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
• 
Did you even listen to David Kay’s report? I listend to his speach, and he was very adement that the Intelligent problem was not an error on the president, or anyone else’s part. He even said he almost wished that was the case, becuase we know what to do with faulty leaders. But he was very clear that was not the case.
Every time you come back with comments like this, not supported by the actual report, it makes you sound like a petty person on the lossing side. This is a fundemental reason why the Democratic Party is having such a hard time.
You’ve repeatedly said that you don’t think anybody can beat Bush. Not so, and definately a defeatist additude. I want to see 2 strong parties, becuase it gives the people more choices in it’s leaders. But the constant backlashing and statements not supported by facts is making the democratic party into a snake eating it’s own tail.
This is why Wesley Clark has fallen behind so far in the Primaries, becuase of unfactual statements about Bush supposedly going AWOL. This was not supported by the facts, he was given an honorable discharge – and continual lame attacks like this serve no purpose but to discredit the integirty of the Democratic party.
I most certinly do not hold any higher position to the Republicans, as all political figures seemingly always play the field. BUT – it seems apparent that it’s always the party out of power that makes the biggest fool of it’s self.
If you dislike Bush so much, then find a canidate to support on the otherside. But don’t degrade your ideals with this ultimately self defeating stlye of mud slinging.
http://www.moveon.org/censure/
“Are you better off today that you were four years ago?”
“As for Valerie Plame, there’s an ivestigation, with indictments rumored soon. It’s hard to consider it high treason when she recently appeared in a full color spread in Vogue”
Well, what else would you have her do? It’s not like she can do her job anymore anyway. Maybe she can get some justice.
I’m sorry, Bush is an idiot. His intelligence blunders are among the most embarassing to this country ever. From the lesser known blunders in Cuba to the situation in Iraq, Bush is a disgrace to America.
And I’m sorry to those of you who don’t want to hear people speak out, but I am an American Citizen, and it’s my right to speak out when I see an injustice done.
Ra!
From Moveon.org website:
But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed.(footnote) And now that reality is setting in, the President seeks to pin the blame on someone else.
A little matter on the preemptive war, and how we’ve never done such a thing before:
Russia 1918
Guatamala 1954
Chile 1972
Nicaragua, Grenada, El Salvador, Panama, etc.
Frankly, there is not a nation on the planet, with the possible exception of Canada, that we have not “tinkered with” over the years. Whether the actual armed services or the Central Intelligence Agency, we have been making a habit of invading nations with little provocation. Frankly, as Tom Tomorrow once stated in his cartoon, the CIA has never actually been an intelligence gathering service but an organization that the executive branch can use to get rid of foreign governments that it doesn’t like. We have to come to terms with this and change it if we want to improve our image abroad.
Ben (not a conspiracy nut but a history student) Hunt
This is why Wesley Clark has fallen behind so far in the Primaries, becuase of unfactual statements about Bush supposedly going AWOL.
Actually Michael Moore said that. Wesley Clark said he didn’t agree. Why don’t you read all about what Michael Moore said and why said it at michaelmoore.com
and his whole political career has been a long record of being underestimated by his opponents, then cutting them into pieces
Don’t you mean “misunderestimated.”
Or maybe they should just look for packages that say Return to Sender (DUPONT, 3M, HALIBURTON ETC)
Karen wrote: But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed.(footnote) And now that reality is setting in, the President seeks to pin the blame on someone else.
If your main source of facts on any issue is the opinions from moveon.org, then you may want to expand your horizons a tad. I find that while they mean well, they shoot first and ask questions later.
“”Are you better off today that you were four years ago?” “
Yup, Very much so. Especially considering that in April 2000 I was watching my stocks tank, and right now my stocks are going up. I now own my own company, and am doing well thanks to a couple of the new write offs (which include the new company vehicle I purchased, and could not have written off under the old tax codes).
So yes, much better off, and the future is looking rosy indeed!
Yes PAD, YOU should be running our country.
BUSH is a complete fool who carelessly committed our troops to action.
And of course Democrats and liberals such as yourself know better and can sit there and wax pseudo-intellectually about the follies of the evil Republicans and their evil leader George W. Bush.
Yep, b/c you and your kind ALWAYS knew better.
Umm, for your perusal . . .
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
– Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
– Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“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
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“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
Gee – it’s just horrible how Bush went off half-cocked and started a war that “you all” knew was unnecessary.
I guess I would be silly to view the preceding along with your comments and think that you all just change your point of view to fit the political climate and to be on the other side of the fence that George Bush is on.
Everyone is brave enough to support the war and the belief that Iraq is a threat and something must be done – and then when something is done and it’s not “exactly” PERFECT they calmly poo poo the President?
PAD – you’re entitled to your views and opinions and I’m glad when they are proclaimed loudly – it only makes people such as yourself more easily to identify as wormy political blowhards.
Stick to the comics – there are plenty of other airheaded – waffling politicians right now to fill up the idiot quotas for the public spotlight.
You need not waste your time.
“Are you better off today that you were four years ago?”
February, 2000: Rental Apartment, two car payments (two used small sedans), over $25,000 credit card debt.
February, 2004: Home, no car payments (new mid-sized sedan and new minvan in last four years), no debt.
Hmm. What do you think?
Yep -you ARE better off – but I won’t say it’s ALL b/c of BUSH the same way some nutty liberal will talk about how he went the reverse and lost his home etc, etc and then BLAME it on Bush.
Come on people – I don’t think he’es Superman here – but to jump all over him about the Iraq intelligence is ridiculous.
Read the quoptes I posted and THEN remember that half the reason the intelligence community was so weak was thanks to BILL CLINTON when he passed what was called the “Torricelli Principle” another brilliant Dem who speaheaded the movement to prohibit CIA agents to deal with anyone who may be commiting a felony or a human rights violation yada yada without specific approval.
So basically they had to look to LAW ABIDING citizens to find out what was going on in the TERRORIST community.
B/c you know, the old lady playing BINGO on Saturday night will be more helpful than the human rights violating islamic fundamentalist who may want some US money for info – but we can’t do anything.
Massive resignations followed b/c agents knew they couldn’t do their job this way.
Of course GW rescinded this ludicrous policy in the midst of our war on terror – but you know – he’s an idiot. right?
I know my good fortune is not because of Bush. That’s why the question is no good to begin with. Most policy changes in the economy take 18-24 months to manifest. We’re just now starting to see the long-term result of the first set of Bush tax cuts. They kept the recession from deepening, but the business economy is just starting to recover from the Burst – and it is sluggish at best.
I don’t like the Bush deficits. However, I don’t see a Perot-like alternative that is standing for fiscal responsibility. Neither party is proposing real cuts, only tax increases that strangle economic growth, or more spending that we can’t pay for.
National security is the #1 short-term issue, but debt reduction is my #1 long-term issue, and neither party wants to deal with it. I’ve put my house in order through a lot of hard work. I want the US government to do the same.
I can pull in recent quotes from many, many, democrats quoting the intelligence, and stating clearly that we can’t allow Iraq to remain in possession of the WMD
Anyone can with little or no effort. But did any of them get 500+ U.S. soldiers killed? Did any of them cost us between $100 & $200 billion dollars of our tax money (Amount depends on which source you use)?
Sure. Every single Democrat who voted for that war is just as responsible for it as the Republicans are. And, being a Republican, I’m not all that ashamed of bringing down a brutal dictator. Unless of course you think that the Iraqi killing fields weren’t worth stopping.
Year 2000: working at a contract job, making $32/hour. Had over $200,000 worth of stock.
Year 2004: unemployed for 3 years. Unemployment quit two years ago. Stock tanked: lost 40% of its value in a six month period last year. Forced to sell off half over the past two years to stay afloat.
Am I better off now? Hardly.
Terry – sorry to hear about your hard times – but do you seriously lay that blame on George W. Bush and/or Republicans as a whole?
There aren;t any other explanations for your current state?
One can say – ‘the economy’ but that isn’t to be pinned on Bush. Heck – the downtrend was starting when Clinton was leaving office –
Like the tax cuts or not – now we have a recovering economy.
There are so many factors that go into an economy it is truly absurd to lay the blame on Bush.
And the blame doesn’t stick any better b/.c he’s not the best public speaker and Leno and Letterman play funny clips of him snorting and mispronouncing words.
I do hope you get back on your feet – but if you sit around and truly believe your problems are all b/c of George W. Bush, then you are not likely to get back on your feet too soon.
Even if you persist in the flawed belief that Bush is responsible for your quarry – I still hope things turn around for you.
BTW – It’s been eerily silent after I posted all of those quotes.
Maybe some of you have realized that the Dems are just playing games.
Dean was the only whacko who was against the war from the get go.
These guys are playing to the left for the primaries and the winner, likely Kerry, will then move back to center.
And guess what? You compare statements they’ve made over the past 2 or 3 years and they aren;t consistent.
I’m not saying vote republican – but I AM saying that the fools who think this war was some vast right wing conspiracy and the smug comments of PAD just don’t make sense when you look at what the Dems have been saying from before the war.
They are being opportunistic and hey, that’s the game of politics – I expect it – but don’t belittle me when I don’t buy into it.
And when you do buy into it you are foolish.
And if you are not buying into it – and you are aware of the inconsistencies and go on to post on your Blog “clever” little barbs at Bush it is either manipulative, bbvecause it’s a liberal trying to jab the Republican Pres – or it is plain stupid
or it’s both of course.
Do some research PAD b4 you blindly blame all on the president.
Look up Toriceeli’s incolvement with Clinton on the sweeping idiotic changes made in teh CIA b4 you jump all over intelligence failures as Bush’s porblem.
And to think that he should take the blame simply b/c the ‘buck’ stops with him is an idiotic micromanager view of a presidential administration.
Read up on the transcripts of the Dems speeches and interviews and then tell me that it’s all Bush and Cheney being war mongers.
Heck – you can believe a mistake is made – but when faced with the cold hard evidence that your own people swore to it up and down – it’s silly to absolve them simply b/c they are not in power.
They were privy to plenty of this info and made the right decision at the right time – the only difference between them and Bush is that they are now changing their tune.
PAD – you do some decent writing in comics – but comic books have the luxury of being able to stretch the truth and present warped realities – that’s a great trait – but not when it’s done by pandering politicians.
I’m ashamed of your pseudo-intellectual smugness, PAD. You should know better.
(quoe)Everyone is brave enough to support the war and the belief that Iraq is a threat and something must be done – and then when something is done and it’s not “exactly” PERFECT they calmly poo poo the President?(unquote)
First, I like the use of “poo poo” rather than the more standard “pooh-pooh.”
Gee, nobody said all Democrats were right — or all were wrong, for that matter. Ditto for Republicans. And I, for one, prefer people in power who are capable of changing their minds if the facts or circumstances warrant it rather than sticking to a position like a barnacle to a rock – admitting error or misguidedness is not a crime, but a sign of maturity.
None of the carefully-chosen quotes seems to advocate (an essentially) unilateral pre-emptive full-scale war, outside of internationally agrred diplomatic approval, in contravention of the Powell Doctrine (conducted with no exit plan), and promulgated on the use of, selective release of and/or coercion to produce, weighted or faulty intelligence — that is the tragic and misguided policy – not whether or not Hussein was/is a bad man – he was a bad man when Reagan and G.H.W. Bush lavishly supported him as well.
Yeah Peter, I’m ashamed of your pseudo-intellectual smugness too. I was hoping for some true intellectual smugness on this site. Udog, I’m not debating any of your quotes, and I’ll even grant you that many of the current problems with Iraq go back a lot further than the current administration. Having said that, it was George W. Bush who took us into this war, not any of the other names you cited. And while you can talk about the myriad reasons for that war (most of which I fully agree with by the way) most of them are now being presented as revisionist history. Bush told the American people that we were going to war because of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the imminent danger of their use. He didn’t say weapons programs, he didn’t say they might have these weapons; he said Iraq had those weapons, and that’s why we were going to war. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a nasty piece of work, and yes, he deserved to be removed from his position of power. But that’s not the reason we were given. The irony is, if Bush had subsequently apologized to the American people, saying he was wrong about the WMDs but we did the right thing anyway by invading Iraq, I think some people wouldn’t be so pìššëd øff. Than again, looking at the incredible amount of money we spent, the ever-growing number of American casualties, and the ill will we’ve incurred around the world, maybe we’ve got a right to be a bit peeved.
>>Umm, for your perusal . . .<<
Sorry Udog, but if your going to toss these qoutes around you should have the complete articles and speeches they came from as well.
As I recall, WMD was used as the reason because of the various reasons to go into Iraq that was the one most people could agree on. I never bought the arguement that Iraq was an immiment threat or that WMD was the sole reason for invading. I saw that we had a bunch of reasons to go there. I wonder why the Bush administration was unable to better frame the arguement for war, but that does not negate the valid reasons for going.
Udog’s list of quotes (which John Byrne trotted out on the Byrne message board a couple of days back, btw) have been bouncing around for awhile and are contextualized over at snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
TTFN, Jon
Or lets put it all another way.
Democrats say they and the nation were conned by Bush into Iraq. They also say Bush is an absolute dolt. So they are saying that they were conned by an absolute dolt. What does that make them?
Hey Udog, nice spam. Try a dose of fact:
Former weapons inspector David Kay now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war, a major blow to the Bush Administration which used the WMD argument as the rationale for war. Unfortunately, Kay and the Administration are now attempting to shift the blame for misleading America onto the intelligence community. But a review of the facts shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored. The following is year-by-year timeline of those warnings.
2001: WH Admits Iraq Contained; Creates Agency to Circumvent Intel Agencies
In 2001 and before, intelligence agencies noted that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained after the Gulf War. In fact, former weapons inspector David Kay now admits that the previous policy of containment – including the 1998 bombing of Iraq – destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs.
OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: “As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997…and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA’s verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq’s clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.” [Source: IAEA Report, 10/8/98]
FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He added Saddam “is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” and that “he threatens not the United States.” [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]
SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Ðìçk Cheney said that “Saddam Hussein is bottled up” – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]
SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans “in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States…The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community.” The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically “cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest” while officials deliberately “bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.” [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]
And that’s just the tip of it. There’s more, sourced and documented, at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
but this is as much as I feel comfortable loading Peter’s forum with.
The intel in’t the problem. The administration that “cherry-picked” the intel is the problem.
Here’s amother dose of fact:
When American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Osama bin Laden in 1998, CBS blamed Congress for “drastic cutbacks.” When Clinton responded by attacking targets in Afghanistan and Sudan three days after admitting the Lewinsky affair, Ted Koppel found it “unthinkable” to question Clinton’s actions and mourned “the times we live in” that some people did not believe the White House line. No network anchor asked where Clinton received his intelligence — if any — even after it emerged that the alleged chemical-weapons site was a pharmaceutical factory and the U.S. government paid damages to the Sudanese owner.
In 1999, Clinton dissembled in his State of the Union address: “We will defend our security wherever we are threatened, as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden’s network of terror.” The August 16, 1999, U.S. News & World Report published an investigation by reporters Warren Strobel and Kevin Whitelaw that painted a different picture on the bombing at the Sudanese site of El Shifa. They found that “virtually everything the administration said publicly about El Shifa in the days after the attack has turned out to be wrong.” And: “The decision to bomb El Shifa was made by fewer than a dozen top U.S. officials. This meant that experts on both Sudan and chemical weapons were not consulted about the government’s evidence.”
Do you remember the weeks of media frenzy after that U.S. News report came out? Calls for congressional investigations? Talk of “growing” intelligence scandals? Neither do I.
As General Katie Couric and the others pound President Bush daily on the quality of his leadership and the content of his character, just remember that in the Clinton era the State of the Union address was never an occasion to underline defense or intelligence matters. On average, Clinton spoke for about 5,000 words on domestic initiatives before he reached the national-security section.
The domestic section was often full of laughably dishonest sentences. “The era of big government is over” in 1996. Or this whopper from 1998: “We have the smallest government in 35 years, but a more progressive one.” Foreign policy was no different. You could chortle at this Clinton boast from 1996: “North Korea has now frozen its dangerous nuclear weapons program.” But about the only boast that would seem to require an intelligence review was his claim that “there is not a single Russian missile pointed at America’s children.” Clinton liked that line so much he used it in 1995 and 1996.
Sorry it’s a bit long. So if PAD means recent as in the Clinton administration I’d say right on.
From an article at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030723.shtml
It’s been eerily silent after I posted all of those quotes.
Maybe because some of us actually sleep at night?
You can quote all you want about the Democrats that said to get rid of Saddam if he had WMD.
The fact remains, to this day, is that no WMD have been found.
The whole justification of this war (until the Republicans decide to change it, again; WMD, in bed with Al Qaeda, etc), is nonexistant.
“I never bought the arguement that Iraq was an immiment threat “
Good, because Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact, he specifically and very clearly said they were not an imminent threat, but that we should not wait until they were.
It’s the press and the democracts who have been using the “imminent threat” line repeatedly.
Jerry
So, Udog, what exactly is your point? The fact that Clinton was a liar makes it okay for Bush to be one?
Since I have no allegiance to either party, that kind of argument doesn’t wash with me. Clinton was a sleaze. Bush is a sleaze. Most politicians from both parties are sleazes.
Why should we be okay with that?
I don’t belong to either party myself and am perfectly comfortable with your view that ALL politicians have a sleaze factor. Point made and accepted.
The fact is that it is the Dems and the libs and smug know it alls who know very little like PAD and his rabid followers that not only think they know the ins and outs of the Kree-Skrull war and the Hulk’s favorite after-shave – but now they know how to run the country and are convinced that the man doing it is a moron b/c the liberal mouthpieces say so. It’s pretty sickening.
As for the context of the quotes – they are not out of context and I am not about to post a giant article of where they came from – an earlier post gives a link to this – knock yourself out.
I am not saying it’s okay for Bush to “lie” b/c CLinton “lied”. No, no, no – that always bothered me about Republicans. They always seemed to excuse things by saying “Oh look Clinton did that!” So what?!
But in this case it’s only llustrating the point that NONE of them LIED. It’s what everyone believed on both sides of the political fence.
Now as for the rpoerts of NO WMD’s that an earlier poster put up – it’s absurd.
THey simply were saying it seems to be contained and he hasn’t gotten anywhere with his program. They even acknowledge he migth’ve had some nuclear material – but not enough to do anything. This dates back as far as 1997 when , yes, CLINTON was in office.
This was NEVER the issue. What was the issue was the constant refusal to cooperate with the UN resolutions.
Sure he’d been violating them for like 12 years – but 9/11 hadn’t happened back then. It sort of changed our policy when it came to dictators and the possibility of their involvement with Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.
So now his utter refusal to allow the inspectors in ALL the places they needed to go cast a very different shadow in 2002 and 2003 then it did in 1997.
His lack of cooperation ALONE would have been enough to take action.
Bush never made the argument the threat was imminent.
I do think they relied too much on finding WMD’s. They didn’t have to – and then when they didn’t you do look like you have egg on your face – but that is NO excuse for the Dems and the Libs and the zombie zealots like PAD to turn around and say it’s a Bush conspiracy or just a Bush idiocy. COme on!
WHat is this? Yeah, we support you yeah – . . .ooops – you weren’t 100% on the target – you FOOL you IDIOT you facilkitator of a vast right wing conspiracy you crazy war monger.
Sadaam acted in every way as if he had WMD’s or SOMETHING to hide by not cooperating. With all his money and power – if he simply didn’t have anything to hide – why not let people look around and be done with it. His stubborness led us into the war b/c we had no choice.
If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck – we have to assume it’s a duck – and if it’s hunting season – watch out Daffy! Know what I mean?
Think about this:
Guy walks into a Jewelry store – pulls down a ski mask – smashes the counter with a hammer – there’s a commotion and he BOLTS out of the store.
Cop chases him. Tells him to s top.
The guy turns around and refuses to put his hands up. He THEN reaches into his jacket presumably for a gun and the police officer shoots him.
Then guess what?
He never took anything from the jewelry store.
He never even had a gun.
So is the cop wrong now?
Do we bash him and say he’s crazy.
No.
Sadaam did the same thing.
He did everything that made it look like he was up to something. In the end we are not sure.
The prelude to war had been months and these things could have been moved to Syria for all we know, so I won’t say he was innocent of possessing WMD’s. But we didn’t find them yet – so does this make us wrong and him right.
NO!!!
He acted liek he had them so after 9/11 we have no choice but to assume he did. That’s the only choice.
If the reports weren’t conclusive – Bush STILL had to go in there b/c the guy (Sadaam) is acting as if they do exist or that something is going on.
Yes, Bush should have said that we believe he has WMD’s but that’s irrelevant right now. We’ve got a known supporter of terrorism, a known violater of human rights with connections to terrorism that is refusing to abide by rules regarding his weapons.
We cannot afford to sit around and ascertain whether or not he is bluffing or not. After 9/11 the security of this country comes first.
He has been given a fair warning and ample time to prove that his actions are not anything for us to fear. But quite simply kno reasonable person can allow this to go on and we must take action.
Then it wouldn’t of mattered if they found WMD’s.
But the lily livered libs might have balked about going in if we didn’t have concrete proof , so the slant was on teh WMD’s.
They were not found and now Bush does have an intelligence probe to see what went wrong.
WHat do you want the guy to do?
And for the brainchild that supported the Dem cnadiates for having the COURAGE to change their minds on issues and that you value that . . um sorry about the head injury.
COme on! Can Bush turn around and change his mind? No – he’s consistent. We did the right thing for the right reasons. It’s pretty simple.
The fact they didn’t WMD’s is being used in a political fashion for these wanna be candidates. They are smarmy and trying to fool voters.
And on this board it seems they’ve at least fooled a good percent of you including PAD himself.
But then again – some people only feel smart if they hold an opinion different from the majority.
So if PAD and some of you feel better at night b/c you are smarter than the President – okay . . .sleep well. I know I will knowing you’re limited to sopouting on a blog board and not actually in governemnt.
Then I would be looking into some travel brouchers for Canada, Peru – the moon – anywhere but here!
Everyone is brave enough to support the war and the belief that Iraq is a threat and something must be done – and then when something is done and it’s not “exactly” PERFECT they calmly poo poo the President?
1) What exactly is so brave about supporting a war? When the people speaking out in favor of it are held up as Mighty Leaders [TM] and the people speaking out against it are called cowards at best and traitors at worst, seems to me the people against the war showed a hëll of a lot more personal courage than the ones who said, “Yes SIR Mister President SIR.”
2) “Everyone” supported the war? No. I’ve never supported the idea that Saddam is an imminent threat that Must Be Removed Right Now Before Demons Walk The Earth. Neither, I suspect, do several of the people you quoted.
Most of the quotes above, if I remember their context correctly, were basically agreeing that yes, he’s a bad guy and he’s going to keep searching for ways to be a worse guy — which in my view supports the idea of keeping a close eye on him and containing him. That’s been policy for a decade, so it’s no surprise that Clinton et al. would agree with it.
What the Bush administration did is say that “containment is not enough — Saddam has to go and has to go right now.” The primary reasons given to the public (as opposed to the “fûçk Saddam, we’re taking him out” justification given in private meetings) were (a) alleged links to 9/11 which have now been pretty heavily debunked, and (b) the idea that Saddam’s possession of WMD made him an imminent threat which had to be dealt with right away.
The WMD issue has proven to be a house of cards.
Now, is it possible that this is “just” a huge intelligence failure? Sure.
But were I Bush, and had I made decisions to go to war and leave hundreds of Americans dead with thousands more wounded based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong, I would be livid. I’d be calling for thorough, public, no-stone-unturned investigations from day 1, and I’d be vowing that heads would roll once the source of the fault was determined.
I find it interesting that no one in the administration seems to particularly care.
Similarly, look at the immediate investigation Paul O’Neill got compared to the “ah, well, we’ll try but probably won’t figure it out” tone about Valerie Plame’s outing. The double standard is frankly sickening.
TWL
Yes, Bush should have said that we believe he has WMD’s but that’s irrelevant right now.
[snip]
But the lily livered libs might have balked about going in if we didn’t have concrete proof , so the slant was on teh WMD’s.
So in other words, a choice was made to alter the justification for war in an attempt to maximize support — and that altered justification turned out to be wrong.
Isn’t that an extremely legitimate reason to criticize a policy? When you in effect need to lie to your own country to get them on board, isn’t said country allowed to say “now WAIT a minute!” when said lie is exposed?
Oh, wait. I’m just a “lily-livered lib” and thus someone you can insult and ignore.
Never mind, then. Carry on.
[For what it’s worth, Udog, I agree with you that several Democrats have changed their tune in ways which appear highly opportunistic. It’s one of the reasons I’m not happy with Kerry’s sudden ascendance at all.]
TWL
Naaa..lets leave facts out of this. More fun to attack, attack, attack.
You know, this actually sounds much like Dubya’s thoughts right after having… uh… read (well, sort of) CIA’s intelligence reports concerning actual evidence on the existance of Irak’s WMDs.
Can I blame the Republicans for the economic mess we’re in? In a very large part, yes.
I blame the irresponsible tax cuts that were supposed to create how many new jobs? Its a repeat of the 80’s where companies bought and sold other companies, consolidated, and basically did everything other than create new jobs.
There are more, but those are the high lights.
I blame the rampant politicization of the government. Despite appearances, no high-level decision is being made by the administration without first considering the political ramifications, with the goal of re-electing Bush. All other considerations are secondary. If you read O’Neill’s book, you can see just how clueless that makes the Bush II Administration on economics.
And, to top it all off, I blame the decision that sidetracked the multi-national hunt for the leadership responsible for the 9/11 attacks into a campaign to topple a world leader (a foul person, to be sure, but some of the leaders of the nations participating in this effort are even worse!) based on a campaign of lies and wishful thinking. Now we’re spending more millions on a futile effort at nation building.
Udog, I’ll gladly pen a ten page essay on the virtues of President Bush if you’ll just string all your sentences into coherent paragraphs instead of hitting ‘Enter’ after EVERY FRICKIN’ PERIOD!
It’s bad enough that we’re all longwinded anyway, we don’t need a bunch of unnecessary blank space sucking up bandwith.
tOjb
Concentrating on WMD’s in the justification is NOT the same as LYING.
I’ve already indicated that I think the issue should have been presented differently. But that’s really all – his failure to frame the issue more carefully etc does NOT equate him with the evil little troll status so many people are trying to pin on him.
THAT’S the issue I have with the criticisms and the smarmy mock wit of PAD on the intelligence issue.
It also seems that many have come back with more reasoned critique and at least admissions of their own party’s problems, such as TWL admitting the constant change of tune of the party.
And about the HITTING return – TO READ ONE LARGE BLOG IS ANNOYING TO THE EYE SO
sorry
about
the
returns!
Udog, it’s pretty juvenile to complain about someone else’s “smarmy mock wit” after that last entry of yours. Is it too much to ask that you minimize the space you take up? Especially considering that the longest entries on this thread are yours, mostly because of the blank spaces after every sentence? Your posts look like they stutter!
tOjb
Here’s a direct link to that cartoon mentioned above.
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16378
Brack – I’d hardly compare my little barb with the return space to PAD’s snobbish remarks about the man who is trying to keep the country safe and doing the best he can amidst smart people doubting him and admidst the infinite amount of moronic people blindly and without knowledge bashing him such as yourself and PAD.
Look – I didn’t spacebar . . .D’oh!
I’d hardly compare my little barb with the return space to PAD’s snobbish remarks about the man who is trying to keep the country safe
If you feel safer for our going after Iraq, then you’re naive.
We are no safer, because the áššëš behind 9/11 ARE STILL OUT THERE while we bend over backwards to make sure Saddam bites the big one.
Udog, I suppose you’re the same kind of independant as Bill O’Reilly. Please stop insulting people you immature brat; sorry but I couldn’t resist.
The guy turns around and refuses to put his hands up. He THEN reaches into his jacket presumably for a gun and the police officer shoots him.
Do you realize that in your analogy the threat is imminent?
It also seems that many have come back with more reasoned critique and at least admissions of their own party’s problems, such as TWL admitting the constant change of tune of the party.
TWL did nothing of the kind. He noted that some Democrats appear to have done so — the word I used was in fact “several”, not “the party.”
Kindly quote me accurately or not at all.
TWL
Sorry TWL i gave you credit and you are right – you deserve none.
You are the ivory tower liberal and I’ll let you play semantics.
The difference between “several demorcrats” and the “party” doesn’t change the point. But I am sorry I wrongly cast you in a more reasonable light.
And it’s funny how when facts are thrown back at stupid idiotic bashing I am now a brat? Yes, this is a mature retort. Could you have made my point any better.
And yes, my gun analagoy the threat was imminent. Well after 9/11 a crazed dictator refusing to obey the UN resolutions may not be imminent but it certainly requires action.
If you’d like – let’s say he didn’t reach for what looked like a gun and the cops merely took him into custody and while there they see he’s wanted for several other crimes.
They realize he did nothing at the jewelery store though. Does that make what they did wrong?
No.
Happy now.
Sorry your “puny human” mind could not see the logic in the earlier analogy.
TWL – you should keep in mind the difference between some people’s philosphies:
Some preach about what should be
others talk about what “is”
I find your views while at heart obviously not horrible – but certainly not grounded in what is practical.
And I guess now b/c I may make some sense and not put up with empty BS and idiotic bashing of Bush I am like Bill O ‘Reilly? Please, is that the best you can do.
Just because YOU sound like an idiot I don’t say you are like Michael Moore.
Get a grip.
The brat thing was a bit of a joke. Seeing as how you were insulting others. I couldn’t help but to return the favor.
“Sorry TWL i gave you credit and you are right – you deserve none.
You are the ivory tower liberal and I’ll let you play semantics.”
So insisting on being quoted accurately is playing semantics? Being in an education career (the “ivory tower”) is somehow bad?
Boy, no wonder you’re pro-Bush. You’re celebrating inaccuracy and idiocy as though they’re f***ing virtues.
Have fun rantin’ and ravin’, though.
TWL
Oh and as for the “Bill O’Reilly” thing, what I meant was that like O’Reilly you only claim to be an independant.
And it si wrong to claim to be an independant – although I never claimed I was ANYTHING, BTW.
And there’s nothing wrong with the ivory tower when sitting in class – but when you let that way of thinking shape your decisions in the real world in spite of the REALITY of the real world – well then you are caught up in idealogies and not practicalities.
That’s what youare TWL – you are the irreverent know it all 12 year old who takes any position contrary to the authoritarian father and maybe someday you realize you might not have known it all.
But you amy grow up to be an adult and NEVER realize you didn’t know everything – it’s quite possible to take the immature arrogant, brash know it all attitude well into adulthood . . .you know . .like a comic book writer.
Although you never said what you were, you did say that you were neither a democrat or a republican. I assumed that was a claim that you were a independant. I mean what else would you be green party? Not likely.
Jerry says: “Good, because Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact, he specifically and very clearly said they were not an imminent threat, but that we should not wait until they were.
It’s the press and the democracts who have been using the “imminent threat” line repeatedly.
“
Semantics. It doesn’t matter if he used the phrase “imminent threat” or not. For six months — from the time in Sept. 2002 that george announced his intent ’til last March when he pulled the trigger — the image of Iraq was painted to look as dire as possible. They had “large stockpiles” of forbidden weapons, and they were ready to use them at *any time*! “Imminent danger” was certainly the impression they were trying to get across.
Oh, and sure george admitted that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. He only mentioned the two in the same breath at every given opportunity during the same span, and in fact, they still do, and that’s no accident. At one time, polls showed 80% of Americans believed this to be true. That number’s now down to about 50%.
Udog says: “THey simply were saying it seems to be contained and he hasn’t gotten anywhere with his program. They even acknowledge he migth’ve had some nuclear material – but not enough to do anything. This dates back as far as 1997 when , yes, CLINTON was in office.”
And since nothing needed to be done, then Clinton did the right thing, right?
“This was NEVER the issue. What was the issue was the constant refusal to cooperate with the UN resolutions.”
Well, the overwhelming lack of evidence seems to indicate that all the materials that those resolutions were meant to do away with were, well, done away with. I’d say the lack of cooperation was hardly “constant.”
But the larger issue I have with your statement is the idea that george sent our military in to enforce UN resolutions. The US is merely a member of the UN. We don’t own the UN, and the UN is not a puppet organization. Many of the other member states of the UN have intelligence that is just as good as that of the CIA, in their own way.
The fact that the other Security Council permanent members didn’t buy into the war game — well, perhaps they *were* looking out for their own interests, but why not consider the possibility that they didn’t think the evidence presented by Colin Powell was solid enough to act upon?
george *did* try to make another effort with the UN in March. In fact, he *PROMISED* that he would get a vote there before he made his decision to invade. And then he turned around, formed a half-assed “coalition” with Britain, Spain, and a handful of third-world countries so ashamed of selling out that they chose to remain anonymous, and invaded anyway. Hey, when you get as many free passes as this guy, what’s another lie gonna do?
“So now his utter refusal to allow the inspectors in ALL the places they needed to go cast a very different shadow in 2002 and 2003 then it did in 1997.
His lack of cooperation ALONE would have been enough to take action.
“
After 1441, Hans Blix’ team was being allowed to go anywhere and everywhere they requested. Palaces, schools, outposts, I don’t recall hearing a single incident of stonewalling “on the ground.” The biggest news during this time was the almost comedic mass of Media Apes barrelling after the inspectors, like lawyers chasing a fleet of ambulances, to get to the next surprise inspection. (I won’t dismiss the fact that george’s sabre-rattling played a role in getting Saddam to let those people in. The *threat* of violence worked quite well in that instance, and proved it wasn’t necessary to resort to doing the deed.)
The only other incident I remember was the full disclosure of weapons programmes, which george’s people took immediately, combed through, and then passed the filtered version out to the rest of the Security Council. And then claimed that it was incomplete. 9.9
“Sadaam acted in every way as if he had WMD’s or SOMETHING to hide by not cooperating. With all his money and power – if he simply didn’t have anything to hide – why not let people look around and be done with it. His stubborness led us into the war b/c we had no choice.”
Heh… from 1998 when they kicked the last UN inspectors out ’til 2001, all was pretty quiet in Iraq It wasn’t even on the public radar ’til July 2002, when the Media Apes began to pant-hoot about Iraq, and then September, when george finally made his intentions known. From that point, every accusation that was hurled at Saddam, and every excuse used to launch the unnecessarly pre-emptive war and ensuing occupation, has fallen flat.
Here’s another “devil’s advocate” question: how about the possibility that he claimed he was hiding nothing because he *was* hiding nothing? It sure looks like that was the case…
“We cannot afford to sit around and ascertain whether or not he is bluffing or not. After 9/11 the security of this country comes first.”
Invading countries and deposing governments we don’t like does *NOTHING* to improve the security of our country. It only gives more ammo to those radical elements that already hate our own government for whatever reason, and are willing to kill us and any other westerners for their cause. It only convinces the not-quite-radicals to cross that line and join up. It only serves to alienate even our staunchest allies.
The best way to prevent another attack against *any* of our interests is to cut back on the sabre-rattling belligerence, dump the whole “war on terrorism” facade, and increase the capabilities of our intelligence agencies (*without* destroying or watering down our own Constitution, in part or in whole, *without* violating international law and eschewing such “trivial” ideals as the Geneva Conventions, thank you very hard). Turning Iraq over to the UN, improving our relations with other countries and their citizens through more humanitarian efforts, and reserving our military forces for when they’re absolutely necessary wouldn’t hurt either.
I believe in “national security” as well, but what george and his regime are doing is the exact opposite.
I suppose wyou are right and the world is NOT a safer place without Sadaam.
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.
You can be a narrow minded twit and say “Oh – he let them in – so he cooperated”
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