly all complicit in dereliction of duty.
Since WWII, all administrations have pushed to usurp more and more power for the executive branch, especially in cases of war. Shame on Congress and the Judicial Branch for letting them get away with it. It's one thing to let get screwed. It's another to provide lube yourself.
Scott Johnson - Thursday October 27, 2005 04:08:37 PM EST
It's one thing to let get screwed. It's another to provide lube yourself.<<
I agree and lately the Dems bend over everytime Bush waves a tube of K-Y at them
It was giving the president authorization to put pressure on Saddam" scott
Nice interpretation but incorrect. You should know better Scotty.
Of course libby,
Don't you know? - the 77-23 vote was giving Bush authorization to call up Sadaam every half hour and wake him up in the middle of night and put pressure on him.....
"Nice interpretation but incorrect."
No, it's absolutely correct. Read the resolution, Scooter.
"Nice interpretation but incorrect."
No, it's absolutely correct. Read the resolution, Scooter." Scotty
Respond one more time Scotty. Just in case I missed the other two posts. Thanks. by the way I have missed your bitter condesending posts. It's nice to have you back.
"by the way I have missed your bitter condesending posts."
I miss you and Tommy, two fish in a barrel.
But alas, it's not to last. I'm much too busy to get wrapped up in this extended con educational experiment. At some point, I'm sure even the most dedicated teacher has to shrug and give up when they realize that their students are just beyond help.
Robert1014-For Bush and Rice to fear-monger with claims of imminent mushroom clouds in American cities was a shameful lie, and one they knew to be so. For Cheney to fear-monger that Saddam could have access to working nuclear missles within a year's time was a lie, and one he knew to be so.
Response: So, did these people know they were lying also, or are they just ignorant? My point being that the Iraq "threat" was not just dreamed up by the Bush Admin, it has been floating around since the end of the Gulf War. Both sides have forwarded it.
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
The comments of the people you cite--and others--may reflect honest belief on the part of the speakers, or mere pandering to voters, or some combination of these or other motives. They do not constitute proof of anything.
When one is merely making accusations, one has the luxury to be as reckless in one's speech as one likes, especially in politics, where so much of the discourse is boiler-plate. This does not make irresponsible talk acceptable, of course, but it is standard political speech.
However, when one is actually moving to make a case for war, where one is really considering gearing up all the military resources of the country to invade another country, where death and destruction will be unleashed, where the consequences are unpredictable but will be catastrophic for someone, if not everyone, one has a responsibility to put aside all political showboating and consider the facts as they are known, to consider the real threat, and to attack only if the threat is credible, imminent, and unavoidable.
Iraq's threat was neither credible, imminent, or unavoidable. In fact, I believe we attacked Iraq precisely because we knew their threat to be nonexistent. That Rumsfeld downplayed the number of troops necessary to attack Iraq--and that General Shinseki (sp?)was refuted in his estimate of the required troop strength--proves they knew the unseating of Saddam from power would be easily achieved. Some threat, huh? On the contrary,we steer clear of countries which are truly seen as formidable enemies--North Korea and China, for example. Like a bully, we don't want to pick a fight with someone who might lick us, or cause us considerable damage in the fighting.
Even as Bush claimed war would be his last choice, he never made any efforts to allow diplomacy and inspections to work to defuse the threat...because there was no threat to defuse.
In a courtroom, a prosecutor may make all sorts of claims as to the guilt of the accused, but a trial is held, a defense presented, and a jury convened to consider the evidence, because guilt must be proved through close examination of the facts by an impartial panel of persons, who consider the evidence and the arguements for and against the conclusion of guilt. If merely declaring the guilt of the accused were enough, we could dispense with our trial system and streamline our justice system wonderfully. But who wants to live in a land where one's guilt may be "proven" by declaration, where one may be punished merely because others believe one is a danger to the community?
Also, it's very convenient for the Bush administration to base their claims on "British intelligence." It is a covert admission that our own intelligence agencies could not and did not affirm the information. This was very canny and obviously intentional by the Bush people. They knew this would allow them later to claim innocence of any intent to decieve or manipulate, that they were simply trusting recipients of information provided by others.
In a courtroom, this is hearsay; as a basis to foment support for war, it is disgraceful and criminal.
ding_dong - Thursday October 27, 2005 08:46:07 AM EST
The CIA didnt believe them, told them to delete it from their white paper and already had Bush take the reference out of his Cincinati speach. So Bush was repeating a claim, citing Britian for some 'plausable deniability' for a claim that OUR intelligence community did NOT BELIEVE. What a shock you are grasping the same plausable deniability like a liferaft in the middle of the ocean. This would be like you spending Friday night with your pal John bowling, then telling his wife that your other nieghbor Pam told him that she saw John with another woman on Friday night, even though you have every reason to believe it isnt true. Its dishonest, period
by solon - Thursday October 27, 2005 01:16:30 PM EST -
The statement was clear! He attributed it to British Intelligence and we were each free to draw our own conclusions. Get over it, move on.....
ding_dong - Thursday October 27, 2005 01:22:06 PM EST
I will decide what to get over and when, you dont get to tell me what to do. You have some real control issues here. What I posted are well known facts. They should be taken into account. They show a pattern of dishonesty YOU get over it. Bush is a liar. FACT. Get over THAT
by solon - Thursday October 27, 2005 01:26:09 PM EST -
I don't mean to be dismissive, its just that all these "issues" that you bring up time and time again, have been vetted by the election last year. Bush won in spite of all these allegations that you're making that were made quite effectively by the Democratic party during the election. 200 Million dollars was spent to inform the American people of your concerns and he still won. It's almost like your a spoiled child that can't or won't accept the reality of all this and just instead decide to pitch a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way. That's America, its majority rule and you and your party lost, big time. So, it is that context that I suggest that you need to move on. Otherwise you just seem like a spoiled brat unable or unwilling to accept reality.
I don't mean to be dismissive, its just that all these "issues" that you bring up time and time again, have been vetted by the election last year. Bush won in spite of all these allegations that you're making that were made quite effectively by the Democratic party during the election. 200 Million dollars was spent to inform the American people of your concerns and he still won. It's almost like your a spoiled child that can't or won't accept the reality of all this and just instead decide to pitch a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way. That's America, its majority rule and you and your party lost, big time. So, it is that context that I suggest that you need to move on. Otherwise you just seem like a spoiled brat unable or unwilling to accept reality.-by ding_dong
****
I wonder if anyone else sees the irony in this post. If we changed the Bush and Democrat parts to Clinton and Republicans this post could have been written during Clinton’s second term when the right had problems with the fact that despite there best intentions and trotting out all Clinton’s affairs (some admitted to and some not) they still lost and the American people didn’t care and voted him in anyway for a second term.
The only difference so far is it has not reached the level where they try to circumvent the peoples vote by impeachment. In politics the fight doesn’t end when you win or lose the election…that is when it really begins.
P.S. Of course there are differences in what Clinton was accused of and what Bush and the administration is accused of…but that is a whole other discussion.
lostlogic,
The point is all these LIES and crimes that Bush has supposedly committed in the last five years, according to solon and so many other's here - if they were so glaringly true and factually correct, then why isn't the impeachment process in full swing? Surely, you know if they were so easily proven, according to solon and other's here, the Democrats in Congress would be out there front and center to bring this out - it would be like red meat wrapped in Christmas paper for them.
The reason is, there is no proof - that's the reality. And despite wishful thinking on the far left's part, it still ain't so.
The reason is, there is no proof - that's the reality. And despite wishful thinking on the far left's part, it still ain't so.-by tommy
***
My point was simply that when I read the post it struck me as ironic.
My personal point of view is that I tend to agree with the accusations Solon makes for the most part; however I also don’t think they rise to the level of impeachment.
Impeachment is not a good thing for the country and should only take place upon proving “high crimes and misdemeanors”…the true meaning and not the twisted use the Republicans used to impeach Clinton.
The propaganda issue and the Haliburton issues while provable do not reach the level of impeachment in my opinion. The issue of WMD is an arguable one; a case can be made but the President followed the rules in going to war and received the consent of the Senate and therefore in my opinion it also doesn’t reach the level. I don’t agree with the war, never have, and I think they did cherry pick to make their case and used suspect reports but unfortunately that is not a “high crime and misdemeanor” . It is simply incompetent leadership and decision making and unfortunately the majority of the voting public didn’t agree with my opinion and thought he was doing a swell job and reelected him.
"The point is all these LIES and crimes that Bush has supposedly committed in the last five years, according to solon and so many other's here - if they were so glaringly true and factually correct, then why isn't the impeachment process in full swing?" --tommy
--------------------------------------------------------
Just maybe it's because the Republicans are in charge of the government right now. Nah, it can't be that.
Just for fun replace the word Republicans with foxes and government with henhouse and the meaning becomes more clear.
Tommy, this is a good example of why no government should be completely controled by one party. I hope you see that.
Solon makes a good argument. When you are establishing the existence of a pattern, you need to combine recent evidence with historical evidence. The pattern before the election may have been vetted as you say by an election, but Solon's argument is that the continuation of that pattern is making the pattern more clear. You can disagree that there is a pattern, of course.
We don't just forget the events of the past 4 years because there has been an intervening election. I hope you are not suggesting that.
We don't just forget the events of the past 4 years because there has been an intervening election. I hope you are not suggesting that.
by open_mind - Thursday October 27, 2005 02:05:06 PM EST
Solon's contention was that Bush hasn't been "held accountable," and I disagree with that. He has, its called an election. There's another election and opportunity for accountability in 2006 and then again in 2008. To say he hasn't been held accountable is where I take issue. Election is ALL ABOUT accountability in my view.
"Election is ALL ABOUT accountability in my view." --ding_dong
--------------------------------------------------------
Should Clinton have been impeached then?
Solon's contention was that Bush hasn't been "held accountable," --ding_dong
----------------------------------------------
I don't see where Solon has made that remark (or anything like it) in this thread. Can you help me out?
Solon's contention was that Bush hasn't been "held accountable," --ding_dong
----------------------------------------------
I don't see where Solon has made that remark (or anything like it) in this thread. Can you help me out?
*************************
Care to field that one solon?
tommy - Thursday October 27, 2005 02:26:15 PM EST
I absolutly made that comment (or meant to) and stand by it. An election is merely a choice between two candidates nothing more it in no way implies accountability. Notice Nixon resigned (to avoid inevitable impeachment), for actions taken BEFORE his re-election, AFTER his re-election. This action was broadly supported both by the people and the law. Polls are saying the American people think Bush should be impeached if he misled about Iraq, which I contend he did. THEY did not consider election to be a blanket endorsement or immunity from accountability. Arguing only THIS aspect I think it foolish to even float the trial balloon that because he won a re-election he should NOT be held accountable for actions he has taken and lies he has told
IF Bush actually won 2004, which is questionable, given the well-documented issues surrounding the use of electronic voting machines, he just barely squeaked by, and one cannot say the American people had a chance to give him a fair and objective appraisal, given all the propaganda promulgated by the Bush administration and its fellow travelers in the mainstream media.
This is why a free press is necessary for a democracy or democratic republic to work--the voters must have full and fair information about the candidates and issues, and must understand them, in order to make informed choices. A press which promotes propaganda and is rife with erroneous information--which ours does and is, as MEDIA MATTERS proves daily--subverts true democracy to the extent the voters do not learn the truth.
Given that, even today, many citizens, (if fewer than at the time of the election, one hopes), still think Saddam had some connection with Al Qaeda or had some responsibility for 9/11, one cannot assume American voters had all the facts to make a choice which one can consider to be an "accounting." Look at all the disinformation and misinformation spewed out daily by the supposedly respectable network news programs. Look at the fact that a majority of Americans disbelieve in evolution but believe God created the world and humankind as described in the Bible. We do not have a rational electorate.(Also, given that voters often vote for candidates with whom they may disagree on the issues, but whom they "like" personally, one has to recognize that many voters behave--as people do in life--against their own best interests. Although, I don't understand how so many people can be so fooled into thinking of Bush as likable, or personable, or warm, or genuine. He is so self-evidently an Eddie Haskell-type: snide, self-serving, a pretender to a humility you can see he disdains even as he acts it--badly.)
>"How can the Bush administration or British intel turn that ambiguous and inconclusive overture into "recently sought to buy significant quantities of yellowcake uranium?"
Probably using the same thought process that turned Uday's toy airplane into a fleet of "drones" that could spray anthrax on the U.S.
It's easy if you can lie without guilt.
Keep in mind this is the clown Dicky-boy put out to try to push Iraq-9/11 links. He is a total hack in the Jeff Gannon mold!
more psychobabble out of the Weakly Standard