If a committee is created to try and discover the biggest failure in recent American intelligence, they won’t have to look any further for an answer than the signature at the bottom of the Executive Order that formed them.
PAD
If a committee is created to try and discover the biggest failure in recent American intelligence, they won’t have to look any further for an answer than the signature at the bottom of the Executive Order that formed them.
PAD
• 
WHen the polic come to a house with a search warrant they do not allow you a few hours or days to tidy the place up – kinow what I mean?
Oh. You mean like the way Ashcroft gave the White House 48 hours’ warning ahead of a subpoena in the Valerie Plame case?
Just checking.
TWL
Gee – does that negate my point about this foriegn policy issue?
It’s the same ridiculous argument Dems make when someone criticizes Clinton. It doesn’t mean EVERYTHING CLINTON did was WRONG b/c of some of the bad things he did.
Now I am not going to get into this ‘leak’. If it turns out they discover it was leaked and it was intentionally and malicously leak – then go after the bášŧárd responsible.
If it’s Bush – then so be it. But I highly doubt you’ll trace it that far up.
The same way almost every woman who came out against Clinton somehow was adutied adn how Bill O’Reilly was audited three years in a row under the Clinton admin.
I am no big fan of O’reilly but when it shows the Government abuses its power – I’m ticked.
Your example is really just a distraction from the Iraqi issue.
I don’t attack Kerry for throwing his medals over the White House fence over Nam when discussing Iraq and the need for support of the action?
Come on – stay on topic. This isn’t a ‘let’s dig up everything each side has done or is suspected of doing something wrong.”
If that’s the case we can sit here all day about Clinton.
You know – exempting comapnies from missile technologyu restrictions and then THAT company having donated large sums to the Democratic party and then YOU KNOW the CHinese donating large sums and then THEY wind up with the technology only for us to say ‘give it back’ we must monitor the takeoff if it will contain THAT technology and THEN the missile crashes and when they get to the site THAT technology is the only thing missing and NOW they are a heck of a lot closer to having long range missile capability.
Do we really want to start trotting out the mistakes of both sides – or do we want to keep it on topic, which is:
SMart-ášš PAD spoutes off on Bush malicously with no back-up no explanation for the quotes given in retort and then fizzling out with insults when exposed as the misinformed speak from the heart but shut off the brain know it all arrogant liberal that he is.
Yes – THAT was the point.
Udog says: “I suppose wyou are right and the world is NOT a safer place without Sadaam.”
He was a threat to his entire region in 1991. Since the end of that conflict, he was slowly neutered by sanctions and inspections and the occasional “Monica distraction.” By the time he evicted the UN in ’98, the IEAA were convinced there was no longer a nuclear threat, and subsequent inspections by Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and David Kay all turned up zilch.
So, no, the world is no safer now than it was before March 2003, because Saddam Hussein posed no real threat to the world.
“If you’ll recall the PALACES were on of the place he did NOT allow inspectors in repeatedly.
And then there was the little fact of letting them inafter only HOURS and DAY in delays, which gave him time to move stuff.”
Visit 1:
“On Tuesday, Iraq sought to display cooperation with weapons inspectors as the nation allowed inspectors unlimited access to a presidential palace for the first time ever…” – ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/04/sproject.irq.inspectors/index.html )
“A few hours was all the time they spent on the site, and this was quite a large site… But after about five minutes, the inspectors (got) in, and officials (told) us the inspectors were getting all the access they wanted.” – ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/03/otsc.robertson/index.html )
And more here:
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2537963.stm )
So, they waited a whole five minutes. Just enough time to flush a doobie! And then they were met with — zero resistance, and unlimited access. Sure, the Iraqi officials complained. After the fact.
Visit 2:
“Meanwhile in Baghdad Wednesday, U.N. arms experts inspected a presidential palace in the al-Karadah district that is known popularly as the Old Palace. It is their second visit to a residence of President Saddam Hussein since inspections resumed last November.”
( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/15/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html )
“The experts were granted immediate access to the Republican Palace in Baghdad, where the Iraqi leader maintains his main office.” – ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2660201.stm )
More of the same. These are the only two accounts of palace inspections using Search Warrant 1441.
“You can be a narrow minded twit and say “Oh – he let them in – so he cooperated””
Hee. Namecalling. Nice tactic.
“WHen the polic come to a house with a search warrant they do not allow you a few hours or days to tidy the place up – kinow what I mean?
Put two and two together please”
I make my obsevations based on information as it’s presented to me from sources that are as unbiased as possible, and sometimes rely heavily on my own memory of that older information. I took into consideration the possibility that maybe your recollection of this matter was correct, that my own was faulty, and did the homework to refresh my memory. The results can be found above. Seems my memory wasn’t quite so faulty after all. 😉
Do a little more research and find the incidents where he did NOT cooperate.
Do you really think we went to war b/c he delayed us five minutes in one instance and none in the others.
Talk about out of context.
No, of course I don’t think we went to war because of a five-minute delay. Stop building straw men.
I don’t think we went to war because of WMD’s at all. They were, as several administration officials have made clear, “the one thing everyone could agree on” as a selling point to the public. That doesn’t for a minute mean it was the primary motivation — just what the general public was supposed to think was the primary motivation.
As for the Plame incident, I find it amazing that you can say “if it really was leaked” with a straight typeface. What, Novak got the information straight from the brow of Zeus?
The question is not whether it was leaked. The question is when, by whom, and for what purpose. Joe Wilson has made his opinions on the matter pretty clear — no doubt yours differ. Or would that only be the case if Wilson were somewhat overweight and in the entertainment industry?
TWL
Udog says: “Do a little more research and find the incidents where he did NOT cooperate.”
I’m aware of those incidents. 1441 was coerced out of the UN because “none of the other resolutions worked,” which pretty much renders the argument of all the prior incidents of stonewalling and non-cooperation moot, which is why I focused exclusively upon those inspections which took place under the umbrella of 1441.
The administration was railing hard, claiming non-cooperation during *this* set of inspections, based almost entirely on the discrepancies in the report handed over in Jan. 2002. Inspections “on the ground” were unhindered, and could have continued for months, *with* the full support of the UN.
Hardly “out of context.”
“Do you really think we went to war b/c he delayed us five minutes in one instance and none in the others.”
I never said anything of the sort. The “why” really doesn’t much matter to me. The fact that george dragged our military into war, pre-emptively, without any provocation — remember, there were no connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq — is reprehensible, unforgivable.
**The “why” really doesn’t much matter to me. The fact that george dragged our military into war, pre-emptively, without any provocation — remember, there were no connections between Al Quaeda and Iraq — is reprehensible, unforgivable.
Posted by Wildcat @ 02/05/2004 02:04 PM ET **
Pre-emptive is what the War on Terror is about. Do you really think we are worse off having removed Sadaam. Do you truly think we should’ve left him in power?
Please explain to me how CLinton’s military actions against Iraq should not be simlarily criticized?
If you do then fine you are at least being consistent – but if you defend Clinton but attack Bush it is purely political games you are engaged in.
How many soldiers died when Clinton had Iraq bombed? How much money was spent then compared to what is being spent now? Were France, Germany, and Russia along with many other countries against Clinton’s bombing. I think you have your answer as to the difference.
Just incase you didn’t realize, I was speaking of our soldiers.
Presumably if it is the right course of action the amount of money spent is not the ultimate issue?
And i really don’t care about whether or not Germany and France were ARE or ever WILL be in agreement with us.
We should do what we nEED to do regardless of international support. Of course you try and get it – but if it fails you don’t kick the can and say ‘oh well . . .’
It seems that you excuse Clinton’s actions because we didn’t lose as many soldiers, it was cheap and we had the almighty approval of France and Germany.
Yet he still lobbed some missles at Iraq. If you don’t waste too much money doing it, it’s okay?
Or maybe it’s because all Bubba did was toss them at an aspirin factory! I guess if you are completely inept with your foriegn policy we leave that President alone, huh?
The cost in lives of soldiers and money is important because we need to weigh the pros and cons.
Avoiding another 9/11 carries alot fo weight, don’t you think?
Yes, avoiding another 9/11 is helpful. Bush’s actions in Iraq have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP MATTERS in that regard.
Al Qaeda’s still around and active. Bin Laden’s still around. Iraq is a quagmire which is now full to the brim with anti-US violence, and it’s forcing us to devote so many military resources to it that everything else is getting less vigilance than it needs.
We’ve pìššëd øff the international community so much that if another 9/11 DOES happen, odds are that a lot of our erstwhile allies are going to say “y’know, this time you were really acting like áššhølëš … and we think you kinda asked for this one.”
After 9/11, we had everyone on our side. As has been pointed out previously, even France said “We are all Americans today.” Given the last two years, I can’t picture France ever saying such a thing again.
You may say “good, we don’t need ’em.” I believe you’re wrong in that. Maybe we don’t need France per se — but when we eventually get to the point where we don’t have ANYONE on our side, we’re going to lose one day. There’s only so much the U.S. can achieve by flexing military and/or economic muscle — eventually those resources will run out.
Right now, I really don’t wanna be here when that happens — as with a previous empire’s fall, seeing the Visigoths drop by for tea is not going to be a pretty sight.
TWL
There is no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and you said it yourself “The Iraq threat wasn’t imminent” or something like that.
I didn’t link Sadaam TO 9/11 – instead framed why we act the way we do AFTER 9/11. You don’t have to have been involved in 9/11 to be a potential threat to 9/11 interests.
And I lvoe the catch 22 of this adminstration. Bin Laden is still at large is a criticism – yet – he’ll be found ‘miraculously’ right before the election is the conspiracy barb.
Ðámņëd if he does and . . .well you know.
Is there anything GWB could do besides leaving the country and subjecting himself to a tar and feathering that would make you happy? Has he done nothing right or is he the cause of ALL our problems?
You said Saddam wasn’t an imminent threat. Now you say he was. Which one is it?
I never said he was an imminent threat.
He doesn’t have to be to justify action. Bush’s doctrine is on pre-emption.
The much criticized intelligence never even said he was an imminent threat.
your point being . . .
Republicans were worried that what Clinton did would have a bad influence on the nation’s children. What if the children took Bush’s example and attacked other children because they were looking at them funny.
Do you really think we are worse off having removed Sadaam. Do you truly think we should’ve left him in power?
This is always the first argument for going after Saddam, and it’s pathetic.
Do you really think we should have gone after Saddam when we haven’t caught bin Laden?
Do you really think we should have gone after Saddam when countries that are DIRECT threats to this nation, such as N Korea, are out there?
Do you think at all?
Udog says: “Pre-emptive is what the War on Terror is about.”
The “War on Terror” is as much a farce as the “War on Drugs.” The phrase itself isn’t much more than a catchphrase dropped into any discussion at the leisure of any politician or pundit trying to justify anything that they support that is imminently unjustifiable. Undoubtedly, there is much going on behind the scenes to find and remove terrorist cells, and that’s fine. That’s how it should be done. But that’s not war, and *naming* it a “War on Terror” doesn’t *make* it a war.
Launching a pre-emptive war without a rock-solid reason, against the objection of a majority of the civilized world, is just wrong. It can’t be justified. It’s seen by many as an act of belligerence and it smacks of imperialism. It sets a bad precedent and unwittingly validates any third-world despot who may ever invade a neighbour “in self defense.” It *certainly* gives ammo to the very terror organizations that we’re supposed to be tearing down.
“Do you really think we are worse off having removed Sadaam.”
This is a cheap trick, trying to put words in my mouth, but I’ll answer anyway: I don’t think it made a lick of difference one way or another. I think Saddam Hussein was a non-factor on the day that george sent the first troops in. He was probably already a non-factor in 1998 when they ushered out the UN inspectors.
“Do you truly think we should’ve left him in power?”
Yes, just like we leave the governments of China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, and any given former Soviet State in power. But I also think that there are more acceptable methods that could and should have been applied. I never even rule out war, but I think that it should be the very last result.
“Please explain to me how CLinton’s military actions against Iraq should not be simlarily criticized?”
This is one of those “apples and oranges” things. Clinton’s Iraq policy was mainly sanctions, no-fly zones (which allowed the Kurds to not only survive and thrive, but develop their own form of democratic government), and the bombings that were ordered following the 1998 eviction. Please bear in mind that around that time, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others tried to convince Clinton to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq, ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm ) and when he ignored their letter, they petitioned Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm ) Please bear in mind the positions that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle now hold in the current administration.
I can’t say much more than Bush than I already have: he ignored all peaceful options and started a war, with evidence that was flimsy at best, but probably simply non-existent.
Had Bill Clinton followed the advice of Rumsfeld and company, and started a war with Iraq without UN or NATO backing, and based on flimsy evidence or even lies to the Congress and the rest of us, it would have been just as wrong, and I would be just as critical.
Had george, at the “eleventh hour” last March, chosen to back down and support the UN, or even better, had left Iraq on its back burner where it belonged (barring a flare-up of some kind, and I would never rule out such a possibility), I obviously wouldn’t as critical of his foreign policy as I am.
“If you do then fine you are at least being consistent – but if you defend Clinton but attack Bush it is purely political games you are engaged in.”
Well, you’re entitled to whatever opinion you want to form about me, but I’ll know better. 😉
I think that if Clinton went through 9/11 he may very possibly wound up doing the same thing as Bush. That’s what makes it so hard to reconcile everyone’s problem.
It appears that it is a game of: It’s okay when a Democrat does it but NOT if a Republican does.
It also is obvious that when someone is intellectually honest like Joe Lieberman, his voice is ignored. Here’s a guy that doesn’t grind an axe with Bush and is in agreement with our actions. He then says what HE will do and what other things he will do better. That’s positive.
By the numbers – Dems don’t want that. They want polar opposites of Bush – you can’t admit ANYTHING Bush does is okay or for the better.
It’s almost like if he saves a baby – Dems will wait 18 years and see if that baby does anything wrong, so they can say:
“Look at the criminal Bush helped put free in society”
it’s sort of ludicrous.
ANd if we agree that intelligence was faulty – why not figure out what’s wrong BEFORE we attribute it to one man or party. That doesn’t seem fair.
Oh – it was Bush’s final decision to go to war – so if the intelligence turns out faulty – it was his fault OR his doing and masterminded plan?
No – not logical. It involves both sides. And if you even believe that conspiracy theory – to what gain is it created for?
If he is just a knucklehead – then why did he HAVE the support of the country.
Oh – because he LIED.
A lie is not a misstatement or something that is necessarily untrue. There’s an element of mens rea involve.d You have to KNOW the truth in order for your statement to go from an un-truth or incorrect fact to a LIE.
Do we really believe Bush KNEW otherwise or purposely picked intelligence he knew was unrelieable?
I don’t think so.
ANd if we agree that intelligence was faulty – why not figure out what’s wrong BEFORE we attribute it to one man or party. That doesn’t seem fair.
Because Bush didn’t wait to make sure that the intelligence wasn’t faulty before starting a war.
Udog says: “I think that if Clinton went through 9/11 he may very possibly wound up doing the same thing as Bush. That’s what makes it so hard to reconcile everyone’s problem.
It appears that it is a game of: It’s okay when a Democrat does it but NOT if a Republican does.”
While I disagree that Clinton would have gone so far as to invade Iraq, I’m not a mind reader, and it’s entirely possible that he would’ve done just that. And my opinion would be no different. I’d say the same things I’ve said about Bush, only I’d be saying them about Clinton. So no, it has nothing at *all* to do with me disagreeing with something a guy did just because he has an “R” behind his name, or giving a free pass to another because he’s a Dem.
“It also is obvious that when someone is intellectually honest like Joe Lieberman, his voice is ignored. Here’s a guy that doesn’t grind an axe with Bush and is in agreement with our actions. He then says what HE will do and what other things he will do better. That’s positive.
By the numbers – Dems don’t want that. They want polar opposites of Bush – you can’t admit ANYTHING Bush does is okay or for the better.”
Honesty is fine, and I don’t question his personal integrity or his convictions on this matter. But by his record and actions and words, the man is somewhere to the right of John McCain, which is why he probably doesn’t resonate quite as well with most of the “plebian” Dems. *Somebody* in the established party liked him, or he never would have been chosen by Gore.
But polarizing the voters… I’m sorry, but neither party has a headlock on that tactic. (You might not have noticed, but the term “liberal” has become a slanderous, almost hateful word in the past 15 years.) I have my own opinion of who’s more effective, but that’s another argument. 😉
I will say that george didn’t *need* the help of any Dems to create this kind of polarization — he brung it on himself!
“ANd if we agree that intelligence was faulty – why not figure out what’s wrong BEFORE we attribute it to one man or party. That doesn’t seem fair.”
Whether the intelligence was faulty or not, that’s still debatable. The comparisons between what the CIA said (what they’ve told the public that they said, at any rate) and the reality inside of Iraq seem to indicate that the CIA had it pretty much right. The disparity seems to be between what the CIA told the administration, and what the administration says they were given. So, sure, an inquiry into the intelligence is appropriate, but it’s just as important to look into how the administration came to the conclusions that they did.
“A lie is not a misstatement or something that is necessarily untrue. There’s an element of mens rea involve.d You have to KNOW the truth in order for your statement to go from an un-truth or incorrect fact to a LIE.
Do we really believe Bush KNEW otherwise or purposely picked intelligence he knew was unrelieable?”
Nigerian plutonium. The CIA proved this notion false in late 2002, and told the administration that it was false. Yet the claim still found its way into the SotU. The aluminum tubes were also disproved by the CIA, yet still claimed by the administration afterwards. Claims that Iraq was harbouring Al Quaeda were just as unfounded.
And it’s not at all necessary to say an outright lie in order to mislead. While george and his keepers never actually claimed a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 2001 attacks, there was rarely a speech or a comment in which “Saddam” and “9/11” weren’t uttered in the same sentence. And they were, quite often. It *was* rare for an administration official to state outright that there *was* no connection. And those aforementioned statements about Al Quada in Iraq only reinforced this notion. The result: a majority of Americans believed that Saddam hired those hijackers. If the george and his regime didn’t lie to us, they were certainly successful at misleading us.
So, were we lied to, or were we simply misled? To quote george: “What’s the difference?”
There certainly is a lot of gray surrounding the intelligence – but I just don’t automatically assume that Bush jumped the gun.
There may have been an element of fearing that if we wait too long – where will the weapons go etc…
Although it seems that Sadaam may have already gotten rid of them in our months long prelude to war. Syria? Al Queda? We don’t know and that’s what we must find out. We know he had them – he used them on the Kurds.
I guess it is just sad when b/c of elections etc – both sides have to make issues more polarized than they need be to gain seats/get elected etc.
It seems that almost no politician can just do what’s right without factoring in public opinion and/or electability.
Well that’s our system – but it is the best we’ve got going. I just think it needs to be re-enforced that there are spin-meisters on BOTH sides and whatever might have gone wrong here doesn’t mean the Republicans are evil or were just itching to finishe the Gulf War.