View Single Post
Old 11-02-2005, 09:39 AM   #19 (permalink)
host
Banned
 
Scotty McClellan just set off my BS detector:
Quote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...nate_Iraq.html
Wednesday, November 2, 2005 · Last updated 9:11 a.m. PT

White House deflects intel questions

By LIZ SIDOTI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The White House sought to deflect politically charged questions Wednesday about President Bush's use of prewar intelligence in Iraq, saying Democrats, too, had concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat.

"If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they've made," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He said the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats "used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat."...........
How does Scotty's attempt to deflect criticism of the "fixing of the facts to match the policy", square with these quotes and timeline?

The first statment was made by the Clinton administration's CIA director, just three weeks after Clinton's term ended. I infer from this that it represents the final intelligence assessment of the Clinton presidency, with regard to the threat posed by Saddam:

Quote:
<b>Tenet Feb. 7, 2001:

".... and his ability to project power outside of Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and the enforcement of the no-fly zones.His military is roughly half the size it was before the gulf war and remains under a tight embargo.</b>
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
Seventeen days later, newly appointed Secretary of State, Colin Powell, voiced the same conclusion.
Quote:
Powell Feb. 24, 2001:

"And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any signifigant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Seven months after that, NSA Director Condi Rice, concurred:
Quote:
Rice July 29, 2001:

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember, his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
Oh....and Scotty, et al...the reason people fell for the crap about Iraqi WMD that the administration that you are shilling for constantly spewed out from Aug. 2002 until early 2004 is because your guys worked at it.....hard:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.
Time after time, when confronted by the "record" on these threads, one side consistantly falls silent............
Quote:
You wave your hand and they scatter like crows
-Tom Waits

Last edited by host; 11-02-2005 at 10:03 AM..
host is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360