Rumsfeld caught lying yet again...

[freewheeling]

All I see you doing is defending Bush -- in the face of all reasonable criticism -- often by saying "Clinton didn't do enough either, so blame him entirely." As they said in _Conspiracy Theory_, why are you making me repeat myself?

Let me state it more clearly. You incorrectly believe that anyone who criticizes Bush must be a "liberal," a "leftist," etc.

I didn't say that, nor do I believe it. But a partisan split has emerged that is both highly correlated with the ideological associations of the mainstream euro-left and is also, well, "convenient" for the Islamists. I feel I need to uncover some reason for why this alignment exists, in view of the striking similarity with past alignments, such as the Copperheads during the American Civil War and the French Sociliasts led by Paul Faure in the WWII era. To be sure, there are a minority of people on the left who do NOT subscibe to these views. Leon Blum was the socialist PM of France in the 1930s and strenuously opposed the views of Faure, but his was a minority faction within the socialist party. Paul Faure ended up collaborating with the Nazis in the Vichy government, while Blum was sent to a concentration camp (which he, fortunately, survived). Bernard Kouchner and Paul Berman are contemporary socialists who strenuously support the Bush intervention in the Middle East for what I think are well-considered reasons. In fact, Chris Hitchens also belongs to that camp. But they are anything but typical.

Lest you get distracted by my explanations, let me repeat myself yet again: What would you see as "decent points of criticism" of the Bush Administration's handling of the terrorist threat before and after 9/11?

Again, I just don't feel comfortable criticizing George Bush when any point I happen to make will be used to the disadvantage of an overall perspective that I believe is 100% on the money. Acknowledge that invading Iraq was a good thing, and represents the only really long term effective strategy we can take on the rising tidal wave of Islamo/Fascism, and we may be able to talk. Object to that action, and I think you just don't quite "get it." I don't think Clarke gets it either, which is why he was demoted. As Condee Rice stated in her piece in the NYT, they kept getting specific recommendations from Clarke, many of which they acted on. But they did not get from him a comprehensive strategy to eliminate AQ, and the Bush Administration went ahead and developed such a strategy knowing that it would take years to fulfill. I may object to some aspects of the implementation of that plan, or even the political will behind it, but you really don't leave me with much of an alternative.

And nothing I have heard or seen from John Kerry assures me that he gets it, either.

 

[idd]

Obiwan:

So Splain to me why his book is not about the lack of cojones in the Clinton White House??

Clearly you have not read Clarke's book, so I am not going to even argue the substance of Clarke's facts and arguments with you.

especially in light of his ties to the Kerry campaign

???
"ties to the Kerry campaign"?

And you revidence for the "ties"?

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

His "best bud" is Beers, a primary National Security adviser for the Kerry campaign.

 

[freewheeling]

quote:So Splain to me why his book is not about the lack of cojones in the Clinton White House??

Clearly you have not read Clarke's book, so I am not going to even argue the substance of Clarke's facts and arguments with you.

I don't think it's really valid to duck the question on those grounds. I think almost anyone, including Clarke, would acknowledge that this book is far harsher on Bush than Clinton. And Obiwan isn't asking you to comment on specific details of the book, but its general tenor. That's fair game since one can assume his testemony and interviews are compatible with what he says in the book. (And if they aren't why is he flapping his jaws in the first place?) Moreover, as Roger Simon points out, the book was originally scheduled for release in April and they did a rush job to get it out now. That sort of suggests the timing may have been a consideration, I should think.

I'm going to hazard a guess that, although this book will be a hit with some on the anti-war left (and there *is* a pro-war left, btw), it will ultimately backfire on Kerry. All Clarke has done so far is to make a series of assertions, and describe a meeting with the Pres in which the Pres asked him to look for ties between AQ and Saddam, which frankly doesn't seem like much of an offense. He offers a rather controversial "interpretation" of what Bush meant by the request, but he can't really support that interpretation with any facts and acknowledges as much. You think it's a stretch to be skeptical of him on this? Why, for heaven's sake?

 

[RGR]

The anti-war right

"What do you mean 'we' were wrong?"

Posted: March 20, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37669

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Did you see David Kay's confession – "It turns out that we were all wrong" – before the Senate Armed Services Committee about a month ago?

Maybe you wondered who "we" were.

"We" certainly didn't include Kay's one-time boss at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Hans Blix, who had come out of retirement to chair the U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission.

"We" certainly didn't include Blix's successor at the IAEA – Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

So, what's this "we" stuff?

Well, you may remember David Kay's congressional testimony in the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Khidir Hamza frequently appeared with Kay.

You remember Hamza, don't you? The "defector" who claimed to have been in charge of the Iraqi nuke program? The author of "Saddam's Bombmaker"?

Hamza was also a sidekick of Richard Perle – then chairman of the Defense Policy Board – who vouched for Hamza's authenticity to congressional and administration pooh-bahs.

The Hamza-Kay-Perle testimony was that the Iraqis were secretly reconstituting the nuke program the IAEA had reported totally destroyed. Iraq would have several nukes in a matter of months, not years, and would likely give them to terrorists. The only way to prevent you soccer moms from getting nuked in your jammies was an immediate pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by the United States.

Now, the U.N. Security Council had been told back in 1998 that the IAEA had not only destroyed everything "nuclear" that had survived the Gulf War, but that:


There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons.

There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.
There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material.
There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.
Four years later, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, ElBaradei was able to assure the Security Council that there were no indications to suggest that Iraq had even attempted to reconstruct its nuclear programs, even for peaceful purposes.

The Hamza-Kay-Perle counter-testimony was that the IAEA under Blix and ElBaradei had been, and would always be, ineffective.

Well, now we know the IAEA had been effective in Iraq. The CIA didn't discover Saddam's secret nuke program in the aftermath of the Gulf War. The IAEA discovered it, totally destroyed it and the Iraqis never even attempted to reconstruct it.

So, the only question now is whether Hamza-Kay-Perle et al were simply wrong – or deliberately lied.

Well, there was never any doubt about Hamza.

You see, Gen. Hussein Kamal – Saddam's son-in-law – had defected to Jordan in 1995, carrying with him thousands of documents on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" program. Kamal was extensively interrogated by the CIA, and by Rolf Ekeus of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq and Maurizio Zifferero of the IAEA Action Team.

Basically, Kamal claimed all Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" and the makings thereof had been destroyed.

Ziffereo asked Kamal about Hamza, who was then representing himself to the CIA as having been in charge of Iraq's nuke program.

Quoth Kamal: "He is a professional liar."

As we now know, Kamal told the truth.

So, the CIA has known all along that Hamza was a fraud. Nevertheless, they allowed Hamza – and David Kay – to mislead Congress right up until the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Even when a genuine Iraqi nuke scientist – Imad Khadduri – exposed Hamza, the CIA and the media elite paid little attention.

According to Khadduri, Hamza "did not, even remotely, get involved in any scientific research – except for journalistic articles – dealing with the fission bomb, its components or its effects."

Hamza had been in Iraq's nuke program for a few months but was "kicked out of the program at the end of 1987 for stealing a few air-conditioning units from the building assigned to his project."

Hamza "retired from the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in 1989 and became a college lecturer, a stock market swindler and a shady business middleman."

Where is Hamza – the "professional liar" – now?

According to David Kay – who was until recently in charge of the CIA's hunt for those "weapons of mass destruction" that Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei correctly assured us didn't exist – Hamza is now in charge of the CIA's rehabilitation and retraining program for Iraq's former "nuke" scientists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

 

[Eskimo Jim]

I really don't care what the reason was for invading for Iraq. That monster Hussein should have been removed from power during Gulf War I. End of story.

I am sure that Iraq developed, sought, bought, stole, cajoled and procured weapons of mass destruction before during and after 9/11/01. Furthermore, I do believe that they aided and encouraged terrorists before during and after 9/11/01.

Unfortunately, it was up to the US to enforce the treaty that ended Gulf War I because the United Nations didn't have the guts to do it. Taking Hussein out of power was very affective. It has also shown North Korea and Libya that the US means to take care of business and remove any regime that supports, aids or encourages terrorism.

The problem is that Hussein was in power for such a long time and caused so much damage to the Iraqi economy, political system and society that it will take a very long time to get it straightened out and a democracy put into place. No one on earth has the power to snap their fingers and make things perfect. Given time, I'm sure that the US will help the Iraqis and Afghanis get things sorted out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-Jim

 

[freewheeling]

RGR:

I can't find anything in your rant that qualifies as anything other that bald assertion. Perhaps the core is this:

Well, now we know the IAEA had been effective in Iraq.

Actually there's an issue of methodological precision that lies at the heart of all these controversies, and what we can say at this point is that we have failed to falsify the hypothesis that the IAEA program was effective. That is not the same as saying that we "know" that the program "was" effective. And it's these kinds of distinctions that really lie at the heart of the confusion. We are dealing with uncertainty. The implication of the detractors is that some people weren't, which is simply false. Not "possibly" false, or even "probably" false, but 100% false with absolute certainty. And it's an easy call, because whenever someone claims to know a negative all you need to demonstrate in order to "prove" they're wrong is that there's some uncertainty.

We don't know that Hamsa is lying any more than we know that Bush is lying, because we simply don't know the difference between what they knew and what they thought they knew. This, unfortunately for you, makes it rather easy to simply dismiss your entire argument. You have laid yourself open to this by the lack of prudence or self-criticism in your remarks. Sorry about that.

As a matter of fact, Gen. Hussein Kamal changed his story a number of times, and the recant that you allude to turned on the fact that he had by that time decided to return to Iraq and trust his father-in-law to treat him with some mercy. We know how that turned out, don't we?

What you don't seem to grasp is that claiming far more than the facts allow simply facilitates dismissal of your entire argument. Period. We are in no danger from Iraq now, a fact which renders arguments that we assessed the apriori danger too highly, moot.

 

[freewheeling]

Eskimo Jim:

I really don't care what the reason was for invading for Iraq. That monster Hussein should have been removed from power during Gulf War I. End of story.

Indeed. Better late than never.

 

[bountyhunter]

and what we can say at this point is that we have failed to falsify the hypothesis that the IAEA program was effective. That is not the same as saying that we "know" that the program "was" effective.

Very fancy, but here is exactly what we DO know: the scientists working on weapons development have said that the standing orders were to hold off until the inspectors were gone. period. So, as for developing any new systems like nukes, there was zero progress being made. Therefore, I define the inspectors as a program which "was effective", I have no idea what meaning you attach to that phrase.

 

[bountyhunter]

We don't know that Hamsa is lying any more than we know that Bush is lying, because we simply don't know the difference between what they knew and what they thought they knew. This, unfortunately for you, makes it rather easy to simply dismiss your entire argument. You have laid yourself open to this by the lack of prudence or self-criticism in your remarks. Sorry about that.

And yet, at some pont we have to stop splitting hairs as to whether the path to war was paved by "conscious lies" by Bush, negligent actions resulting from an inattention to the most important issue (Al Qaeda) caused by a fixation on Iraq, a president who listened to bad intel because it is what he wanted to hear, a prsident who ignored solid intel because it was NOT what he wanted to hear.....

And just admit that our country was dragged into a war as the result of a screw up of catastrophic proportions and the reponsibility for that lies at the big office at 1600 pessylvania avenue.

But as to what went down, a pattern emerges from the people who were there that Bush's focus to the exclusion of all else was "Iraq is behind all this" even when advised they had nothing to do with 9/11. As to whether Buih is lying today, IMHO his ads connecting the 9/11 attacks with the Iraq war are blatant lies because he can no longer claim ignorance about the fact Iraq was not involved. The lie he is using goes like this:

9/11 = WOT

WOT = War in Iraq

That sir, is a conscious lie.

 

[bountyhunter]

What you don't seem to grasp is that claiming far more than the facts allow simply facilitates dismissal of your entire argument.

Or earns you a position as a white house spokesman.

 

[Eskimo Jim]

IN all fairness, I believe that non violent methods of mitigating the threat of Saddam to his neighbors and his own countrymen and countrywomen was tried for approximately 10-12 years. There were inspections of weapons plants and facilities and more often than not, attempted inspections of these facilities.

Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein continued to thumb his nose at the US and the UN by delaying and preventing inspections etc etc. After 10 years of this nonsense, enough is enough. The US, the UN and the rest of the world was left with no choice but use military force.

Also unfortunately, the UN, France, Germany, Russia etc refused to do their duty and step up to the plate and follow through with the 'or else' of military force against Iraq. Only the US, Britain, Poland and other countries understood the consequences. The inaction of the UN, France et all, has sent a message to all dictators and terrorists that these countries and organizations are ineffective at stopping them. This encourages murderous dictators and terrorists because they see that there are no consequences to their evil methods.

Who was it that wrote something to the affect that "all that evil needs is for good men to do nothing". Extrapolate that to a country. The only thing that evil (terrorists and dictators) to flourish, is for good men (countries) to do nothing.

There are many other dictators in the world and maybe they will start to curb their evil ways because they have seen that the US and our allies won't put up with their evil any longer. Notice how quickly after the Gulf War II North Korea and Libya started to get on the same page as the international community.

-Jim

PS just my opinion which is worth whatever value you associate with it.

 

[Obiwan]

Excuse me...but we leveled Afhganistan first..and we are still there.

One of my people deployed there with the 10th SF and came back about the time we went into Iraq.

As for Iraq....there were a lot of bullies out there....

We picked our fight with one of the most heinous...

You only need to stand up to one to get the others to back down...(Like Libya) North Korea seems more composed as well!

You can rant and rave all you want about Bush blaming Iraq for 9/11...never happened...he never said Iraq was behind "all this".

He specifically mentioned Al Qaeda as the culprits.

But he also warned those that harbor terrorists...like Iraq.

Iraq was a threat, and Iraq was violating the terms of the UN sanctions...

The administration mentioned a broad list of reasons...including WMD which EVERYONE thought they had...and they probably did/do

We went in ...without a broad coalition to tie our hands this time.

We walked the walk....while all others would only talk.

And we took down a dictator...we didn't just lob a bunch of million dollar missles at the desert.

Gold Star for US!

 

[bountyhunter]

IN all fairness, I believe that non violent methods of mitigating the threat of Saddam to his neighbors and his own countrymen and countrywomen was tried for approximately 10-12 years. There were inspections of weapons plants and facilities and more often than not, attempted inspections of these facilities.

Actually, there were inspections about 99% of the time and delayed inspections the other 1%. The point is, an Arab leader has to do some posturing when confronted with an affront to his authority if he is to retain the respect and backing of the military which kept him in power. If saddam had showed weakness, he would have been asassinated in a heartbeat (probably by his sons).

Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein continued to thumb his nose at the US and the UN by delaying and preventing inspections etc etc. After 10 years of this nonsense, enough is enough. The US, the UN and the rest of the world was left with no choice but use military force.

Yes and the question is did thumbing his nose and being difficult justify a war? The UN said no, Bush said yes. We have all found out what a "non threat" his phantom WMD's posed, which means that Iraq did destroy them or use them up in the Iran war.

Also unfortunately, the UN, France, Germany, Russia etc refused to do their duty and step up to the plate and follow through with the 'or else' of military force against Iraq.

It would be more accurate to say they saw their "duty" differently than George Bush and in hindsight, the saw it correctly.

Who was it that wrote something to the affect that "all that evil needs is for good men to do nothing". Extrapolate that to a country. The only thing that evil (terrorists and dictators) to flourish, is for good men (countries) to do nothing.

You bring up a good point and urban myth: that the Clinton admin "did nothing" and the Bush admin has been effective in the WOT. The reverse is true. Several attempts were made to kill OBL under Clinton, even without the provocation of 9/11. Numerous Al Qaeda plots were foiled, most are classified but the car bomb headed to LAX was not. Under Bush, little emphasis or focus of resources was directed at the actual WOT (Al Qaeda). Even though the FBI had two of the eventual hijackers under surveillance as known terrorists in the US, nothing was done to alert the media or make them a high level of threat. Bottom line, Clinton hit all the pitches AQ sent his way and Bush missed the only big one (9/11)

There are many other dictators in the world and maybe they will start to curb their evil ways because they have seen that the US and our allies won't put up with their evil any longer. Notice how quickly after the Gulf War II North Korea and Libya started to get on the same page as the international community.

Except for one problem: the war being waged against the US is by Al Qaeda... not Libya, not NK, not Iraq, not even Syria. Our response should be directed at AQ and the country who bankrolls them (Saudi Arabia) and the countries that hide them (Afghanistan and Pakistan). The saber rattling and chest thumping is doing nothing but stimulating AQ recruitment.

 

[Tag]

a column

Here's somthing I wrote recently for our student newspaper, don't know yet if it will run or not.

www.thenorthwind.org

for what it's worth (which isen't much )


xxxxxxxxxxx

For all the Liberal readers out there I have to warn you, I was for the war in Iraq before we went in, and I’m still for it. I pull the ‘R’ lever in the voting booth, and I’m pro-gun. Supporting our troops and supporting the administration that sent them to fight however have become two totally different issues, and here's why.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on Face the Nation earlier this month along with Thomas Friedman from The New York Times. As it turns out this was his thirteenth appearance on that show, and lady luck was not smiling.

After an obligatory round of backslapping and congratulations between Rumsfeld and moderator Bob Schieffer, Schieffer cut to the chase. Rumsfeld was asked what must be the most repeated question facing the Bush administration in recent months; Did Iraq really pose the ‘immediate threat’ that the president sold to the American people as a justification for war? Rumsfeld, true to form, ducked the question by answering that a brutal regime had been overthrown, Iraq was now free, there would be no more mass killings, et cetera. Schieffer put it to him again, in simpler terms; maybe he didn’t understand the question…

“If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?â€

Rumsfeld then called Schieffer a ‘critic’ and wondered who in the administration had used the phrase ‘immediate threat,’ saying that he hadn’t and the President hadn’t.
(Note: he still had not answered the question.)

Friedman was ready with a choice quote from Rumsfeld’s own mouth;

“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.â€

Now I think it’s interesting to note two things about this exchange, faults on both sides really.

First of all, note the wording in Schieffer’s question, he asked about weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

After Rumsfeld dodged the question with one of his own Friedman busted him with his ‘immediate threat’ quote. But did he really? No, not this time anyways. Friedman was quoting Rumsfeld on something he said about Terrorist States, not WMD. You can infer what you like from the exchange, but they were talking about two different things.

Rumsfeld did not catch this in the interview and started backtracking, stammering on about Survey Groups, ‘the best intelligence’, David Kay, and whole list of other unrelated issues. Rumsfeld thought he had been caught in a lie when in fact he had not, which makes it sound like he was in fact lying about something, to me anyways.

I think there are a few things worth pointing out here. The media is acting like a watchdog group, catching the Bush administration in word traps that they do not know how to get out of. It comes down to hindsight, and the fact that WMD was a big selling point for the justification of the war in Iraq. The more information that comes to light the more it looks like the intelligence presented to the American people was cooked to goad us into the war.

Officials who can stand up in front of a TV camera and rail against another nation with instigatory terms like ‘immediate threat' and 'evildoers’ trying to sell their course of action would do well to remember that they are being recorded. If we can’t hold the White House responsible for what they say, as seems to be the case, then that administration cannot be trusted, they loose all credibility, and they loose my support.

Bottom line, I will not change my tune now that more manipulations and half truths have surfaced. I find state sanctioned rape and torture offensive, and a worthy case for Saddam’s removal could be made on these grounds alone. But when our elected officials make statements or try to re-write history in their favor they must be held accountable for what is said.

There is no shame in admitting your wrong, but don’t know you are wrong and try to convince the rest of us you were right, especially not when the tape recorder is rolling.

 

[idd]

I asked for evidence of Clarke's ties to the Kerry campaign.

His "best bud" is Beers, a primary National Security adviser for the Kerry campaign.

Randy Beers served two tours of duty as a Untied States Marine in the Vietnam War. Afterwards, he served as an official in the foreign service and on the staff of the National Security Council under presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He and Clarke has been friends since 1979. Beers now serves as Kerry's foreign policy advisor.

So Clarke's longterm friendship with Beers constitutes "ties to the Kerry campaign"? Gimme a break.

I have a close relative who consistently votes for the Democrats. I guess that means that I would have "ties to the Democratic Party," right?

You guys are really reaching here. If you read his book you could prolly come up with more intelligent arguments.

Moreover, as Roger Simon points out, the book was originally scheduled for release in April and they did a rush job to get it out now.

I don't know, but if I had to guess I would say its release was timed to coincide with the 9/11 commission's taking testimony this week in order to maximize exposure and sales. Appears to be a pretty smart marketing move. (I bet that Clarke's some kind of scheming, profit-maximizing capitalist.)

All Clarke has done so far is to make a series of assertions,

Must be kinda cool to know another man's argument without even having read his works. Oh that's right, you saw him on TV for a few minutes and can parrot what others wrote about him on the Internet, others who also probably hadn't read his book. Reminds me of those people with strong opinions about Mel Gibson's The Passion before they'd even seen it.

It has also shown North Korea and Libya that the US means to take care of business and remove any regime that supports, aids or encourages terrorism.

Unless those regimes are in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

 

[Cactus]

It appears that Clarke suffers from delusions of grandure and difficulty with the truth.

In his book, Clarke claims that HE ordered the combat air patrols over the major cities on 9-11 and that HE ordered the Presidents plane to stay airborne until things settled down.

Imagine that, a mid level staffer "ordering" the military to action and "ordering" Air Force to stay airborne until further notice. Who does he think he is, Vice President?

Clarke further claimed to be a member of the presidential cabinet. Sorry, but he never rose higher than an assistant to the National Security Advisor.

The White House also released an e-mail dated in March of 2001 inviting Clarke to a meeting with the President after Clarke stated that he was never allowed to meet with the President until April of 2001.

I guess he learned well at the foot of Bill Clinton!

 

[freewheeling]

Must be kinda cool to know another man's argument without even having read his works. Oh that's right, you saw him on TV for a few minutes and can parrot what others wrote about him on the Internet, others who also probably hadn't read his book. Reminds me of all those peopel with strogn opiniosn about Mel Gibson's The Passion before they'd even seen it.

So, you've read his book? And I assume that you've never opined about the neo-conservative agenda without having first read the books of Irving and Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, et al?

Nope, I can comment on his agenda because he has expressed it loudly and combatively, placing his ideas and his reputation in the public domain, and if that expression isn't an accurate reflection of his views then that's his problem, not mine. If that's the only argument you can mount, it's pretty thin gruel.

 

[freewheeling]

Tag:

Rumsfeld did not catch this in the interview and started backtracking, stammering on about Survey Groups, ‘the best intelligence’, David Kay, and whole list of other unrelated issues. Rumsfeld thought he had been caught in a lie when in fact he had not, which makes it sound like he was in fact lying about something, to me anyways.

I think there are a few things worth pointing out here. The media is acting like a watchdog group, catching the Bush administration in word traps that they do not know how to get out of. It comes down to hindsight, and the fact that WMD was a big selling point for the justification of the war in Iraq. The more information that comes to light the more it looks like the intelligence presented to the American people was cooked to goad us into the war.

Officials who can stand up in front of a TV camera and rail against another nation with instigatory terms like ‘immediate threat' and 'evildoers’ trying to sell their course of action would do well to remember that they are being recorded.

Heck, I didn't vote for Bush and I don't really care what justifications Rumsfeld and Bush made for the invasion of Iraq. But I do note that you've repeated the same old canard that Bush argued that Iraq represented an *immediate threat*, and have done so only a few sentences after you yourself admitted this was a false claim. I don't blame you for being a bit confused, but I never paid much attention to the Bush WMD arguments because I knew that the nature of intelligence meant that they'd never be able to nail that down. Indeed, I was convinced that Saddam was acting as though he were hiding something, and I assumed it wasn't his secret recipe for falafel. Little did I know, nor did anyone know, that Saddam only thought he was hiding something. Who'da thunk?

BTW, we made almost the same mistake in WWII assuming the Nazis were much further along in their nuclear research than they actually were. We in the west don't know much about how totalitarian states work, so it never occurred to anyone that the nuclear scientists in Germany were sabotaging their own work and misinforming their Nazi handlers, which seems eerily close to what the Iraqi scientists were doing. This is not, however, something we ought to count on, because we have just found that underestimated how far Libya has gone. There is no certainty in this sort of thing.

The Bush people made a whole host of arguments for invading Iraq, none of which impressed the so-called "peace movement" very much. They only cared about WMD, and have retroactively reinterpreted the history to their apriori preferences. Andrew Sullivan posted a number of accounts taken directly from the writings of Maureen Dowd, about how "unfocussed" the Bush administration was because they couldn't settle on a single argument for invading Iraq. You mean you don't recall that nonsens?

Finally the Bush Adminstration focussed on the WMD issue, because that was the demand of the UN... which apparently never really gave a damn that people were being fed feet first into meat shredders. You do what you have to do, dig what I'm sayin'?

 

[KevlarTester]

It makes little difference whether Democrat or Republican when you are a do nothing, take no action appeaser of our enemies.

All this BS about not an imminent threat, misleading evidence, blah,blah...
Our enemies have the desire and ability to do great harm to us tomorrow. What’s in store for us five years or ten years from now?
Why must we wait to take action?
Why do you need to see another 3000 people die before you’re motivated to take action?
Why can’t you people see that preventative action needed to be taken, and yet more needs to be done to weaken our enemies?
It’s obvious you’re a helpless cause. Will the death of an immediate family member open your eyes, I doubt it.

Freedom doesn’t come free. It’s such a simplistic yet so very true phrase.
There is a price to pay and sacrifices to make.
All you naysayers will be asked to do is deal with it.
It seems even that might be too much for you to handle.

Why can’t these fools see it either?
Carter, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry. Why would you want these feckless individuals to protect our country?
Carter should ****, he was abysmal!

Kerry proudly admits he would still be at the UN trying to get approval for an invasion from the Germans and French.
How anyone could vote for him, knowing this one fact is stupefying.
Lord please help us if he ever becomes our President!

 

[idd]

So, you've read his book?

Yes, I finished it today. It is a damning indictment.

And I assume that you've never opined about the neo-conservative agenda without having first read the books of Irving and Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, et al?

I have never written about Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, or Robert Kagan, never addressed any specific arguments that they put have forward or claims that that they have made. As far as opining about "the neo-conservative agenda," I can't say that's a term I would ever use.

It does appear to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle came into the Bush Adminstration obsessed with getting rid of Saddam's government, and that this fixation interferred with a realistic assessment of the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

It makes little difference whether Democrat or Republican when you are a do nothing, take no action appeaser of our enemies.

KevlarTest, I completely agree with you. I don't care whether they cal themselves liberal, conservative, "neo-conservative," Republican or Democrat.

...which apparently never really gave a damn that people were being fed feet first into meat shredders. You do what you have to do, dig what I'm sayin'?

The specific claim regarding the human shredders
turned out to be war propaganda. Just like the specific claim regarding Iraqi soldiers supposedly ripping babies from incubators in Kuwait at the start of the first Iraq War.

Why must we wait to take action?

To be absolutely sure of the target, and what is behind it.

Why can't you people see that preventative action needed to be taken,

I am not sure exactly who you are arguing with, but I for on do not like it when government leaders get up and make false statements with either knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth thereof in order to manipulate me into supporting their war, a war they decided to wage even before coming into office. If war on Iraq was their platform, fine, make the argument during the campaign and the country can a vote on it.

Is Saddam evil? Yes. Was his government a murderous totalitarian dictatorship? Yes. Did they attempt to assassinate Bush I in Saudi Arabia? Almost certainly. Clinton responded by ordering the destruction of the Iraqi intelligence HQ in Baghdad, and sent word that any more terrorist attacks against the US would meet with even harsher measures. That was 1993. Iraq backed off.

You do understand that Richard Clarke is a hawk, right? Much of his book describes the bureaucratic infighting, inertia, turf wars, and ideological blinders that worked against the federal government doing its most important, primary function: protecting the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[Rick Blaine]

Excuse me, but I don't see how "brazen lie" applies. When Rumsfeld had used the word "immediate" he was referring to biological weapons that he "knew" were in Iraq. Perhaps he was referring to a nuclear threat when he said he hadn't said imminent or immediate. Rumsfeld was baited into saying what he did. It hardly qualifies as catching someone in a lie, but it makes a good headline, worthy of the New York Times. Rick

 

[fallingblock]

Just a small correction, idd.....

"If you read his book you could prolly come up with more intelligent arguments."
************************************************************

I suggest that accuracy would be better served by the use of the word
"informed" rather than "intelligent", since your assertion concerns the information in Clarke's book, rather than anything specifically relating to 'intelligence', either pro or con.


************************************************************
"So Clarke's longterm friendship with Beers constitutes "ties to the Kerry campaign"?"
************************************************************


With all the hoopla surrounding Cheney's duck-hunting trip with Scalia,
I wouldn't be surprised if the connection is examined. I think Clarke is looking for some 'pay-back' with his book.

 

[freewheeling]

The specific claim regarding the human shredders turned out to be war propaganda.

Oh well then, as long as they didn't feed people into shredders it's OK then. Whew! So I assume you'll be supporting Saddam's acquittal? I mean, after all, if we were wrong about the shredders then we damn well oughta reinstate the guy, dontcha think? It's only fair.

But you sort of glossed over the fact that the article you mentioned doesn't "prove" a damn thing about the shredders. It's just a boilerplate Guardian article suggesting that the claims were uncorroporated. You know, I have a hunch that if they look real hard the Guardian can probably debunk the propaganda about Uday and Qusay being "not nice."

Never mind the 1 to 2 million people that disappeared into Saddam's prisons during his reign, or the Marsh Arabs whose culture and people were decimated and destroyed. They all probably just got lost in the palace at one of his birthday parties and couldn't get their feet into the glass slippers.

I'm sorry, but that statement about "war propaganda" revealed more about your character than you probably intended, and I just don't have much more to say to you. I think you and Clarke probably deserve one another, and he should be honored to have you as a supporter.

By the way, Clarke didn't happen to mention what theory about Saddam/Qaeda kissin' cousins he was operating under when he urged the bombing the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan did he? I thought not.

 

[freewheeling]

I am not sure exactly who you are arguing with, but I for on do not like it when government leaders get up and make false statements with either knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth thereof in order to manipulate me into supporting their war, a war they decided to wage even before coming into office. If war on Iraq was their platform, fine, make the argument during the campaign and the country can a vote on it.

You apparently don't mind waiting a few more months or years while Iraqis lived under totalitarian rule and Saddam had time and resources to play with a few WMD "toys" though, do you? Kay may not have found the weapons themselves, but he's pretty adamant about Saddam's intentions. Well heck, as long as he wasn't dropping babies into snow blowers... yah know?

I think Clarke has a ready-made audience who will carry him on their shoulders from here on out, so be basically has no worries. They'll buy all his books, pay him to speak, and listen to his sage wisdom about terrorism like he's Obiwan. But if us nasty bourgeois Americans have a lick of common sense he'll never again be in a position of power.

Honest, you oughta read Kagan and Kristol. Lift the scales from your eyes, they would.