The Weekend Omnibus
by sarabeth at 7:00 am on November 15th, 2005 in Bush Man Date, Iraq War(1)
Too many (way too many) Americans are starting to be convinced that the President manipulated intelligence and misled the American people when he and his band of merry men and Judith Miller concocted and pitched the case for war against Saddam. So Stephen Hadley, President Bush’s National Security Adviser, took it upon himself over the weekend to certify that in his obviously unbiased (seeing as he wasn’t National Security Adviser at the time) opinion, this best darn President in the known universe did no such thing. So you can all relax, folks, and stop getting worked up about it, or worrying yourself sick.
Hadley on CNN’s Late Edition 11/13/05:
“And it is unworthy and unfair and ill-advised, when our men and women in combat are putting their lives on the line, to relitigate an issue which was looked at by two authoritative sources and deemed closed. We need to put this debate behind us.”
Man, this guy really knows how to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. They desperately need to put the whole debate behind them.
As for the rest of Hadley’s statement, Cliff’s Notes has provided helpful background material: “Mr. President, as long as we keep soldiers in Iraq, and we keep getting them killed, we can continue to forcefully denounce all efforts to investigate, scrutinize or criticize the decision to wage war on Iraq as traitorously unpatriotic.”
Rumors that an ultra-secret task force commissioned by Dick Cheney produced a report entitled “How can we reach 3,000 by Christmas?” have not yet been confirmed.
The same unconfirmed rumor mill is also saying this same report was originally entitled “George Bush Determined to Strike in Iraq”. And yes, of course, it is totally unworthy and unfair and ill-advised to suggest that George the Compassionate is determined to kill off U.S. troops. All the more so if you go on to add: for no good reason at all.
(2) Hadley on CNN’s Late Edition (11/13/05):
“The President and the Secretary of State relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community as conveyed to him by the Director of Central Intelligence.”
John McCain on CBS’ “Face the Nation” (11/13/05):
“Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French … all reached the same conclusion.”
Somehow in the debate that is only now emerging from the slow-cooker, the spotlight has been focused on “Did he have WMDs?” But that was only one part of the administration’s three-legged case for war. (The original case, that is.)
Didn’t the Bush Administration repeatedly state and/or sneakily insinuate that Saddam Hussein’s alleged WMDs represented an imminent threat to the US? This is a separate issue from whether he possessed WMDs at all, requiring specific additional evidence. Did this “finding” rely on the collective judgment of the intelligence community as conveyed by the DCI? Did every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians and the French all reach the same conclusion? (Aside to McCain the Honorable: had salad on your mind?)
Didn’t the Bush Administration repeatedly state and/or sneakily insinuate that there was an established link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Did this “finding” also rely on the collective judgment of the intelligence community as conveyed by the DCI? Did every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians and the French all reach the same conclusion? (Not the Germans? What’s the matter, not into potato salad, huh?)
(3) Associated Press (11/13/05):
Hadley said issues about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence have not impaired the administration’s ability to pursue its policies regarding the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.
Unfortunately, he didn’t clear up the matter by explaining what has been impairing the administration on this front.
(4)
“We’ve been able to move our diplomacy forward at the same time we’re taking the steps we need to do to improve our intelligence,” he [Hadley] said.
At the risk of being accused of leaking classified material, I’ll go ahead and fill in the blanks that Hadley had left blank in the interests of national security. The intelligence community has managed to achieve unanimous consensus on the first step that should be taken (sorry, “done”). They asked Jeeves, and came up with “Eat more fish”. This plan is not only simple (and therefore easily understood by the entire intelligence community) but on Fridays and during Lent, it can be pitched to the populace as a faith-based initiative.
Deep-thinking analysts will recognize this as the policy version of the Administration’s communications strategy, which is based on suggesting, projecting and otherwise disseminating lies, without actually telling them (or hardly ever actually telling them). The kernel of the strategy: spread the lie but in such a way that you never actually tell a single lie on the record. This let-them-eat-fish policy initiative works in much the same way, blurring the line between Church and State in such a delightfully subtle, fuzzy, Machiavellian way that it could never be overturned by a court.
(5)
A little gossip now, just to spice things up. It seems Scottie and Dana Perino have been seen holding hands. Even more bizarre, when questioned separately, both gave identical reasons for doing so.
Scottie: If I’m holding one hand, at least the bitch isn’t stabbing me in the back with that one.
Dana: If I’m holding one hand, at least the son of a bitch isn’t stabbing me in the back with that one.
(Who would have guessed that Dana was Scottie’s birth mother!)
(6)
I’ve been trying to score the Iraq war debate at home, and I’m having no end of trouble with it, so any help at all from anyone will be very welcome.
As far as I’ve been able to make out, the Bush administration’s official position at this time is: yes, we were wrong, but no mistakes were made, and of course we’d do the same thing again. And remember, we had the international consensus on our side.
Funny, wasn’t the international consensus: “You might have fear-mongered the American public into it, and the touchingly trusting Pollyannas in Congress (honorable exception Barbara Boxer, please take a bow here!), but we’re not buying this shit. We won’t endorse the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, so there!”
(7) President Bush’s Veteran’s Day speech:
“I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn’t support the liberation of Iraq.”
You probably haven’t realized this yet, of course, Mr. President, but that compassionately conservative statement might just have sent an unintended message to some nervous citizens and elected officials, something to the effect of “We’ve got our eyes on you, yes we do.”
Question for FBI Director Robert Mueller: Any truth in the rumor that you have sent out a directive to field offices that anyone proposing or supporting “the liberation of George Bush” is to be regarded as having threatened bodily harm to the President?
(8)
And here’s a parting note which has nothing to do with the weekend. When the President ordered those White House ethics classes, the American public was pretty cynical. Won’t really change anything, they said.
I’m going to strongly disagree. Just consider Rove versus Libby. Both did the same thing initially – revealed Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters, and then lied to the President and Scott McClellan and the press and the grand jury about it. So why did Libby get indicted and Rove not? Because Rove remembered his ethics classes and Libby forgot. The ethics classes teach you: a) what you can’t get away with and what you can, and b) how to actually pull off the getaway.
Rove remembered to stick to lies of omission before the grand jury, rather than lies of commission. So at the end (or at this point, at least) he got away with: “Oops, did I forget to tell you that the first time around?”
Libby, drunk with his own success at lying to the President and Scott McClellan and the press, concocted for the grand jury fabulous tales of how Tim Russert told him Valerie Plame’s identity, and he deservedly came to grief.
Are you having as much trouble buying that version of events as I am? When one of the allegedly smartest lawyers in Washington behaves like a novice truth-breaker, and fails to pass Go, and does not collect $200, I find myself scratching my head in perplexity. Why did Libby sacrifice himself? Who or what is being protected here? Or let’s be blunt: what the flaming heck did Bush and/or Cheney do that Libby had to fall on his sword for him/them?
(9)
Invoking the well-enshrined prerogative to change my mind, here’s one more.
When Bush and his band of merry men and their operatives-embedded-in-the-press were selling the Iraq war as a necessary step in the war on Al Qaeda, didn’t many voices warn that war on Iraq would fan terrorism rather than quench it?
And didn’t some ex-White House dude who claimed to have some knowledge of, and experience in, anti-terrorism publish a book just before the last elections where he claimed that that was exactly the effect the Iraq war had ended up having?
And didn’t Bush and his band of merry men and their unofficial spokesmen keep on assuring us that all of that was utter bilge?
So riddle me this:
• Wasn’t Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a very small fish before we set out to eradicate Saddam’s WMDs and bring peace, joy, democracy, schools, power, running water and prosperity to the Iraqi people, and stability to the entire region?
• Wasn’t Al Qaeda style terrorism pretty much nonexistent in Iraq?
• Isn’t Abu Musab al-Zarqawi now terrorism’s undisputed reigning world champion?
• Isn’t Al Qaeda style terrorism not just flourishing in Iraq now but actually starting to export itself to neighboring countries?
Since this didn’t result from the Iraq war, who or what is responsible? Other than the citizens of Dover, PA, that is.
(10)
What the heck, let’s make it a round number.
Has anyone asked Judith Miller (and investigated independently) whether she has ever directly received money from the White House or the Bush Administration or the Republican party or any front organization thereof? The New York Times editors didn’t mention asking her, did they?
JimC wrote:
If any of you on the left can go beyond conspiracy theory to hard fact that the President actually lied about and manipulated the intel, even in the face of all the intel from foreign intel organizations, even in the light of your beloved democratic party’s leaders, including the big man himself, Billy Bob Clinton, spouting off on record (video evidence is abundant) about how Saddam’s WMD’s cannot be tolerated, well then you might actually gain support from moderate republicans and defeat this evil W. In the mean time, you people sound like completely deranged baboons…
I challenge anyone of you crazies to actually prove one accusation without using the old argument that “you can’t because the GOP won’t let you…”
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 10:11 am ¶
matt wrote:
>I challenge anyone of you crazies to actually prove one accusation without using the old argument that “you can’t because the GOP won’t let you…”
how convenient. the President classifies everything up to and including his lunch order (http://www.1115.org/2005/08/03/secrecy/) and we’re supposed to prove what now?
do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds when republicans say “but even bill clinton…”
anyone could have believed that saddam had wmd. DELIVERY was the issue, and despite tales of unmanned drones carrying nukes (thanks dr. rice) no one sane thought they could be delivered.
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 11:02 am ¶
Sarabeth Guthberg wrote:
>
Sadly, one of Nixon’s legacies is that since then it is really very hard to actually catch a President in the act of lying.
But it certainly looks like Americans are finally starting to say to themselves “Hang on, don’t I have a little intelligence too?” Funny how a majority of them are coming to the conclusion that a whole lot of lyin’ did in fact go on, and how they perversely insist of laying the responsibilty at Bush’s door, even when presumably everyone should know that the buck doesn’t stop there, it stops with the likes of Lynndie England.
But I wouldn’t get so lathered up if I were you. Truth and justice will always prevail in the end, won’t they?
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 1:07 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Not sure if you’ve kept up with history but suitcase nukes and dirtybombs can be humped on some would-be martyr’s back disguised as a college student waiting for the tour of the {insert target here}. Saddam was already funding suicide bombers to attack Israel. The human bomb has become the weapon of choice for psychopaths. It would not need to be an ICBM or drone or scud, it could be Joe Terrorist with a nice haircut and a death wish…..
Now beyond, that, I seem to remember scud missiles falling down into Israel during Gulf 1. Saddam had since built an even longer range missile and yes in violation of sanctions. This missile could have easily hit US targets in the region and our allies.
To say that referencing Bill Clinton speaking of Saddam’s WMD’s as ridiculous only exposes your blind partisanship and that you have no real desire to know the “truth” nor care about what has happened, you just want Bush to be hurt politically. Otherwise, any logical and sober person would not make such claims about Bush’s call to war when those at the top of their own party were there rallying behind him….
Furthermore, since you like to speak in conspiracy theories, why hasn’t the convoys of semi-trucks that we have satellite photos of that were leaving Iraq in the months before the war and going to Syria had more play in the MSM? What was Saddam shipping to Syria? His collection finger paintings? I doubt it…you people are so easily fooled you must be great magic show audiences…
Let’s pretend you were President, and you had your own intelligence agencies providing you with a cases that Saddam had WMD’s and plan to sue them. You had the French intelligence agencies telling you he has them, same with the Germans and Russians. You have the Jordanians telling our top generals that Iraq has WMD’s and Egypt tells them he has them and plans to use them on your troops, which they believed so much it shaped part of the fast moving strategy of racing to Bahgdad. You have all this backing up WMD case, not to mention Saddam’s own action suggest he is trying to hide his activities and that inspectors had not been allowed in for the last 3 years prior. All of this, and you have to decide, “Do we keep playing the waiting game hoping Saddam grows a conscience? Or do we actually do something about it and not put it off for the next generation to deal with possible threat from Saddam” Furthermore, what would have the alternative been? Leave Saddam and his sons in power? How long were we to keep up the cat and mouse routine, until all the intel proved to be correct? How bad would the President be hammered had he left Saddam in power only to have the intel be right?
Furthermore your argument that this War created Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is moronic. In fact this War has helped keep Al-Quidas focus off of our soft targets and on Iraq. To pretend that terrorism would have been much milder had we not gone into Iraq is delusional….
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 1:39 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
“Sarabeth Guthberg Says:
November 15th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
>
Sadly, one of Nixon’s legacies is that since then it is really very hard to actually catch a President in the act of lying.”
Funny how these days no one has to prove anything, they can go on ABC’s Good Morning America and make wild accusations without a shred of proof or even reality.
Fact is, a bi-partisan investigation found that no coercian took place to force a particular intelligence outcome. But let’s not let reality get in the way of lefty loon-land…I’ve heard you guys have some new rides there must be fun for the kiddies….
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 1:43 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
“Without 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 is miscalculating America’s response to his 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
“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
“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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“We 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 th! e 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
“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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), 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.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 2:08 pm ¶
Sarabeth Guthberg wrote:
Goodness gracious me, I do believe you have firmly established that many Democrats have indeed been guilty of believing what the President put out. So your point is that they should have known better?
And what’s with the insults? If you think you have the truth on your side, why are the low blows and the name calling necessary? No one has attacked you, not Matt, not me. No one’s calling you moronic or delusional or crazy. You’re welcome to your views, and you’re welcome to air them here. I guess you’re even welcome to be offensive if that’s how you get your jollies.
As for your comment “Funny how these days no one has to prove anything, they can go on ABC’s Good Morning America and make wild accusations without a shred of proof or even reality”, I would recommend that you watch today’s replay of yesterday’s Daily Show, specifically the “Moment of Zen” that appears at the end. Cheney comes across as THE past master at the art of making wild accusations without a shred of proof or reality
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 4:50 pm ¶
matt wrote:
so you can copy paste from whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051114-1.html)
who’s the baboon now?
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 5:41 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
“Sarabeth Guthberg Says:
Goodness gracious me, I do believe you have firmly established that many Democrats have indeed been guilty of believing what the President put out. So your point is that they should have known better? ”
Nice try but I do believe the quotes dated before Bush took office can’t really be attributed to his “lies” now can they?
As far as the attacks, it is out sheer frustration out of how mindless people follow the media without questioning anything. Frustration over the absolute illogical dribble that comes from the left.
And for watching The Daily Show, far too many young people think that is real news…much like Bill Maher’s show, nothing but part of the same liberal media domination trying to sway uninformed people.
These quotes are very significant in that they show how worthless the democrats are and how oblivious most people are to that fact. These quotes show that democrats cannot escape their own hypocrisy. No one with half a brain buys the “I was duped by W” defense. Especially from the likes of Kerry who served on the intelligence committee.
Funny how the left claims W is so stupid in one sentence and then accuses him of masterminding the biggest scam in history, how he pulled the wool over all their helpless little eyes. These Senators can’t be blamed for failing to do their job, W fooled them…
That’s where the left is in a pickle, if they claim W fooled them then they admit they didn’t do their job, if they stick to their statements then their a hawk. Very troubling indeed…
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 8:52 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
“so you can copy paste from whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051114-1.html)
who’s the baboon now? ”
Actually, I got it from glen beck, at http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
However, no matter where or how I got this info, it does not invalidate the relevence, especially the quotes prior to W taking office….
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 8:56 pm ¶
ice weasel wrote:
Jim’s all over the place. Same MO everywhere. Post tons of drivel and try sound reasonable while really saying nothing at all. Hmmmm, sounds familiar? Hey, Jim, you aren’t really scotty mcC in drag, are you?
For the rest here. It will be interesting where this all ends up. With a potential trial for scooter shaping up in time to keep this issue nice and hot for the 06 elections and the “people” of this fine nation seeming to wake up a bit (”hey, is that coffee?”), 06 portends to be a year possibly as important politically as 04 was. Hell, it may even swing that nasty pendulum back a bit.
Here’s to hoping.
Posted 15 Nov 2005 at 9:18 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
“ice weasel Says:
Jim’s all over the place. Same MO everywhere. Post tons of drivel and try sound reasonable while really saying nothing at all.”
Saying nothing at all? I guess if you consider showing that the dems are full of crap nothing, then I guess you’re right. Only thing the dems have is that they cry about something abstract like W telling a lie, showing the dems contradicting themselves and still denying it ever happened, is priceless…
Only way dems can win is if they put up moderates in the red states and that is iffy…
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 12:19 am ¶
Sarabeth Guthberg wrote:
> Funny how the left claims W is so stupid in one sentence and then accuses him of masterminding the biggest scam in history
I would never accuse the guy of masterminding anything more complicated than changing the toilet paper roll. But as President, he’s the one who scratches his X on the dotted line when the Roves and Cheneys are done.
> And for watching The Daily Show, far too many young people think that is real news
Get real. The poster child for those-who-think-the-Daily-Show-is-Real-News will forever be Tucker Carlson.
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 5:39 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Sarabeth Guthberg Says:
November 16th, 2005 at 5:39 am
>I would never accuse the guy of masterminding anything more complicated than changing the toilet paper roll. But as President, he’s the one who scratches his X on the dotted line when the Roves and Cheneys are done.
Then leave W alone, he’s not to blame its that evil Rove and Cheney…
Tucker Carlson, who listens to him, my dial is on Foxnews but I doubt that is of any surprise to you. :-) Although I do watch ABC News in the evening just to see how sublte (or not so subtle) the bias is on that station.
But seriously, if you condemn W then you must condemn the senators who pledged their support for him in the run up to the war which includes many favorite from the above list. IF W lied, then so did they, and so did Bill Clinton while he was in office. This “Bush lied” garbage is pure partisan hackery. If it were about the truth, then Hillary and Kerry and Edwards and the rest of that list above would be required to resign as well…but we all know this is not about the truth or the war, it is about doing political damage to the “moron” who the “hillbillies” in the red states managed to get him elected twice.
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 6:39 am ¶
matt wrote:
>IF W lied, then so did they, and so did Bill Clinton while he was in office. This “Bush lied” garbage is pure partisan hackery. If it were about the truth, then Hillary and Kerry and Edwards and the rest of that list above would be required to resign as well
It seems you have some kind of cognitive problem. Whatever Bill Clinton believed, he didn’t take us on a snipe hunt for WMD and upon not finding any switched his policy to spreading freedom. Whatever anyone else believed, Bush did this, and now doesn’t want to pay the political price for being wrong. It’s cowardly.
Show me one statement from any prominent Democrat (with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman who doesn’t count as a Democrat) from March of 2003 saying “yeah, kicking out the weapons inspectors right now to have a war is a good idea.” If you can do that, I’ll give you a frontpage post to blather on about why Bush is the greatest President ever and why freedom pitches your tent. Otherwise, you’re making a fatally flawed argument that nothing changed in the 5 months between the vote and the war.
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 8:44 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>”It seems you have some kind of cognitive problem. Whatever Bill Clinton believed, he didn’t take us on a snipe hunt for WMD and upon not finding any switched his policy to spreading freedom. Whatever anyone else believed, Bush did this, and now doesn’t want to pay the political price for being wrong. It’s cowardly. ”
So let me get this straight, recognizing a threat, which he did, and not do anything about it, is better? I think all you’re proving is hind sight is 20/20…
>”Show me one statement from any prominent Democrat (with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman who doesn’t count as a Democrat) from March of 2003 saying “yeah, kicking out the weapons inspectors right now to have a war is a good idea.” ”
Using the UN weapons inspector exception argumetn is weak.
Let’s see, John Kerry says
““Without 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 is miscalculating America’s response to his 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″
And we’re to believe that U.N. weapons inspectors would do the job? Does any of this statement give you the indication that Kerry was recommending U.N. weapons inspections? Another fatal flaw of the left, beleiving in the U.N….futhermore, how long do were we to keep letting Saddam play cat and mouse? He kicked weapons inspectors out for yearsm then before the war in order to try to buy some more time, he gives limited access to sites which he had already cleared. It is obvious that his actions did not project a man who had nothing to hide…like I have said before, I’m still not convinced there were no WMD’s. We’ve simply not located them yet…ref: buried MiG’s in the desert, convoys of semi-trucks to Syria with unknown contents, etc. etc….Iraq is a big desert, Saddam had plenty of time to hide things in the desert…
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 9:38 am ¶
matt wrote:
what is that kerry quote supposed to prove? you couldn’t answer my question, so you pulled an unrelated quote from two month prior. pathetic
>like I have said before, I’m still not convinced there were no WMD’s. We’ve simply not located them yet…ref: buried MiG’s in the desert, convoys of semi-trucks to Syria with unknown contents, etc. etc….Iraq is a big desert, Saddam had plenty of time to hide things in the desert…
in case there is any doubt on your part, this is how we know that you aren’t interested in facts
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 10:34 am ¶
Sarabeth Guthberg wrote:
> Then leave W alone, he’s not to blame its that evil Rove and Cheney…
I’m really curious. What’s your concept of the President and the Presidency? How come he’s supposed to be in charge but is not supposed to be responsible?
> IF W lied, then so did they, and so did Bill Clinton while he was in office.
Do you really not get the most basic things about this whole debate regarding whether intelligence was manipulated? If the Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people about the intelligence (for example, by presenting already discredited intelligence as fact) , and senators and congressmen and ordinary Americans believed and trusted what they were told, and therefore supported the war, then the only one who was lying was the Bush administration. The senators and congressmen and ordinary Americans are only guilty of gullibility (and they are being duly taxed with that now).
>>”It seems you have some kind of cognitive problem. Whatever Bill Clinton believed, he didn’t take us on a snipe hunt for WMD and upon not finding any switched his policy to spreading freedom. Whatever anyone else believed, Bush did this, and now doesn’t want to pay the political price for being wrong. It’s cowardly. ”
>So let me get this straight, recognizing a threat, which he did, and not do anything about it, is better? I think all you’re proving is hind sight is 20/20…
I guess you do have some kind of cognitive problem, if you can say “all you’re proving is hind sight is 20/20” in response to Matt’s statement that not a single Democrat said back in March 2003 that it was a good idea to kick out the weapons inspectors and start a war then.
Everyone believed Saddam represented a problem. Everyone believed something needed to be done about it. The Democrats that the White House has been quoting didn’t believe, even back then, and even based on the slanted and selective intelligence the Bush administration was feeding them, that what needed to be done was to invade Iraq. The Bush administration, even with the benefit of possessing all the intelligence that was withheld from Congress and Americans (and which undercut the rationale for war), decided that what needed to be done was to invade Iraq.
This is not about 20/20 hindsight This is about that everyone felt/decided/said/supported back then, and what it was based on (truth or fiction), and who was responsible for feeding untruths and partial truths to Congress and the American public so that both would support the war.
> So let me get this straight, recognizing a threat, which he did, and not do anything about it, is better?
Ah, so there were only two options at the time: war or nothing? So stupid of the rest of us not to see such an obvious and simple truth!
> like I have said before, I’m still not convinced there were no WMD’s. We’ve simply not located them yet…ref: buried MiG’s in the desert, convoys of semi-trucks to Syria with unknown contents, etc. etc….Iraq is a big desert, Saddam had plenty of time to hide things in the desert…
Help me out here. All these weapons were hidden away so that they could be brought out when and used for what?
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 1:02 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Let me explain this to you.
The relevence of the Kerry quote is to show that his language was very strong and did not indicate in that time ,as you clearly stated was two months prior, that Kerry was suggesting a measured respone via the U.N.. The absence of any quote in the time frame does not prove or disprove Kerry’s suppsoed U.N. stance. In fact unless he was quoted otherwise, one should conclude his stance hadn’t changed from Jan. 23. 2003.
Now on to the WMD’s. What are the facts sir? The only fact is that we have not found WMD’s in Iraq in strategic quantities. This however does not explain what happened to the WMD’s we do know Saddam once had. Nor does it explain what Saddam shipped to Syria under suspicious circumstances and in mass quantities. What were in those containers? No one knows. Also does not explain why illegal Iraqi missile components found their way to other countries apparently smuggled out through scrap metal. Also, Saddam could bury whole MigFighters in the desert, what makes you believe he could bury nuclear components in the desert?
Lastly, a friend has started reading your website and offered this comment which I will post here…
Guy wrote:
“From what I can tell, their whole argument is as follows: “George Bush is so dumb and such a liar that he totally had us all hoodwinked, so vote for us!”
It’s a waste of time talking to fools like that. They aren’t basing their disagreement on facts, they’re not even basing it upon deeply held principles or philosophical opinions, they’re just being contrary. There was nothing that was voted on in the Senate that said anything about going to the UN for the 18th time. UN Resolution 1441 was the real deal, even Syria voted for it, so everybody in the Senate knew exactly what that vote meant, except all the Democratic Senators who voted for it (except Joe Lieberman, who is actually standing up against his party on this). So vote for Democrats for Senate! They don’t know what the hell they’re voting on! Even though Bush is the dumb one!”
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 1:14 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
“Help me out here. All these weapons were hidden away so that they could be brought out when and used for what”
Umm yes, he has done this before and the strategy is to hide them until pansies in the U.N. lifted sanctions and pulled weapons inspectors out. Then he would have had free reign to ramp up WMD’s again….
If you have not seen the pictures of the buried MiG’s I will find it for you…a MiG by the way is a Russian made jet fighter…which Saddam illegally purchased under Clinton’s watch…
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 1:24 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>The absence of any quote in the time frame does not prove or disprove Kerry’s suppsoed U.N. stance. In fact unless he was quoted otherwise, one should conclude his stance hadn’t changed from Jan. 23. 2003.
word games. make a real argument, or really, what’s the point?
>It’s a waste of time talking to fools like that. They aren’t basing their disagreement on facts, they’re not even basing it upon deeply held principles or philosophical opinions, they’re just being contrary.
back at you
i think that we’ve gone as far down this road as we can. your friend should read through our archives if he wants to know what our opinions are and what principle we hold. short of that, he can simply judge us in silence or have you hold the keyboard for him i guess.
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 1:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
“word games. make a real argument, or really, what’s the point?”
Words games? Kerry said this, if he never publically changed his position before the war started, what can you infer from that?
Posted 16 Nov 2005 at 2:57 pm ¶