Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Ex White House Press Secretary: a Key Witness to Impeachable Offenses & War Crimes? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/135695-ex-white-house-press-secretary-key-witness-impeachable-offenses-war-crimes.html)

host 05-27-2008 08:16 PM
Ex White House Press Secretary: a Key Witness to Impeachable Offenses & War Crimes?
 
Former white house press secretary Scott McClellan's new book is finally out in print, and making headlines:
Quote:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...ry&btnG=Search

Bush misled US on Iraq, former aide says in new book
Atlanta Journal Constitution, USA - 50 minutes ago
"What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary," he wrote in the preface. The book, which drew a "no ...
Ex-spokesman McClellan blasts Bush in book USA Today
all 68 news articles »
Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq
Washington Post, United States - 13 minutes ago
... comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary. ...

Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq
Washington Post, United States - 15 minutes ago
... comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary. ...
Scottie says that the war was "unnecessary", and he makes the point that the main stream press turned out not to be "liberal."

Isn't waging unnecessary war, when you knew in advance that it was probably unnecssary, as McClellan claims, a war crime, and an impeachable offense? Is this issue finally at the stage where it cannot be denied as the recognition that there were no WMD in Iraq, finally became, in January, 2005?

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/wa...hp&oref=slogin
In Book, Ex-Spokesman Has Harsh Words for Bush

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: May 28, 2008

PHOENIX — President Bush “convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,” and has engaged in “self-deception” to justify his political ends, Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, writes in a critical new memoir about his years in the West Wing.

In addition, Mr. McClellan writes, the decision to invade Iraq was a “serious strategic blunder,” and yet, in his view, it was not the biggest mistake the Bush White House made. <h2>That, he says, was “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”</h2>

Mr. McClellan’s book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” is the first negative account by a member of the tight circle of Texans around Mr. Bush. Mr. McClellan, 40, went to work for Mr. Bush when he was governor of Texas and was the White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006.

The revelations in the book, to be published by PublicAffairs next Tuesday, were first reported Tuesday on Politico.com by Mike Allen. Mr. Allen wrote that he bought the book at a Washington store. The New York Times also obtained an advance copy.

Mr. McClellan writes that top White House officials deceived him about the administration’s involvement in the leaking of the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. He says he did not know for almost two years that his statements from the press room that Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby Jr. were not involved in the leak were a lie.

“Neither, I believe, did President Bush,” Mr. McClellan writes. “He too had been deceived, and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie.”

He is harsh about the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, saying it “spent most of the first week in a state of denial” and “allowed our institutional response to go on autopilot.” Mr. McClellan blames Mr. Rove for one of the more damaging images after the hurricane: Mr. Bush’s flyover of the devastation of New Orleans. When Mr. Rove brought up the idea, Mr. McClellan writes, he and Dan Bartlett, a top communications adviser, told Mr. Bush it was a bad idea because he would appear detached and out of touch. But Mr. Rove won out, Mr. McClellan writes.

A theme in the book is that the White House suffered from a “permanent campaign” mentality, and that policy decisions were inextricably interwoven with politics.

He is critical of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her role as the “sometimes too accomodating” first term national security adviser, and what he calls her deftness at protecting her reputation.

“No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean,” Mr. McClellan writes, adding that “she knew how to adapt to potential trouble, dismiss brooding problems, and come out looking like a star.”

Mr. McClellan does not exempt himself from failings — “I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be” — <h3>and calls the news media “complicit enablers” in the White House’s “carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval” in the march to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003. </h3>

He does have a number of kind words for Mr. Bush, particularly from the April day in 2006 when Mr. Bush met with Mr. McClellan after he learned he was being pushed out. “His charm was on full display, but it was hard to know if it was sincere or just an attempt to make me feel better,” Mr. McClellan writes. “But as he continued, something I had never seen before happened: tears were streaming down both his cheeks.”
We've been going back and forth a longtime here, over all of the controversial things said and done by the Bush administration. From deception about the reasons for attacking Iraq, about the false denials about deliberately outing CIA operative Valerie Plame, about the delayed and incompetent Katrina disaster response, and about the compliant press that so many post has a "liberal" bias, doesn't it appear that the forner white house press secretary McClellan, confirms that all of the negative conclusions were much closer to being accurate, than the defenses of the sincerity, honesty, and effectiveness of this administration, seem now, to be?

Thoughts?

Tully Mars 05-28-2008 03:30 AM
I'm a little shocked he, or anyone else, would write and release such a book while Bush is still a sitting POTUS. I give it 30 sec. before the right start calling him a liar, a gold digger, a traitor and just about every other "evil" term they can think up.

Turned on the Boob tube (they really should have more actual "boobs" on there) and the "Morning Joe" gang was stating "if all of what he's saying is true why didn't he say something at the time?" Gee I dunno? Maybe because he was the press sec. and not an adviser? Information flows to him not the other way around.

It begins and by the end of the week he'll be deemed worthy of a mental commitment by the right.

aceventura3 05-28-2008 07:57 AM
My thought about if the war was necessary or not - the answer depends on one's perspective.

On one hand, we decided to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Our decision to invade was preemptive and the timing was our choice. From that perspective I can see how one can conclude the war was unnecessary.

On the other hand, we had been in a undeclared war long before our invasion of Iraq against an enemy that had declared war on the US. Iraq is a key strategic point in the war against terror and removing Saddam Hussein served two purposes. In this regard I see our invasion of Iraq as a part of our broader war on terror, and that the invasion was a part of a military strategy that will prove to be successful or a failure. Given the two choices of fighting a defensive war or an offensive war on an enemy who has declared war on the US, I would choose an offensive war and I do see fighting the war as necessary, defensively or offensively.

ratbastid 05-28-2008 08:29 AM
My God, ace... You've drunk the kool-aid so thoroughly on this one, I despair of us ever having a rational conversation about it.

Suffice to say, "we" didn't invade Iraq to remove Hussein from power--that rationale was invented after the fact, when there were no WMDs to be found. And Iraq had nothing to do with this alleged "enemy who had declared war on the US". Those people were also Iraq's enemies. And Iraq was only part of the "broader war on terror" if you can invent WMDs and yellow cake uranium purchases, which didn't exist OR happen.

So, if it's not those three things, why DO you think we initially went to war?

I don't think we'll ever know the REAL reason that the Administration decided to gallop us into this war, but I know what I suspect their reasons were. I suspect their reasons had to do with enriching their military-industrial cronies, their ability to use war to railroad through agenda items at the expense of civil liberties, and their "legacy" as a war presidency.

host 05-28-2008 09:07 AM
ace, you're not debating me on this, your task now is to refute the claims of the former white house press secretary, that the war was unnecessary.

To give you some insight into the pitfalls of disagreeing with the man who was the public voice of the white house, here are the three network news anchors responding on TV this am, to McClellans accusations that one of the reasons an unneccessary war happened, was their compliant reaction to the Bush administration's propaganda:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24855902/

If Bush, himself, said the the things Scott McClellan is saying, would Bush saying that the urgency and justification for invasion was contrved, and thus, the war was unnecessary, even sway your opinion?

I think we are down to one of two possibilities, now. Either your opinion is immovable, or only the public admission by Bush that mcClellan is correct, would influence you to change your mind.

There is <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article537580.ece">news reporting</a> that throughout 2002, the US and UK conducted a large unpublicized aerial bombardment campaign against targets in Iraq to soften Iraqi defenses against an invasion. I cannot find a formal declaration of war by Iraq against the US and I cannot find a preinvasion justification for war made by our president or VP that cites Iraq's declaration of war against the US. You posted that the US chose to fight an offensive war. If as you claim, Iraq declared war against the US, wouldn't the US invasion be a defensive response? What is the difference between offensive war and war of aggression?

aceventura3 05-28-2008 10:19 AM
Here is an excerpt from the book, published in the WSJ today:

Quote:
I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people. But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. Had a high level of openness and forthrightness been embraced from the outset of his administration, I believe President Bush's public standing would be stronger today. His approval ratings have remained at historic lows for so long because both qualities have been lacking to this day. In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121198457525625977.html

The author says he does not think Bush intended to "lie" to the American people. He further suggests that the real problem was not with the war itself but with communication and that the President was not well served by his advisors.

Here is more:

Quote:
An even more fundamental problem was the way his advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people. It was all part of the way the White House operated and Washington functioned, and no one seemed to see any problem with using such an approach on an issue as grave as war. A pro-war campaign might have been more acceptable had it been accompanied by a high level of candor and honesty, but it was not. Most of the arguments used – especially those stated in prepared remarks by the president and in forums like Powell's presentation at the UN Security Council in February 2003 – were carefully vetted and capable of being substantiated.
Here he is saying initially statements made publicly were capable of being substantiated. He feel that later that changed.

Here is more:

Quote:
To this day, the president seems unbothered by the disconnect between the chief rationale for the war and the driving motivation behind it, and unconcerned about how the case was packaged. The policy is the right one and history will judge it so, once a free Iraq is firmly in place and the Middle East begins to become more democratic.
I agree and I am not concerned with how the "case was packaged". I agree it was the right thing to do. the author is a "PR" guy and it seems his focus is on "PR" not on the actual evidence to support the action.

Here is a good one for you:

Quote:
Bush clung to the same belief during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC News in early February 2004. The Meet the Press host asked, "In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity? "

The president said, "That's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity. In my judgment, we had no choice, when we look at the intelligence I looked at, that says the man was a threat."

I remember talking to the president about this question following the interview. He seemed puzzled and asked me what Russert was getting at with the question.

This, in turn, puzzled me. Surely this distinction between a necessary, unavoidable war and a war that the United States could have avoided but chose to wage was an obvious one that Bush must have thought about in the months before the invasion. Evidently it wasn't obvious to the president, nor did his national security team make sure it was. He set the policy early on and then his team focused his attention on how to sell it. It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection, something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did.

Most objective observers today would say that in 2003 there was no urgent need to address the threat posed by Saddam with a large-scale invasion, and therefore the war was not necessary. But this is a question President Bush seems not to want to grapple with.
I can understand Bush's confusion, in my view we were already at war. The suggestion of "necessity" would strike me as odd if I thought people understood we were at war. Saddam historically was a threat to peace in the ME, that was a constant. I and many others felt he should have been removed from power during the first Gulf War. Many believed he was repositioning himself to take future military actions in the region.

It seems the author makes assumptions about what Bush did and did not give thought to, I am not sure how he does that.

This next one is confusing to me. If the war was unnecessary how could it ever be considered a success, "...good for America, good for Iraq and good for the world" to the point where untruths would be ignored? Perhaps you can help me with this.

Quote:
All the president can do today is hope that his vision of Iraq will ultimately come true, putting the Middle East on a new path and vindicating his decision to go to war. I would welcome such a development as good for America, good for Iraq, and good for the world. Bush knows that posterity has a way of rewarding success over candor and honesty.
In direct answer to your question, you have to understand my position. One way to look at it, sure the war in Iraq was unnecessary, but we were already at war prior to our invasion of Iraq. In my view Iraq is a front in the broader war. I see invading Iraq similar to the invasion at Normandy during WWII. We certainly did not need to invade France at Normandy but it was a part of a military strategy, just like the invasion of Iraq in my opinion. If you don't understand that, you can not understand my view on the question. I do think the administration failed in communicating the invasion of Iraq the way that I do, I think thoughtful people would get it and the general public would have accepted it. But I have been known to be wrong from time to time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
So, if it's not those three things, why DO you think we initially went to war?
As Bush suggested many times, it is better to fight in Iraq than in New York. And a benefit of invading Iraq was getting Saddam out of power. If democracy takes root in Iraq, Iraq will serve has an ally in the region. Iraq is strategically positioned in the region, controlling Iraq is key to future peace in the region. I have a long-term view on this issue.

Poppinjay 05-28-2008 10:30 AM
There were several things wrong with the war, and I was disappointed by hearing a quote today from Tori Clarke about the whole deal. She's a decent comminicator who worked for the Pentagon and not one to obfuscate the truth. She blasted McClellan as being weak by not arguing against this stupid war and not resigning when it came to loggerheads.

Well, he did, and he did. There was a whole torrent of negative blowback on this stupid war, and Cheney talked der Imbicile into pursuing it. And she was cosen today to be the punk. It's all lies.

Willravel 05-28-2008 10:30 AM
Bad communication around George W. Bush? That's odd. I mean it's clear to me that he communicates clearly and understands all that's being communicated to him.

Ace, this book picks sides in the old stupid/corrupt debate. This book alleges strongly that Bush is far too stupid to be president. Host argues that he's too corrupt to be president. Either way you go on this one, Bush shouldn't be in the oval office.

host 05-28-2008 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppinjay
There were several things wrong with the war, and I was disappointed by hearing a quote today from Tori Clarke about the whole deal. She's a decent comminicator who worked for the Pentagon and not one to obfuscate the truth. She blasted McClellan as being weak by not arguing against this stupid war and not resigning when it came to loggerheads.

Well, he did, and he did. There was a whole torrent of negative blowback on this stupid war, and Cheney talked der Imbicile into pursuing it. And she was cosen today to be the punk. It's all lies.
IMO, Tori Clarke should be charged and tried as a war criminal:


Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/bu...=2&oref=slogin

The Origins of the "Message Machine"

Q. In speaking of Torie Clarke, the former Pentagon public relations executive, the article states: "...even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit key influentials -- movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities." I'm wondering what Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities were before 9/11, and why was the Pentagon building a network of "influentials" to shape public opinion before 9/11?

— SLOreader, San Luis Obispo, Calif.

A. Ms. Clarke’s team reached out to so-called “key influentials” before Sept. 11 to generate support for a variety of Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities, including ballistic missile defense and his plan to transform the military into a leaner and more agile force. In her 2006 memoir, "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game," Ms. Clarke wrote: "I was obsessed with reaching out to people who were, in turn, reaching out to thousands and millions on a regular basis." Beyond retired officers, the Pentagon also reached out to a range of leaders -- from religious groups, non-governmental organizations, labor unions and major corporations. But the retired officers received by far the most attention in the years after Sept. 11 because of their impact on the coverage of the war, especially as TV and radio military analysts.

aceventura3 05-28-2008 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Bad communication around George W. Bush? That's odd. I mean it's clear to me that he communicates clearly and understands all that's being communicated to him.

Ace, this book picks sides in the old stupid/corrupt debate. This book alleges strongly that Bush is far too stupid to be president. Host argues that he's too corrupt to be president. Either way you go on this one, Bush shouldn't be in the oval office.
I think another possibility, as suggested in the excerpts I have read, is that Bush failed from a PR point of view and more specifically McClellan feels that Bush's advisors failed. He seems to suggest that there were reasons held for going to war that were not communicated openly and honestly. I disagree. I clearly understood our rational for war in Iraq. I clearly heard Bush communicate the rational for war in Iraq.

I think the "stupid" part would apply to those who supported going to war and were against going to war at the same time.:eek:

Poppinjay 05-28-2008 10:51 AM
I won't get into a defend Tori campaign. I was against this war from day one. Like your post says, the media were highly responsible for the jacked up war. She's a decent person.

aceventura3 05-28-2008 01:40 PM
As I read and listen to the talk show people on this subject it seems to me that we really need to hear from people who were "sold" on the war. I was not, and many were against the war from the beginning and at no point supported the war. There are some people who supported the war because they bought into misinformation who would have otherwise been against the war, these are the people who need to be heard from and can add new insight given the release of this book.

dc_dux 05-28-2008 02:35 PM
Edit:
nevermind.....I would only be repeating what has been posted countless times before by myself and others.

ratbastid 05-28-2008 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I clearly understood our rational for war in Iraq.
Which was, as you've put it here and in other threads, "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

Which makes sense, in a world where one brown person is pretty much exactly like every other brown person.

Problem is: The "them" we fought in Iraq was a different "them" than we needed to keep from attacking us again. They weren't even friends. Religious differences. No get alongy.

My neighbor punches me in the face, so in response, I burn down the K-Mart two towns over.

What part of this did you "understand"?

Willravel 05-28-2008 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
No get alongy.
Fucking awesome. You win. :thumbsup:

hiredgun 05-28-2008 08:31 PM
While I guess I'm glad that McLellan gets the chance to unburden his soul to us all, I have to wonder what - besides probably cowardice - was preventing him from giving us this information at a time when it might have made a difference.

ratbastid 05-29-2008 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiredgun
While I guess I'm glad that McLellan gets the chance to unburden his soul to us all, I have to wonder what - besides probably cowardice - was preventing him from giving us this information at a time when it might have made a difference.
Yeah, I wondered that too. I might read this book, if only to answer the question of whether he feels he sold his soul to the devil. From the excerpts ace has posted, it doesn't seem that way.

roachboy 05-29-2008 03:52 AM
it's funny, the dominant response from the right about this book:

(a) mclellan says what he says to sell books.
but i thought capitalism was rational in conservative world...an unquestioned good. so how does this not amount to a tautology?

(b) that mclellan is not mclellan ("this is not the scott we knew") but rather some leftist duplicate mclellan who seems to have had something of the same experience as the actual mclellan but who thinks about everything in an entirely different way--perhaps as a function of information the alien mclellan extracted from the actual mclellan via anal probe on the spaceship.

i like that one.

from what i've seen so far--which ain't a whole lot as the book is only just out (or will be this week)--it seems that mclellan's motivations center on the sense of being-chumped by the rove team. bush-the-amiable-dufus is an object of affection and so seems to float around as mclellan's double, nearly--the Other Guy who was Manipulated. mclellan is the dupe who has since come to see--bush the dupe who cannot see---a curious doubling that gets repeated in the "real mclellan" versus the space-alien duplicate mclellan ("the left-wing blogger")...

republicans sometimes make me laugh

aceventura3 05-29-2008 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Which was, as you've put it here and in other threads, "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

Which makes sense, in a world where one brown person is pretty much exactly like every other brown person.

Problem is: The "them" we fought in Iraq was a different "them" than we needed to keep from attacking us again. They weren't even friends. Religious differences. No get alongy.

My neighbor punches me in the face, so in response, I burn down the K-Mart two towns over.

What part of this did you "understand"?
I acknowledge the point of view of those who disagree with our invasion of Iraq. I simply disagree. I do think the arguments against the war in Iraq has valid points. I believe we are going to be better served handling Iraq, terrorism and the ME now rather than in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
it's funny, the dominant response from the right about this book:
...
republicans sometimes make me laugh
I am waiting for specifics regarding "lies" about the war. I have not read or heard about any yet, have you?

Poppinjay 05-29-2008 07:46 AM
"Mission Accomplished"

Willravel 05-29-2008 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I acknowledge the point of view of those who disagree with our invasion of Iraq. I simply disagree. I do think the arguments against the war in Iraq has valid points. I believe we are going to be better served handling Iraq, terrorism and the ME now rather than in the future.



I am waiting for specifics regarding "lies" about the war. I have not read or heard about any yet, have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bush
You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
--WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

No weapons had been found up to that point or since in Iraq.

Tully Mars 05-29-2008 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
--WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

No weapons had been found up to that point or since in Iraq.
There's (depending on your definition) WMD's in Iraq. We have them on nearly every base.

Willravel 05-29-2008 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
There's (depending on your definition) WMD's in Iraq. We have them on nearly every base.
Touche? :expressionless:

host 05-29-2008 09:25 AM
Scott McClellan: Bush Admitted Declassifying Portion of NIE, Outing CIA's Plame
 
Is it an act of treason if the president outs a CIA operative, during a time of war, for partisan politcal purposes?

From this am Today Show Video:
Quote:
Scott McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

Scott McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. <h3>He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.</h3>
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/wa...rtner=homepage
Libby a Scapegoat, His Lawyer Tells Jurors

By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: January 23, 2007

.....Mr. Libby, Mr. Wells said, complained to Mr. Cheney that he was being set up as the fall guy. The Vice President supported that view, Mr. Wells said, and wrote a note by hand saying: “Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”

He offered his interpretation of the note, explaining that “incompetence” was a reference to the fact that the C.I.A. had mistakenly allowed the White House to use inaccurate information in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union speech about Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium in Africa. The staff official, he said, was Mr. Rove. Mr. Libby had been assigned to speak to reporters to straighten out the confusion from Mr. Bush’s speech, a chore Mr. Cheney likened to sticking his head in the meat grinder.

Mr. Wells did not, however, make it clear how the purported efforts to shield Mr. Rove caused Mr. Libby to become embroiled in the issue, but for suggesting that the attention paid to the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s name obliged Mr. Libby to engage in the perilous task of talking with reporters.....
From Libby's Plame Leak Investigation, Grand Jury testimony....
Quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ex.../0306/gx1t.txt
P R O C E E D I N G S
Whereupon,
I. LEWIS LIBBY
was called as a witness and, after first being duly sworn by
the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, was examined and testified
as follows:
<h3>EXAMINATION
BY MR. FITZGERALD:
Q. And Mr. Libby, if you could state your name for the
record and spell your name?
A. I. Lewis, L-e-w-i-s; Libby, L-i-b-b-y.</h3>
Q. And do you have a nickname?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. And that is --
A. "Scooter".
Q. Okay. And can you give us a brief description of
how you got the name "Scooter" so no one spends their time
thinking about that?
A. Are we classified in here? It's -- my family is
from the south and it's less, it's less uncommon than it is up
here.
Q. Okay. Good morning. There's a glass of water in
front of you. That's not from a prior witness, so feel free
to use it.
A. Thank you.
Q. Let me just introduce myself again. My name is Pat
Fitzgerald. I'm a Special Counsel in this matter, joined by
other attorneys with the Special Counsel's Office seated at
the table. And this Grand Jury is investigating possible
offenses of different laws that include Title 50 of the United
States Code, Section 421, which concerns the disclosure of the
identity of a covert agent; Title 18 of the United States
Code, Section 793, which is the illegal transmission of
national defense information; or Title 18, Section 641, theft
of government property; or Title 18 United States Code,
Section 1001, false statements. That means that this Grand
Jury is investigating those offenses. It doesn't mean there's
any determination been made whether or not those offenses have
been committed. I can also tell you that a Grand Jury is
entitled to charge any other offense that they determine has
been committed if they learn about that offense during the
course of this investigation. But generally the investigation
concerns the possible illegal disclosure of classified
information. Do you understand the general nature of the
investigation?
A. I do, sir.
Q. I should tell you that you have a constitutional
right to refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer
would tend to incriminate you. Do you understand that you
have that right?..........


.....Q. -- 59. Does that indicate a meeting between you,
the Vice President and Stephen Hadley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then down below, is that an attribution, the
first one, to Stephen Hadley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then "SH", and then it has a colon, and it has
"MCL". Is that referring to McLaughlin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that Hadley quoting Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence John McLaughlin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Colon, quoted GT. Is that McLaughlin quoting George
Tenet?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that you're with the
Vice President --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and Stephen Hadley?
A. Yes.
Q. Hadley is reporting back to you guys what McLaughlin
is saying that George Tenet is saying?
A. Full credit, sir.
Q. Okay. And then during this time you guys are trying
to get Tenet to make a good statement that will sort of take
this issue out and restore the President's credibility?
A. Absolutely, sir.
Q. Fairly tense time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, it says, "Wilson is declassified"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that to you an indication that the report on
Wilson was declassified?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then what does the next sentence say?
A. "We haven't started to declassify NIE." And then
Steve Hadley started to say something which I didn't have time
to write down.
Q. And the next attribution is that Hadley quoting
Condi Rice?
A. Yes, sir.
<h3> Q. Okay. And what does that say?
A. "Spoke to President, he's comfortable."
Q. And does that indicate despite the stress of the
time that the President is okay with -- so far with how things
are going?
A. It's not clear to me what. There's a space missing
there --
Q. Okay.
A. -- and I probably didn't write something down. I
left a space to go back and I probably never got -- I never
got back to it. So -- these things look sort of like a
transcript but they're not really because there could be long
moments when I don't write anything down. So she was saying
the President was comfortable about something, but I don't
know what the antecedent was to --
Q. And the next line?
A. Says -- this is Steve Hadley saying, no question,
it's better if we leak the NIE.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Steve Hadley is saying that it would be better if we
got the NIE out, and "leak" means telling it to -- giving it
to a reporter to say, you know, here's something you can write
about. It's like an exclusive or something like that.
Q. And had the NIE been declassified at that point?
A. It had in the sense that the President had told me
to go out and use it with Judith Miller. I don't, I don't
know that Mr. Hadley knew that at that point.
Q. Okay. And did anyone decide to leak the NIE that
week?
A. Well, the President had told me to use it and
declassified it for me to use with Judith Miller. I don't
think Mr. Hadley was told to go out and talk about it. I
think Ms. Rice had talked about the NIE in general earlier in
the week on television.
Q. And so --
A. Well, some time. I'm not sure when it was.
Q. -- so prior to July 10th you had talked to Judith
Miller about the NIE?
A. Correct, sir.
Q. And your understanding is that even though it was a
classified document the President had authorized you to talk
to her about it?
A. Definitely, sir.
Q. And then -- and do you know if anyone decided to
share the NIE -- did you tell Mr. Hadley at the time that you
had already in effect leaked the NIE by -- with the
President's approval by telling -- Judith Miller?
A. I -- yeah, I don't know if it's leaking once it's
declassified and you're told to do it. I had talked to Judith
Miller about the NIE at the President's, you know, at, at the
President's approval relayed to me through the Vice President,
and I did not tell Mr. Hadley at that time.
Q. And was there any reason why you didn't tell Mr.
Hadley that you had told Ms. Miller about the NIE?
A. I was sitting with the Vice President. The Vice
President knew it and chose not to tell Mr. Hadley and so I
didn't change what he had done.</h3>
Q. Now --
A. And then there's a comment below it from the, from
the Vice President.
Q. Yes?
A. Should I read that for you?
Q. Sure.
A. He says, "anything less than full and complete
disclosure is a serious mistake." And Steve Hadley says, "I
will -- I told that to George Tenet." So the Vice President
is pushing it. He does on a number of these things, get all
of this stuff out. Let's have every -- it's a good story,
tell it all, get all these documents out to the public.
Q. Okay. And I'll deem this marked, and we'll take
back custody of it. Fair to say that you went through the
notes and there's a number of times where the Vice President
during that week has said you need to get everything out?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell the whole story. The whole truth has to get
out. Anything less than that is a big mistake?
A. Yes, sir. That's exactly what we wanted to do.
Q. And that was a constant thing that week?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Vice President, to be, to be blunt, was
frustrated that it wasn't all getting out there and it wasn't
sort of putting the story to rest, and he was sort of getting
ticked off that we needed to resolve this issue?
A. I'm not sure I would use the word "ticked off", but
he was frustrated. Yes, sir, that's a fair, fair statement.
And this -- the statement from Director Tenet was supposed to
come out -- first it was going to be, I think, Tuesday night,
and then it was going to be Wednesday night. It took a long
time to get this statement out. It was useful when it did
come out, but it took too long to get it out. People were
saying, you know, "get it out".
Q. Now, tell me about the circumstances of your
conversation with Mr. Russert.....
Link to Libby trial document, his notes from July 10, 2003 ,meetng:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/fi...10-meeting.pdf

Libby was convicted on four of five counts of perjury and obstruction and sentenced to serve 30 months in federal prison. On July 2, 2007, president Bush commuted Libby's entire prison sentence, before he served even a day in prison.....

Why isn't it now, simply a matter of the House Judiciary Committee demanding an appearance of Scott McClellan, to testify under oath to what he is videotaped saying on the Today Show, this am, and, along with Scooter Libby's sworn testimony above, determining whether or not to form a house impeachment investigatory committee?

Willravel 05-29-2008 09:44 AM
Most of the Democrats in Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, have said that they will not pursue impeachment, thereby giving President Bush cart blanche to do what he wants without any real consequences. Even in the light of perfectly damning evidence like you've posted, it seems that this would die on the Senate floor.

I've forwarded information from this post to Boxer and Feinstein, but I don't expect action from either one of them because they're following the majority of their party on this.

host 05-29-2008 09:53 AM
Here is more background. The core of the campaign to discredit Joe Wilson was the false allegation that his "CIA wife" had arranged to "send him on a junket". In order to do this, they had to reveal the specifics of Plame's CIA employment and publicize that Plame, as a married, public person, was Valerie Wilson, wife of former diplomat, Joe Wilson.

The potential here, in addition for the unwarranted and unnecessary act of putting Plame in the public eye to "get" her husband and weaken his allegations about the "16 words" in the 2003 SOTU address, is the executive branch obstruction of the Plame leak investigation, and the president's commutation of the prison sentence of his co-conspirator, Libby:

Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG3NI70TI1.DTL
Special prosecutor links White House to CIA leak
Fitzgerald says many wanted to undermine administration critic
David E. Sanger, David Johnston, New York Times

Tuesday, April 11, 2006


....Even on Monday, Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Wilson.

Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question. He said he had ordered the formal declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003 because "it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches" about Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its weapons program.

<h3>Bush said nothing about the earlier, informal authorization that Fitzgerald's filing revealed for the first time.</h3> The prosecutor described testimony from Libby, who said that Bush told Cheney that it was permissible to reveal some of the information in the intelligence estimate, which described Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium.

But Monday, Bush was not talking about that. "You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that," Bush said. "It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it."

It is now clear that Fitzgerald's account of what was happening in the White House that summer of 2003 is very different from the Bush administration's narrative, which suggested that Wilson was regarded as a minor figure whose criticisms could be answered by simply disclosing the underlying intelligence upon which Bush relied.

It turned out that much of the information about Hussein's search for uranium was questionable at best, and it became the subject of dispute almost as soon as it was included in the intelligence estimate in 2002.

The answer to the question of whose recounting of events is correct -- Bush's or Fitzgerald's -- may not be known for months or years, if ever. But it seems certain that there will be more clues to come, including some about the conversations between Bush and Cheney.

Fitzgerald said he was preparing to disclose to the defense 1,400 pages of notes -- some presumably in Libby's own hand -- that could shed light on two very different efforts at getting out the White House story.

One of those efforts -- the July 18 declassification of the major conclusions of the intelligence estimate -- was taking place in public; <h3>another, Fitzgerald argues, was happening in secret, with only Bush, Cheney, and Libby involved.</h3>
Up until now, we have only the testimony of a later convicted perjurer, Libby. This morning, Libby's testimony was publicly corroborated by the man who the white house claimed, spoke for them, officially, as their designtated, chief spokesperson, every day for three years!

Willravel 05-29-2008 09:55 AM
What can be done to convince more Senate Democrats that impeachment is a viable option?

host 05-29-2008 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
What can be done to convince more Senate Democrats that impeachment is a viable option?
Public outrage....but check the "new posts", there is more interest at TFP in discussing the naming of "pee pee parts", than there is in anything like official corruption at the highest level, and how to confront it and stop it.

Go figure....

It's all the more curious, because the core TFP membership seems to be made up of folks who either have friends in the military, or have considered joining themselves. I would think there would be more interest, because of this. If the government and the CIC aren't credible, how and why would anyone sign a contract with it/them, to serve?

Cynthetiq 05-29-2008 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Public outrage....but check the "new posts", there is more interest at TFP in discussing the naming of "pee pee parts", than there is in anything like official corruption at the highest level, and how to confront it and stop it.

Go figure....

It's all the more curious, because the core TFP membership seems to be made up of folks who either have friends in the military, or have considered joining themselves. I would think there would be more interest, because of this. If the government and the CIC aren't credible, how and why would anyone sign a contract with it/them, to serve?
actually it's more simple than that host, I don't know why it is such a head scratcher to you.

follow Occam's razor and look at the logo

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/images/...etin_logo2.gif

it doesn't say Humanity, Sexuality, Philosophy, and Politics.

aceventura3 05-29-2008 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Public outrage....but check the "new posts", there is more interest at TFP in discussing the naming of "pee pee parts", than there is in anything like official corruption at the highest level, and how to confront it and stop it.

Go figure....
There are other threads on this topic. If you added all the views and comments on this topic, I think you would see that you are wrong. Generally, I think we are waiting for something new.

I thought it was resolved that there is agreement that the WH was involved in outing Plame and they did it to discredit her husband. I think the WH is giving a big "so what" to Congress on this and a few other issues. I thought it was also resolved that congressional leaders lacked the courage to really confront Bush and perform to the level of their responsibility as defined in the Constitution to serve as a check and balance to the executive branch. We certainly understood that when Republicans controlled Congress, but now? We find that Democrats are mostly talk.

host 05-29-2008 10:46 AM
Here's the first, hopefully, of many more to come:

Quote:
http://www.wexler.house.gov/apps/lis...srelease.shtml
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 28, 2008 Contact: Josh Rogin
Phone: (202) 225-3001

Wexler: McClellan Must Testify Under Oath Before House Judiciary Committee
Former White House Aide's Revelations Make Out Case for Obstruction of Justice by Rove and Libby in Valerie Plame Case
(Washington, DC) Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administration’s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War.

“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney - conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq. Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.”

“The allegations by this former top White House aide – that Rove and Libby deliberately coordinated their stories in order to obstruct justice in the Plame case, that the President deliberately disregarded contradictory evidence related to Iraq, should outrage every American and Congress must respond by initiating immediate aggressive oversight starting with an appearance by McClellan before the House Judiciary Committee. Any continued obstruction by this Administration to prevent White House officials from appearing before Congress cannot be tolerated by this Congress in the face of these shocking revelations.”

<i>Congressman Wexler has led a nationwide campaign in favor of holding impeachment hearings for Vice-President Dick Cheney. Congressman Wexler is Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee and a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Judiciary Committee.</i>

aceventura3 05-29-2008 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Here's the first, hopefully, of many more to come:
My guess is that McClellan's statements will prove to be hyperbole. If I were a Democratic leader in Congress, I would be careful, McClellan may prove to be an embarrassment to himself and to anyone who holds his book as proof that Bush lied.

Willravel 05-29-2008 11:02 AM
His language doesn't suggest hyperbole.

aceventura3 05-29-2008 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
--WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

No weapons had been found up to that point or since in Iraq.
George Tenet, Director of the CIA, approved Powell's speech to the UN. Either the intelligence was wrong or Tenet lied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppinjay
"Mission Accomplished"
I am not sure what the point is, but if you are mocking Bush, I get it. However, there were two phases to the Iraq war. One was the invasion and overthrow of Saddam. The second is the occupation. The first mission was accomplished with ease, the soldiers who accomplished that deserved recognition.

ratbastid 05-29-2008 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I acknowledge the point of view of those who disagree with our invasion of Iraq. I simply disagree.
The fact that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda and had ZERO to do with 9/11 or any other attack on US interests is NOT a point of view. Regarding "terror", he was an innocent bystander. Brutal to Iraq's internal opposition, to be sure. Made a big mistake in Kuwait, which lost him the friendship of the Bush family and their cronies. But in NO way related to those who we need to "fight there so we don't have to fight here". Zero, none, zilch, zip. No connection. Unrelated.

The "point of view" that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with terrorism is a point of view that I acknowledge as a point of view, and respectfully assert is based on faulty information fed by an administration eager to sell an illegal war.

aceventura3 05-29-2008 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
His language doesn't suggest hyperbole.
I am not planning on buying the book, but I look forward to the citations that come from the book proving the recent quotes made public about "lies" or whatever he calls them. As soon as you get some, please share.

host 05-29-2008 11:19 AM
ace, Bush was citing the trailers as fact, at the end of May, 2003, after they were found and inspected. Powell was repeating the already discredited gibberish from "curvebal", in Powell's Feb, 3, 2003 UN presentation:
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A9659C8B63
Some Analysts Of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use

By JUDITH MILLER AND WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: June 7, 2003

....The Bush administration has said the two trailers, which allied forces found in Iraq in April and May, are evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare. In a white paper last week, it publicly detailed its case, even while conceding discrepancies in the evidence and a lack of hard proof.

Now, intelligence analysts stationed in the Middle East, as well as in the United States and Britain, are disclosing serious doubts about the administration's conclusions in what appears to be a bitter debate within the intelligence community. Skeptics said their initial judgments of a weapon application for the trailers had faltered as new evidence came to light.

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, said the dissenters ''are entitled to their opinion, of course, but we stand behind the assertions in the white paper.''

In all, at least three teams of Western experts have now examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the trailers were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended for the purpose of making germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts divided sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.....

....At the recent summit meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Bush cited the trailers as evidence of illegal Iraqi arms. .....

Willravel 05-29-2008 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
George Tenet, Director of the CIA, approved Powell's speech to the UN. Either the intelligence was wrong or Tenet lied.
Maybe I should frame this differently. You like the free market, right?

Let's say I run PR for Pfizer. Everything is going fine. I make occasional statements on behalf of the company to the press regarding this and that. A particular Pfizer product, an antidepressant, starts causing the rather alarming side effect of cerebral hemorrhage, and it's a common side effect. The company either does bullshit research to cover their ass or is grossly incompetent and find no such link in their research. I go on TV and say "Pfizer isn't killing anyone". Well, Pfizer actually is killing people. Wouldn't that make me a liar?

In his state of the Union in January of 2003, Bush has said that Iraq had 500 tons of chemical weapons including sarin, mustard and vx; he said they had upwards of 300,000 chemical weapons; he said they aid and protect terrorists including al Qaeda; he said Iraq had attempted to purchase metal tubes for nukes; he said that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa.

All of these claims are completely false.

aceventura3 05-29-2008 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The fact that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda and had ZERO to do with 9/11 or any other attack on US interests is NOT a point of view.

I agree that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam was an enemy of the US. Saddam was an on-going threat to peace in the ME.

Quote:
Regarding "terror", he was an innocent bystander. Brutal to Iraq's internal opposition, to be sure. Made a big mistake in Kuwait, which lost him the friendship of the Bush family and their cronies. But in NO way related to those who we need to "fight there so we don't have to fight here". Zero, none, zilch, zip. No connection. Unrelated.
The people we need to fight are fighting us in Iraq. Those who most need to stand with us against terror are taking a stand with us in Irag. I would never use the word "innocent" regarding Saddam.

Quote:
The "point of view" that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with terrorism is a point of view that I acknowledge as a point of view, and respectfully assert is based on faulty information fed by an administration eager to sell an illegal war.
People not in the administration had the same view of Saddam as Bush. Two were the Clintons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
ace, Bush was citing the trailers as fact, at the end of May, 2003, after they were found and inspected. Powell was repeating the already discredited gibberish from "curvebal", in Powell's Feb, 3, 2003 UN presentation:
You think Bush did the intelligence work and feed it to Tenet? Or was it the CIA and Tenet who feed that information to Bush? Or do you think Bush made Tenet approve the faulty intelligence that he knew was wrong? I am not clear on your view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Maybe I should frame this differently. You like the free market, right?

Let's say I run PR for Pfizer. Everything is going fine. I make occasional statements on behalf of the company to the press regarding this and that. A particular Pfizer product, an antidepressant, starts causing the rather alarming side effect of cerebral hemorrhage, and it's a common side effect. The company either does bullshit research to cover their ass or is grossly incompetent and find no such link in their research. I go on TV and say "Pfizer isn't killing anyone". Well, Pfizer actually is killing people. Wouldn't that make me a liar?
Yes.

Quote:
In his state of the Union in January of 2003, Bush has said that Iraq had 500 tons of chemical weapons including sarin, mustard and vx; he said they had upwards of 300,000 chemical weapons; he said they aid and protect terrorists including al Qaeda; he said Iraq had attempted to purchase metal tubes for nukes; he said that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa.

All of these claims are completely false.
There is a difference between communicating false information that you think is correct and communicating false information you know is false.

If McClellan has proof showing Bush knew the intelligence was false, Bush is a lier.

Willravel 05-29-2008 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am not planning on buying the book, but I look forward to the citations that come from the book proving the recent quotes made public about "lies" or whatever he calls them. As soon as you get some, please share.
The information you seek is already provided above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott McClellan
He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

aceventura3 05-29-2008 11:42 AM
I guess that will do it??? Thanks

ratbastid 05-29-2008 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I agree that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam was an enemy of the US. Saddam was an on-going threat to peace in the ME.
How do you figure? What you've given me here is administration slogans. Tell me what makes YOU think that, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The people we need to fight are fighting us in Iraq.
Well they are NOW! WE opened the door for them! Saddam was keeping them OUT of Iraq! Different "thems". The "them" we attacked never attacked us. And we've killed tens of thousands of them who never had anything to do with attacking US interests before WE attacked THEM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I would never use the word "innocent" regarding Saddam.
Was Saddam Hussein guilty of being behind the 9/11 attacks? Or was he.... ?

In Bushworld, they're all muslims, so they're all enemy. They're counting on American stupidity and jingoism. The fact that you're not questioning this troubles me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
People not in the administration had the same view of Saddam as Bush. Two were the Clintons.
And that makes it right because....? I didn't buy it when they were selling it, and neither did my presidential candidate of choice. Besides, what a certain presidential hopeful Senator from New York said on the floor when she was trying to look tough on terror shouldn't necessarily be construed as "having the same view".

You were lied to, and you believed it. That's tragic. What's more tragic is, you're clinging to the lie.

roachboy 05-29-2008 12:42 PM
ace, darling, it is amazing to me that you are trying to debate the underlying question of the status of the rationales for the war in iraq...they were transparently false from the outset. there is an overwhelming amount of documentation available about every last facet of the rationale. it is not a debate worth having with you--it is just a kinda sad exercise in being-dissociative on your part.

what you typically do is work versions of teleological fallacy-based argument instead of addressing the problems: if someone says the war was not necessary, you will respond that it was because it happened. that is not an argument.

if someone talks about the false statements concerning the nuclear weapons procurement program or other wmds, you have a rationale.

if someone mentions that the administrations primary selling point for the war--an imaginary linkage between hussein and al qeada and the 9/11/2001 attacks, you dodge the matter and instead focus on hussein being a bad man--which is not in question--but of course there are american-sponsored dictators and american tolerated military juntas the world round and somehow this argument does not obtain for any of them, and there is no basis for statements that hussein was worse than any of them (i don't hear any calls from the right to do anything about burma on humanitarian grounds, for example, even before the storm hit, and they are a really brutal regime=--and you don't want to get me started about places like dr congo/ex-zaire, you really don't). what your arguments amount to are variants on the teleological fallacy again--hussein was the ostensible target, though for reasons that have since proven to be horseshit--and so the invasion was necessary because it happened.

btw i only sometimes use the word "lie" with reference to this mess of rickety-to-imaginary rationalizations for undertaking a total debacle in iraq on the part of the manly men of the neo-con set. a "lie" is a bit too simple a term.

on the other hand, most of the old neocons have scuttled away from bushworld like rats from a sinking ship, leaving only folk like you to carry water, to believe, to repeat.

=======

o yeah, i forgot one category the bush people are using against mclellan--"disgruntled"---which in the land of memes is associated with postal workers who snap and gun down their coworkers. it's a version of the space-alien kidnapping thesis, the replacement with a "leftist blogger"--a neat-o little residuum of the bad old days with bush admin pathologization of dissent had traction.

meanwhile, george the dissociator continues trying to tell people that iraq is really world war 2 with the difference that iraq, unlike world war 2, isn't over.

funny stuff.

aceventura3 05-29-2008 02:12 PM
What are you guys trying to accomplish. Nothing I say will convince you that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, nothing you can say will convince me that it was the wrong thing to do. I stated that my dislike of Saddam pre-dates Bush, I would have had our military march into Baghdad during the Gulf War. Every time Saddam defied UN mandates, inspections, ordered shots at our military, etc, I felt we should have gone in and taken him out. All this had nothing to do with 9/11 or Bush's "case" for war.

I think that before a lasting peace can be struck in the ME, we have to have control of Iraq. I think the Iraqi people will be better served under their current steps toward democracy. I think Muslims every where in the world will be better served after we stand up to extremists and defeat them. This is just my view, I understand there are those who do not share my view.

If you or anyone supported the Iraqi war because of speeches that referenced bad intelligence, I get your gripe. I just don't think Bush lied, nor have I seen proof of that.

roachboy 05-29-2008 02:27 PM
so your take on the bush rationales, such as they were, is as instrumentalized as those fine fellows from the project for a new american century, who are ultimately responsible for this debacle in iraq. they adopted the same line, but without the ridiculous claims that debacle in iraq will serve an edifying function for "muslims every where in the world" and instead were mostly interested in invading iraq as a way of rewinding the first gulf war and effectively telling the united nations to fuck itself, there's a new swaggering amurican sheriff in town blah blah blah--except of course, it's all gone to hell.

but if that's the case, then you really don't care *what* the bush people said at all--and since the end justifies the means, the intelligence was "faulty" rather than knowingly manipulated to justify a decision to invade taken well in advance of any rationale....the end justifies the means.

and of course you would draw no connection between the marketing of this phony case for a debacle and the "democracy" that this farce was supposed to export.

and it seems the you prefer a fantasy scenario as to outcome to anything remotely like an assessment of the actually existing situation. "taking the long view" i think the bush people call that particular type of dissociation.
which would explain why you have no cognizance, seemingly, of the consequences of this debacle for the interests of the united states.
the end justify the means.

and it's all just opinion, man, so anyone can frame in or out whatever information about the world they want.
it's all arbitrary, so the actually existing farce can be referenced as a Giant Edifying Exercise for those benighted "muslims every where in the world."

great.

i'll catch you later, ace.

aceventura3 05-29-2008 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so your take on the bush rationales, such as they were, is as instrumentalized as those fine fellows from the project for a new american century, who are ultimately responsible for this debacle in iraq. they adopted the same line, but without the ridiculous claims that debacle in iraq will serve an edifying function for "muslims every where in the world" and instead were mostly interested in invading iraq as a way of rewinding the first gulf war and effectively telling the united nations to fuck itself, there's a new swaggering amurican sheriff in town blah blah blah--except of course, it's all gone to hell.
"...it's all gone to hell" - not sure that is a observation. I don't know who or what "a new american century" is. It is true that I have no respect for the UN.

Quote:
but if that's the case, then you really don't care *what* the bush people said at all--
Ding, ding, ding, ding - give that man a prize. How many times, how many ways have I said that regarding invading Iraq?

Quote:
and since the end justifies the means, the intelligence was "faulty" rather than knowingly manipulated to justify a decision to invade taken well in advance of any rationale....the end justifies the means.
If I were President I would have taken Saddam out long before 9/11. If you are suggesting that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse for taking out Saddam, I have not seen proof of that and I don't think he used 9/11 when he got authorization to use military force from Congress. He clearly gave his justification.

Quote:
and of course you would draw no connection between the marketing of this phony case for a debacle and the "democracy" that this farce was supposed to export.
The case is real, you just don't agree. The case was real even without nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi government proves to be a farce, I would agree that we have failed.

Quote:
and it seems the you prefer a fantasy scenario as to outcome to anything remotely like an assessment of the actually existing situation. "taking the long view" i think the bush people call that particular type of dissociation.
which would explain why you have no cognizance, seemingly, of the consequences of this debacle for the interests of the united states.
the end justify the means.
Yet, the Dems have their leading Presidential candidate who has not been to Iraq recently making speeches and judgments about what he would do.

Quote:
and it's all just opinion, man, so anyone can frame in or out whatever information about the world they want.
I give the basis for my opinions. I respond to questions. I read opposing opinions and views. I look objectively at facts. You saying its just opinion is a cop-out, isn't?

Quote:
it's all arbitrary, so the actually existing farce can be referenced as a Giant Edifying Exercise for those benighted "muslims every where in the world."

great.
I was paraphrasing McClellan. I though his comment was a bit over the top too.

Quote:
i'll catch you later, ace.
Why do you torment yourself so? Be aware, I will be the same condescending, frustratingly arrogant, SOB, the next time you catch me. But I bet that is why you really, deep inside, love me.:oogle:

Willravel 05-29-2008 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I don't know who or what "a new american century" is.
How can you have been in TFPolitics so long and not read about the Project for the New American Century?

aceventura3 05-30-2008 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
How can you have been in TFPolitics so long and not read about the Project for the New American Century?
I confess to not read every word written here. After doing a google search on the phrase I found that it is some kind of "neo-conservative" think tank. I generally form my own opinions and do my own thinking.

roachboy 05-30-2008 06:58 AM
you should check them out, ace---i think for what it's worth alot about my reactions to your posts will become clearer to you if you know what they're about.

dc_dux 05-30-2008 07:12 AM
The PNAC (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Feith, Armitage, Perle) were the architects of the Bush policy on Iraq (and beyond) from his first day in office (actually well before..they tried to convince Clinton to undertake the same foly of inviading Iraq).

To shrug them off as "some kind of neocon think tank" leaves a gaping hole in one's knowledge of recent foreign policy decision making.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the PNAC website has been taken down.

aceventura3 05-30-2008 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
To shrug them off as "some kind of neocon think tank" leaves a gaping hole in one's knowledge of recent foreign policy decision making.
I think your your comment here is a form of intellectual dishonesty. You seem to suggest that lacking knowledge of PNAC as an organization means there is a problem with having an informed view of recent foreign policy decision making. I don't think you can make the logical connection supporting your view here and that it is a very sloppy attempt at an insult. I am sure you can do better.

roachboy 05-30-2008 07:53 AM
nonsense, ace.
it is simply the case that you cannot understand the way in which the iraq debacle played out without knowing about pnac. you can't do it--at least not if you are actually interested in stuff that happens in the actually existing world.

this is not the same as saying that you cannot have arrived at your views expect by way of the pnac--there are two different questions here. don't conflate them and then get all snippy because you cannot keep separate issues separate.

aceventura3 05-30-2008 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
nonsense, ace.
it is simply the case that you cannot understand the way in which the iraq debacle played out without knowing about pnac. you can't do it--at least not if you are actually interested in stuff that happens in the actually existing world.
That is BS. Now I challenge you or DC to prove it. What is the most essential information that one needs to know about PNAC that would support your claim?

Quote:
this is not the same as saying that you cannot have arrived at your views expect by way of the pnac--there are two different questions here. don't conflate them and then get all snippy because you cannot keep separate issues separate.
We will never have a full understanding of the behind the scenes decision making that lead us to war. I think we all know that. People will not publicly present an unbiased view of their decision making. I always view this kind of information with suspicion, don't you?

roachboy 05-30-2008 08:27 AM
well, ace, i'll leave that to your research skills. use them. it's not that hard.
i've got some stuff to do outside.

try it for yourself--searches are easy peasy.

dc_dux 05-30-2008 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
try it for yourself--searches are easy peasy.
only if you search with an open mind and an interest in learning rather than finding other opinions that support what you "think" you know.

Willravel 05-30-2008 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
intellectual dishonesty.
http://blogs.chron.com/tmi/peewee.JP...ewee%20(2).jpg
It's the word of the day!

...sorry...:expressionless:

aceventura3 05-30-2008 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's the word of the day!
How about "snippy", I have been called many things in my life but "snippy" is a first. I always considered myself a "big dawg"

http://k9teams.com/dog-mean.jpg

"snippy"? Now that was pretty offensive.

http://doginmypocket.com/FunnyDogPic...6ff1d55683.jpg

roachboy 05-30-2008 12:34 PM
ace--i didn't know about the size queen dimension of your persona.
live and learn.
live and learn.

aceventura3 05-30-2008 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace--i didn't know about the size queen dimension of your persona.
live and learn.
live and learn.
I actually prefer exchanges on the issues rather than on my personal flaws and attributes.

roachboy 05-30-2008 01:32 PM
i dont know any of your personal flaws and attributes, ace.
i just know what you posted two posts ago.
all this by the bye.
it hardly matters.

Willravel 05-30-2008 02:02 PM
Getting back on track...

Ace: You read up on the PNAC? I'm curious as to your impression.

host 05-30-2008 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
That is BS. Now I challenge you or DC to prove it. What is the most essential information that one needs to know about PNAC that would support your claim?



We will never have a full understanding of the behind the scenes decision making that lead us to war. I think we all know that. People will not publicly present an unbiased view of their decision making. I always view this kind of information with suspicion, don't you?
WTF, ace??????? These are my posts about why PNAC is so relevant, just in the past 1-1/2 months..... others have posted about PNAC, too....

May 20: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2453901
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
......After this was published, one year earlier, in 2000:

[PDF]
Why Another Defense Review
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
America must defend
its homeland.
During the Cold War, ...... catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a. new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and ...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
May 18: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2453007
Quote:
Originally Posted by host

......and dc_dux, if every Bush appointee authored or signed a position paper, shortly before 9/11. pointing out the need for a "catalyzing event", a Pearl Harbor level, attack, inside the US to "get er done"....would that be a relevant consideration? How 'bout if only half of three thousand political employees signed or authored such a paper.....how many would have to do that, and then move to prevent. obstruct, or interfere with an investigation, after the catalyzing event happened, for you to alter your position, at all?

They just got lucky....got their wish, huh?
May 18: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2453000
Quote:
Originally Posted by host


dx_dux....Zelikow co-authored a "Pearl Harbor" event, position paper....

Ten of the authors/signatories who wrote the same crap two years later, end up running the Bush administration, a year after their "catalyzing event", lament:

Quote:
http://web.archive.org/web/200303151...ac_030310.html
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

March 10 [2003]— Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."....
May 18: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2452981
Quote:
Originally Posted by host

....Can anyone make an argument that it is easy to believe that the Bush administration just happened to place assholes who authored and or signed off on policy papers, in effing stereo, that focused on "Pearl Harbor level", catalyzing events, fitting their policy concerns and visions....and independent to their taking power, a "Pearl Harbor" event just coincidentally happened, less than nine months into their term in office?.....
May 15: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2451077
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news...-2330453.shtml
10/4/06
Protests, insults disrupt Kristol 9/11 speech

By Cara Henis

Page 1 of 1

William Kristol speaks about changes in American politics following the events from 9/11 Tuesday evening, while Dean James Steinberg looks on.

A speech by William Kristol, former chief of staff for former vice president Dan Quayle and editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, turned hostile Tuesday when students began hurling insults at Kristol, alleging his and the U.S. government's complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"9/11 is your Pearl Harbor," said one student protestor, referring to a pre-Sept. 11 statement released by the Project for a New American Century, a conservative think tank Kristol chairs.

In a Sept. 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses, " the group wrote, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
April 12: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ng#post2431582
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1.html
The Widening Crusade
Bush's War Plan Is Scarier Than He's Saying
by Sydney H. Schanberg
October 15 - 21, 2003

.....yet if the Bush White House is going to use its preeminent military force to subdue and neutralize all "evildoers" and adversaries everywhere in the world, the American public should be told now. Such an undertaking would be virtually endless and would require the sacrifice of enormous blood and treasure.

With no guarantee of success. And no precedent in history for such a crusade having lasting effect......

...For those who would dispute the assertion that the Bush Doctrine is a global military-based policy and is not just about liberating the Iraqi people, it's crucial to look back to the policy's origins and examine its founding documents.

The Bush Doctrine did get its birth push from Iraq—specifically from the outcome of the 1991 Gulf war, when the U.S.-led military coalition forced Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait but stopped short of toppling the dictator and his oppressive government. The president then was a different George Bush, the father of the current president. The father ordered the military not to move on Baghdad, saying that the UN resolution underpinning the allied coalition did not authorize a regime change. Dick Cheney was the first George Bush's Pentagon chief. He said nothing critical at the time, but apparently he came to regret the failure to get rid of the Baghdad dictator.

A few years later, in June 1997, a group of neoconservatives formed an entity called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and issued a Statement of Principles. "The history of the 20th Century," the statement said, "should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." One of its formal principles called for a major increase in defense spending "to carry out our global responsibilities today." Others cited the "need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and underscored "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles." This, the statement said, constituted "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

Among the 25 signatories to the PNAC founding statement were Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff), Donald Rumsfeld (who was also defense secretary under President Ford), and Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's No. 2 at the Pentagon, who was head of the Pentagon policy team in the first Bush presidency, reporting to Cheney, who was then defense secretary). Obviously, this fraternity has been marinating together for a long time. Other signers whose names might ring familiar were Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,
and Norman Podhoretz
.

Three years and several aggressive position papers later—in September 2000, just two months before George W. Bush, the son, was elected president—the PNAC put military flesh on its statement of principles with a detailed 81-page report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The report set several "core missions" for U.S. military forces, which included maintaining nuclear superiority, expanding the armed forces by 200,000 active-duty personnel, and "repositioning" those forces "to respond to 21st century strategic realities."

The most startling mission is described as follows: "Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." The report depicts these potential wars as "large scale" and "spread across [the] globe."

Another escalation proposed for the military by the PNAC is to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."

As for homeland security, the PNAC report says: "Develop and deploy global missile defenses
to defend the American homeland
and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world. Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control."

Perhaps the eeriest sentence in the report is found on page 51: "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."....

aceventura3 06-01-2008 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Getting back on track...

Ace: You read up on the PNAC? I'm curious as to your impression.
I don't know what is real, exaggerated, politicized, or made up, regarding the organization from the websites I have visited. It seems the constant is that the organization is or was made up of a group of conservatives with a belief in maintaining and using US military strength. It seems that the philosophy of the people in the organization comes from the Reagan administration and has influenced Bush 41 and Bush 43.

I still don't understand the relevance of the organization. If I want to know what Chaney thinks about our military and how he would like it used in the world, all I have to do is trace his very public track record and public statements on the subject. He has not been deceptive on this topic, nor has he been deceptive about his views regarding executive power. Bush has not been deceptive either. I don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by host
WTF, ace???????
Host, I am one of the people in the world who felt Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power during the Gulf War. If I had been an elected official with any influence, I would have made the case for his removal. I would have had a plan for his removal and I would have had conditions under which I would have wanted those plans executed - given the fact we failed to march into Bagdad during the Gulf War. If this is what you fault PNAC for, o.k. - I get your point of view. Again, I just don't have a problem with having a plan and conditions under which the plan should be executed. My guess is that even Jimmy Carter had military plans and conditions for execution that he gave thought to. I agree, that these plans and the conditions for execution may not look "pretty" when published.

host 06-01-2008 12:33 PM
ace, this is pretty simple....a confluence of neocons, in two position papers between 1998 and 2000, pushed for the removal of Saddam Hussein by US military forces, as well as ramping up US military spending and forces for a new aggressive military and foreign policy. Both papers specified the need for a "catalyzing event", a new "PEarl Harbor", as a trigger to "get 'er done".... and Bush appointed people from the PNAC group, from Cheney to Libby, to Rumsfeld, to run his administration. Then, he appointed a commission to investigate 9/11, with Zelikow, a man who touted the need for both a new "Pearl Harbor", and a curtailment of civil liberties, following the attack, to be the committee's executive director. Recently, an NY Times reporter authors a book that claims Zelikow interfered with the investigation.

The president himself, is documented below, repeating over and over, inaccurate statements intended to tie "al-Qaeda in Iraq", to Saddam Hussein and his government.

ace, some of us here show you EXACTLY why we have no faith in this administration's veracity and policies, and you show us...IBD editorials.....
Quote:
http://web.archive.org/web/200303151...ac_030310.html
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

March 10 [2003]— Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

<h3>And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.

What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.

....Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration.</h3>
As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.......
ace, not only was the president enormously deceptive about his rationale for war in Iraq, he overloaded his administration with PNAC members in key defense and foreign policy positions, folks who all signed a PNAC position paper that stated that aggressive military policies that they intended to pursue would come about "slowly"....unless there was ""some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.""

President Bush, after resisiting a formal investigation of the 9/11 attacks, appointed a sham commission to do an investigation, literally years after the attacks took place. Appointed executive director of the 9/11 commisssion, Mr. Zelikow, who was one of three authors of a 1998 policy paper that stated:
Quote:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/p...orming%20Event

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/

Key 9/11 Commission Staffer Held Secret Meetings With Rove, Scaled Back Criticisms of White House

A forthcoming book by NYT reporter Philip Shenon — “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation” — asserts that former 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow interfered with the 9/11 report.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3

<h3>I still don't understand the relevance of the organization...... Bush has not been deceptive either. I don't get it.</h3>
Quote:
Press Conference by the President August 21, 2006. Press Conference by the President ...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- <h3>who had relations with Zarqawi. ...</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html


Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006
....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. <h3>And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that? </h3>

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. <h3>I never said there was an operational relationship. .....</h3>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
They lied about why they invaded Iraq....but they were altar boys concerning what happened on 9/11?

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....
Here's Dick Cheney, just weeks later, contradicting Bush and Tony Snow:

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......
But.....here's Dick Cheney, seven months later....same lie...:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html

So those are very real problems and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of al Qaeda.

Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ..
It's kind of difficult to overlook or overemphais the background and history of their al Zarqawi lie and their attempts to link Saddam to al Zarqawi:

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2004

President Discusses Economy, Iraq in Cabinet Meeting
Remarks by the President After Meeting with His Cabinet
The Cabinet Room

.... I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb, why don't you lead it off?

Q Mr. President, why does the administration continue to insist that Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, when even you have

denied any connection between Saddam and September 11th. And now the September 11th Commission says that there was no

collaborative relationship at all.


THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there

was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between

Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence

officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two. ...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2004

President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington

.....And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have

captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering

the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.

See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....


http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab

By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda

operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to

administration officials....


http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371

Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am

.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER

SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week

describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with

explosives and poisons.


"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why

have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in

there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound

in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified.


But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?....
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Host, I am one of the people in the world who felt Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power during the Gulf War. If I had been an elected official with any influence, I would have made the case for his removal. I would have had a plan for his removal and I would have had conditions under which I would have wanted those plans executed - given the fact we failed to march into Bagdad during the Gulf War. If this is what you fault PNAC for, o.k. - I get your point of view. Again, I just don't have a problem with having a plan and conditions under which the plan should be executed. My guess is that even Jimmy Carter had military plans and conditions for execution that he gave thought to. I agree, that these plans and the conditions for execution may not look "pretty" when published.
Quote:
http://web.archive.org/web/200302070...rald.com/27735

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
Sept. 22, 2002

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

aceventura3 06-02-2008 07:27 AM
So what do you have above that is not summed up in my post #63? Is it simply shocking to believe that people would want Saddam out of power, have a plan, and conditions under which the plan would be triggered?

Why do you think I voted for Bush? I voted for him because I believed he had a plan to address Iraq. I felt Iraq was a problem, I thought it was an on-going threat that was going to get worse. After 9/11 there was no doubt in my mind that if we failed to act decisively against - not only al qaeda, but also the defiance of Saddam we would have faced a much bigger problem in the future. In that regard 9/11 and Iraq are linked. I am guessing the subtlety of that link is lost on most people who felt Bush falsely linked the two.

How many times has the administration been asked about links between Iraq an 9/11? Is the real problem with the obsession with the question, which has cause a belief in the public, which is then blamed on the administration? Or is the problem with a person "cherry picking" quotes related to a broader ME strategy and relating it to 9/11 direct involvement?

I know you will never acknowledge an understanding of how a person can see 9/11 as a legitimate occurrence prompting a need to immediately stop Saddam's defiance, but there are people who hold the view - like it or not. I think your real opinion is that of simply disagreeing with that strategic view.

Willravel 06-02-2008 07:49 AM
Ace, it wasn't our (read: the US) responsibility to decide whether or not to remove Saddam back in 1992 (or in 2003, for that matter). It was the UNs, but they decided it wasn't worth the risk. What risk? Read the news between 2003 and 2008.

While the UN is far from perfect, they seem to be a lot better at the whole "geopolitics" and "war" thing than we are. They saw what many saw before 2003: removing Saddam Hussein would mean civil war that's unresolvable from an outside force.

aceventura3 06-02-2008 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Ace, it wasn't our (read: the US) responsibility to decide whether or not to remove Saddam back in 1992 (or in 2003, for that matter). It was the UNs, but they decided it wasn't worth the risk. What risk? Read the news between 2003 and 2008.
I understand that. However, I have no faith or trust in the UN -either now or then.

Adding to my confusion - Given PNAC or more specifically the membership and the connections with Bush - how can anyone who knew say they were deceived? Seems to me that anyone who had any knowledge of PNAC or its members had to know they were going to attack Iraq and use the US military to maintain US dominance in the world. I was not deceived because I supported the invasion of Iraq. So, who was deceived, who was "lied" to?

Quote:
While the UN is far from perfect, they seem to be a lot better at the whole "geopolitics" and "war" thing than we are. They saw what many saw before 2003: removing Saddam Hussein would mean civil war that's unresolvable from an outside force.
I think our initial occupation strategy had a material flaw that was exploited. Although there was initial progress, thing took a turn for the worst pretty fast.

Quote:
Feb. 22, 2006, is the day the Bush administration says everything in Iraq changed.

Before that day, military and administration officials frequently explain, Iraq was moving in the right direction: National elections had been held, and a government was forming. But then the bombing of the golden dome shrine in Samarra derailed that positive momentum and unleashed a wave of brutal sectarian violence.

Even now, more than a year later, the president and other administration officials cite Samarra as a turning point -- "a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal," President Bush called it in a March 6 news conference. "One of the key changes in Iraq last year," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in January.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201760_pf.html

We should have been better prepared for this type of an event.

Willravel 06-02-2008 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I understand that. However, I have no faith or trust in the UN -either now or then.
I see no reason to have more faith in the US government than the UN. In fact, I'd say there's good reason to trust the UN in military matters over our own politicians.

You do have to admit that the UN was right about Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Adding to my confusion - Given PNAC or more specifically the membership and the connections with Bush - how can anyone who knew say they were deceived? Seems to me that anyone who had any knowledge of PNAC or its members had to know they were going to attack Iraq and use the US military to maintain US dominance in the world. I was not deceived because I supported the invasion of Iraq. So, who was deceived, who was "lied" to?
Congress was deceived (intentionally or not) about the defensive and offensive capabilities of Saddam Hussein. They were also deceived about Iraq's intent. We the people were also deceived. Or at least the attempt was made, some people did see through the false information.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not seeking them. There were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq whatsoever, in fact the idea of Saddam supporting "radical Islam" ran contrary to everything we knew about his devotion to a secular government and military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think our initial occupation strategy had a material flaw that was exploited. Although there was initial progress, thing took a turn for the worst pretty fast.
The only real success of the Iraq War (in 2003) was that our military knew what it was doing in the beginning. We had no business being there, but once ordered our military took the IRG apart piece by piece in a matter of hours. This is why I've continually said that our troops were victorious in what they were asked to do. The real issue is with an occupying force and a determined local population always has the same eventual result. There are literally thousands of years of military history that verified the eventual outcome of invading and occupying. That it was a surprise for anyone familiar with war is astonishing. Even a liberal, pacifist peacenik like me it's been obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201760_pf.html

We should have been better prepared for this type of an event.
I'm afraid that's a bit misleading. Things were going badly only months after the invasion. Mismanagement of reconstruction was starting to surface in the world media, violence was on the rise, and the exodus was starting.

dc_dux 06-02-2008 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think our initial occupation strategy had a material flaw that was exploited. Although there was initial progress, thing took a turn for the worst pretty fast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201760_pf.html

We should have been better prepared for this type of an event.
ace....thats a convenient excuse for the incompetence and failure to plan for an occupation, including the failure to recognize the historic animosities between Sunni and Shiites and the likelihood that our invasion would serve as both a recruitment tool for al Queda and a justification for Iran to exert and strengthen its influence over Iraqi internal politics

There was no detailed (phase IV) post-Saddam occupation strategy before we got there...it was "unknown" other than a consensus among DoD and White Officials officials that it would require only a small US force and last a matter of months:
Quote:
The U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006, according to the Command's PowerPoint briefing slides....

The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks' commanders, refer to the "Phase IV" post-hostilities period as "UNKNOWN" and "months" in duration, but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm

aceventura3 06-02-2008 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....thats a convenient excuse for the incompetence and failure to plan for an occupation, including the failure to recognize the historic animosities between Sunni and Shiites and the likelihood that our invasion would serve as both a recruitment tool for al Queda and a justification for Iran to exert and strengthen its influence over Iraqi internal politics

There was no detailed (phase IV) post-Saddam occupation strategy before we got there...it was "unknown" other than a consensus among DoD and White Officials officials that it would require a small US force and last only a few months:
Do you agree that even the greatest of the worlds military minds have or could have suffered defeat due to exploitable weaknesses in their plans?

Your answer will help me understand your use of the word "incompetence" in this context. Yes, it is a semantics thing again. But I am trying to understand

dc_dux 06-02-2008 10:40 AM
nah.,...I'll pass,ace.

I made my point and dont see the purpose of going round and round with you.

Willravel 06-02-2008 10:42 AM
I think it's important to draw a distinction between the Bush Administration/DoD and military leadership from the generals down. The former are responsible for setting goals, the latter for attaining them. Had clear goals been provided, I have little doubt that we'd be a lot closer to them if not there. Our military is surprisingly effective.

And "restore peace" isn't a goal.

aceventura3 06-02-2008 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
nah.,...I'll pass,ace.

I made my point and dont see the purpose of going round and round with you.
The purpose of my question is to see if you can support your claim of "incompetence". Personally I think there is a big difference between incompetence and and suffering a temporary set back in a military context. Looks like you are not willing or able to support your claim, I understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I think it's important to draw a distinction between the Bush Administration/DoD and military leadership from the generals down. The former are responsible for setting goals, the latter for attaining them. Had clear goals been provided, I have little doubt that we'd be a lot closer to them if not there. Our military is surprisingly effective.

And "restore peace" isn't a goal.
What was our goal during WWII? The higher up in authority you go, the more general the military goal becomes. I am not aware of any military that has had a "perfect" record (depending on how you define that), there have always been ebbs and flows during war.

dc_dux 06-02-2008 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Looks like you are not willing or able to support your claim, I understand.
yep....I concede....you are the big dawg :thumbsup:

Willravel 06-02-2008 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What was our goal during WWII? The higher up in authority you go, the more general the military goal becomes. I am not aware of any military that has had a "perfect" record (depending on how you define that), there have always been ebbs and flows during war.
The overall goal in WWII was abundantly clear and the methods by which to meet those goals were mostly obvious. I couldn't say the same of Iraq. It'd be intellectually dishonest!

aceventura3 06-02-2008 11:59 AM
Here is the key paragraph from the President's address to the nation:

Quote:
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030319-17.html

Willravel 06-02-2008 12:03 PM
The regime was gone literally overnight. That was a victory. Yay military. Leaving alone the fact we had no business removing the regime, it was done and it was done properly.

The problem came immediately after that. The military basically said, "Okay, what now?" Then there were some garbled messages about WMDs and al Queady links... then it was about liberation, then democracy. Now it's about ending the civil war we caused.

aceventura3 06-02-2008 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The regime was gone literally overnight. That was a victory. Yay military. Leaving alone the fact we had no business removing the regime, it was done and it was done properly.

The problem came immediately after that. The military basically said, "Okay, what now?" Then there were some garbled messages about WMDs and al Queady links... then it was about liberation, then democracy. Now it's about ending the civil war we caused.
I agree regarding the lack of clarity regarding the occupation. I think there were some in the administration who had no interest in occupying and re-building Iraq. On the other-hand we had Powell's famous line - "you break it, you fix it". I do think our objectives with the occupation evolved. In hindsight, I think we know that we should have committed more troops and resources or left and let the power vacuum be filled and let our response depend on what happened. Leaving a power vacuum would have been and would be un-humanitarian in my view. Initially I had mixed feelings about the occupation and later, I agreed with Powell regarding the occupation in the context of "fixing it". And I still don't see how a person, who says he cares about people, like Obama, unconditionally say that he will remove the troops from Iraq without consideration for a power struggle that could lead to who knows what. Prior to the surge I felt our national commitment to "fixing it" was lacking. Now that conditions are going well, I think we need to let the occupation run its course.

I understand the view of those who did not think we had the right to invade Iraq and then occupy the country. I also understand the dilemma with reconciling the concept of preemptive war with national defense as outlined in the Constitution. I think these two issues are still very compelling for discussion. We just can not seem to get off of the question about Bush being deceptive or not.

ratbastid 06-02-2008 03:46 PM
I can tell you haven't actually read Obama's position on Iraq and the Middle East. Whole lot more to it than just pulling troops out. I know the sound bytes you've heard, but that's NOT all he's said.

"Let the occupation run its course", hunh? The term "run its course" comes from the world of medicine--we say that about fevers. When a fever runs its course, it's because the immune system has risen up and driven the invading virus out of the body. Seems an apt analogy...

host 06-02-2008 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
.....I understand the view of those who did not think we had the right to invade Iraq and then occupy the country. I also understand the dilemma with reconciling the concept of preemptive war with national defense as outlined in the Constitution. I think these two issues are still very compelling for discussion. We just can not seem to get off of the question about Bush being deceptive or not.
ace, I propose a compromise....I've quote you several times here, all from your posts over on "Obama Must Go to Iraq" thread. The series of quotes begins with you providing "data"....an IBD editorial. Aside from a repetitive list displaying a given year, followed by "There were no terrorist attacks", there were only a couple of assertions, with any specific "data". This was one:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459446
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Perhaps he should go just to show he has no fear or concerns about going. Often, visits, orchestrated or not are not for the benefit of the person visiting, but for those who are there. Also, he thinks we are not safer because of the war in Iraq, I think the facts are not consistent with that view.

Here is some data from todays IBD editorial page:

Quote:
Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the U.S. and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful.

What follows is a partial history:....

....Here is the record:

2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government....
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...96864997227353

Then, ace, you asked if your data was accurate:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459482
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Is the data accurate? If not how?



The point is not the editorial view of the data, but the data. I know there are different way to look at this question. At what point do you want to focus on that rather than the ad hominem argument.



Been through this. I read IBD daily. I enjoy the way they craft their editorials, they are fun to read. I generally agree with their point of view. I have found that data in the paper and on the editorial page to be accurate.

Do you have anything new regarding IBD? I am going to read the paper again tomorrow, if I come across something that I think will be of interest - guess what - I am going to post it. Your complaints, ad hominem arguments, and personal attacks wont matter. Come on, I know you have it in you - you can do better.

ace, over on the "Obama Must Go to Iraq" thread, directly above this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459604
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
.....I am guilty of "cherry picking". When I support my opinions I purposefully pick the data that supports my opinion. When I form my opinion I look at data from various sources and generally give more weight to data that supports my biases. When my opinion is challenged with data that contradicts my opinion, I consider it and either change my view or I "cherry pick" more information to present, that of course supports my view.

I must be the only one who does this. I am guilty, I tell you, guilty, guilty, guilty. What should my punishment be?:confused:

Or, you folks can give me your data, challenge my views, man-up and debate like I know you are capable. Maybe it is just to easy to attack the source, rather than the information.




This is for you Host. this was in IBD a few days ago.



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...96780190323947
....I posted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
ace, even president Bush admits that there is no proof of this, from your IBD editorial's "data"....
Quote:
2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.
I've posted both of these, over and over....have they made no impact on you, ace?
....So ace, I replied with what you said you wanted...I specifically challenged one of your data points....and you ignored my challenge. Now, I'm back ace, and the deal is....We Agree to Play, "Stop Me When You Think You Can Establish That I Am Wrong...."

If I had read the IBD editorial you posted ace, and I saw the attempt in it to link al Zarqawi to Saddam and his government, an alarm would have gone off. The following is what we know ace. We know enough to firmly state that only an extremist would write that "data point" in that IBD editorial, because only an extremist, Cheney, has even recently tried to make that connection. Bush himself was stopped cold...he's never attempted it again....watch the video in the bottom quoite box. I've detailed all of their lies that I can locate and link on this one subject ace, but you might call them "misleading statements". I've detailed findings on how they came into being....the WaPo provides a nice explanation in the lower part of the following quote box.

I am expecting ace, that you will stop me, too when you can establish that my posted facts are not in order. Also, ace, notice that, in the first few sentences in the following quote box, the SSCI establishes that congress did not have access to "the same intelligence" that the white house was privy to, before the October, 2002 congressional vote to authorize presidential authority to use military force:

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:
Quote:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...-301/sec12.pdf

XII. IRAQ’S LINKS TO TERRORISM A. Intelligence Products Concerning Iraq’s Links to Terrorism (U) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) produced five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism: 0 a September 2001 paper; 0 an October 2001 paper; Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002; 0 Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, September 2002 and Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism, January 2003. B. September and October 2001 Papers

(U) Shortly after the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks, the Director of Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Counterterrorism Center (CTC) and the CIA Near East and South Asia office (NESA)37collaborated on a paper on Iraqi links to the September 1lth attacks. This was the CIA’S first attempt to summarize the Iraqi regime’sties to 9/11. The paper was disseminated to President’s Daily Brief (PDB) principals on September 2 1,2001. The Committee was not informed about the existence of this paper until June 2004. According to the CIA, the paper took a “Q&A” approach to the issue of Iraq’s possible links to the September 1lth attacks. (U) Soon afterward, the NESA drafted a paper that broadened the scope of the issue by looking at Iraq’s overall ties to terrorism. The Committee requested a copy of this October 2001 document, but representatives of the DCI declined to provide it, stating: . . .we are declining to provide a copy of the paper. It was drafted in response to a request from a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) recipient, and the final paper was 37 TheNear East and South Asia (NESA) is the CIA Directorate of Intelligence (DI) office responsible for analyzing events in the Near East, including Iraq. Page -304 -


disseminated only to the PDB readership. Accordingly, it is not available for further di~sernination.~~ C. Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002

(U) Following the publication of the October 2001 paper, the CTC began drafting another paper that would eventually become Iraq and al-Qaidu: Interpreting a Murky Relationship. The paper was drafted based on widely expressed interest on the part of several senior policy makers, according to CIA. Throughout the drafting process (October 2001 to June 2002), the two offices took different approaches to assessing Iraq’s links to terrorism as a result of their different missions and perspectives. According to the CIA’SOmbudsman for Politicization, the CTC was aggressive in drawing connections to try to produce informationthat could be used to support counterterrorism operations,while the NESA took a traditional analytic approach, confirming intelligence with multiple sources and making assessments only based on strongly supported reporting. Analysts worked on several drafts over the eight month drafting period, but CTC management found them unsatisfactory and ultimately produced a draft without NESA’s coordination. (U) The Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) directed that Iraq and ul-Qaida: Interpreting u Murky ReZutionshiy be published on June 21,2002, although it did not reflect the NESA’s views. CTC’s explanation of its approach to this study and the analysts’ differing views were contained in the paper’s Scope Note, which stated: (U) This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to al-Qa’ida. Our approach is purposehlly aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumptionthat any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States. ’*The President’s Daily Brief (PDB) has not been provided to Congress inthe past by the executive branch. Committee staff notes, however, that the National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States (known as the 9-1 1 Commission) reached an agreement with the White House for access to the PDB and other intelligence items. The declination to provide the October 2001 CIA paper is an expansion of the historic practice to include other documents beyond the PDB. The CIA has provided the Committee items included in the PDB as long as they were also published separately as fmished intelligence or in other finished products. -305 -

Page 306

(U) We reviewed intelligence reporting over the past decade to determine whether Iraq had a relationship with aI-Qa’ida and, if so, the dimensions of the relationship. -1 Our knowledge of Iraqi links to al-Qa’ida still contains many critical gaps (U) Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides “no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations,”but believe that the available signs support a conclusionthat Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida since the mid-1990s, rather than a relationship with al-Qaida that has developed over time. These analysts would contend that mistrust and conflicting ideologies and goals probably tempered these contacts and severely limited the opportunities for cooperation. These analysts do not rule out that Baghdad sought and obtained a nonaggression agreement or made limited offers of cooperation,training, or even safehaven (ultimately uncorroborated or withdrawn) in an effort to manipulate, penetrate, or otherwise keep tabs on al-Qaida or selected operatives. (U) The NESA believed that this edited Scope Note did not adequately capture the differences between the two offices over the weighing and interpretationof the supporting intelligence reports. (U) The CIA Ombudsman for Politicization received a confidential complaint four days after the paper was published, on June 25,2002, claiming the CTC paper was misleading, in that it did not make clear that it was an uncoordinated product that did not reflect the NESA’s views and assessments. The CIA created the position of Ombudsman for Politicization in 1992 to respond to alleged issues of politicization and analytic distortion. According to the Ombudsman’s Charter, the position serves as an “independent, informal, and confidential counselor for those who have complaints about politicization, biased reporting, or the lack of objective analysis.” The Ombudsman reports directly to the DCI. The complaint and subsequent inquiry is discussed later in this report under Pressure on Intelligence Community Analysts. (U) The Committee Staff interviewed the Deputy Director for Intelligence on the production of this paper, and asked specifically why the analysts’ approach was purposefully aggressive. She explained that:


Page 307

What happened with the “murky paper” was I was asking the people who were writing it to lean far forward and do a speculative piece. If you were going to stretch to the maximum the evidence you had, what could you come up with?.....

D. Alternate Analysis in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defensefor Policy

...... <h3>(U) One of these consultants stated that he was told that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of Defense were dissatisfied with the intelligence products they were receiving from the Intelligence Community on terrorism and linkages between terrorist groups worldwide.</h3> This individual also stated that he and a colleague had gone to the CTC and to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to review what work they were doing on link analysis and relationshipsbetween terrorist groups and state sponsors. They found that the analysis was not being done, and stated that they believed their requests for assistance were being ignored....

.....(U) On July 22,2002, the DIA detailee sent an e-mail to a Deputy Under Secretary for Policy recounting a meeting that day with a senior advisor to the Under Secretary. The e-mail reported that the senior advisor had said that the Deputy Secretary had told an assistant that he wanted him “. . . to prepare an intel briefing on Iraq and links to al-Qaida for the SecDef and that he was not to tell anyone about it.” The e-mail also referred to “the Iraqi intelligence cell in OUSD(P).” The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy later explained to the Committee that the term “intelligence cell” referred to the PCTEG and other OSD staffers and their study of intelligence reports.

(U) Incorporating the DIA detailee’s work and the analysis done by the two naval reserve officers assigned to the PCTEG, a special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense created a set of briefing slides in the summer of 2002 that outlined the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) views of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and criticized the Intelligence Community (IC) for its approach to the issue.

(U) The briefing slides contained a “Summary of Known Iraq -al-Qaida Contacts, 1990-2002,” including an item “2001: Prague IIS Chief al-hi meets with Mohammed Atta in April.” Another slide was entitled “FundamentalProblems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information.” It faulted the IC for requiring “juridical evidence” for its findings. It also criticized the IC for “consistent underestimation”of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaida to hide their relationship and for an “assumption that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate.” A “findings” slide summed up the Iraq -al-Qaida relationship as “More than a decade of numerous contacts,” “Multiple areas of cooperation,” “Shared interest and pursuit of WMD,” and “One indication of Iraq coordination with al-Qaida specificallyrelated to 9/ 11.”

(U) One of the naval reservists from the PCTEG and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) detailee to the Policy Support Staff presented the briefing, which was developed by the special assistant from the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of Defense in early August 2002.

(U) After the briefing, the Deputy Secretary sent a note to the briefers, the Under Secretary and the Under Secretary’s Special Advisor, which included: That was an excellent briefing. The Secretary was very impressed. He asked us to think about some possible next steps to see if we can illuminate the differences between us and CIA. The goal is not to produce a consensus product, but rather to scrub one another’s arguments. Page -309 -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502263_pf.html
Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.

The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.

But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work......
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/...1105979&page=2

Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief
Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal -- and Being Wrong


....When Walters pressed Powell about that support, given the "mess" that the invasion has yielded, Powell said, "Who knew what the whole mess was going to be like?"

While he said he is glad that Saddam's regime was toppled, Powell acknowledged that he has seen no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attack. "I have never seen a connection. ... I can't think otherwise because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he told Walters. ....
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...q-report_x.htm
Senate Intelligence report finds no Saddam-al-Qaeda
Updated 9/9/2006 4:37 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) — Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaeda and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.

The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.

The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phase...y.pdf#page=112

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.

"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.

Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.

"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."....
Cheney, on the very next day:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
September 10, 2006

Interview of the Vice President by Tim Russert, NBC News, Meet the Press
NBC Studios
Washington, D.C.

......Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Q But the President said they were working in concert, giving the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in September 11th.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, they are -- there are two totally different propositions here. And people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it's important, I think -- there's a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq's traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.

So you've got Iraq and 9/11: no evidence that there's a connection.<b> You've got Iraq and al Qaeda: testimony from the Director of CIA that there was, indeed, a relationship; Zarqawi in Baghdad, et cetera. Then the --

Q The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact, Saddam --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't seen the report. I haven't had a chance to read it yet --</b>

Q But, Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is --

<b>THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- but the fact is, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02, and was there from then basically until the time we launched into Iraq. ........</b>

<h3>...and Cheney wasn't done...a month later, he was "at it", again:</h3>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......

<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...six months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
April 5, 2007

....So those are very real problems and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply would play right into the hands of al Qaeda.

Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ..

<h3>...and Cheney STILL wasn't done...two months later, he was "at it", again:</h3>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070603.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
June 3, 2007

Vice President's Remarks at the Wyoming Boys State Conference

The Vice President:....The worst terrorist we had in Iraq was a guy named Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth; served time in a Jordanian prison as a terrorist, was let out on amnesty. Then he went to Afghanistan and ran one of those training camps back in the late '90s that trained terrorists. Then when we launched into Afghanistan after 9/11, he was wounded, and fled to Baghdad for medical treatment, and then set up shop in Iraq. So he operated in Jordan, he operated in Afghanistan, then he moved to Iraq....
History of Bush's lies and distortions about al Zarqawi and his relationship with Saddam's government:
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab

By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to administration officials....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

...We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America....


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"

.....Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London.....

http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371
Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am

.....But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER

SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ
Why not hit terrorist camp?
Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address

.... Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030306-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 6, 2003

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

,,,,THE PRESIDENT: ,...Colin Powell, in an eloquent address to the United Nations, described some of the information we were at liberty of talking about. He mentioned a man named Al Zarqawi, who was in charge of the poison network. He's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq. To assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on is not to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society.....


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2004

... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.

No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2004

President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington

.....And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.

See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 23, 2004

President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference

...PRESIDENT BUSH: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein were still in power. This is a man who harbored terrorists -- Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
Press Conference by the President
August 21, 2006.

the President:...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006

Watch the video: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/
http://video.thinkprogress.org/2006/...06.320.240.jpg

THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
Lastly, ace....if the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq is as strong and straightforward as you maintain, why do you think they spewed all the disingenuous bullshit of the example of Zarqawi....it seemed be the "go to" example, offered by both Bush and Cheney, for invading and occupying Iraq.

Willravel 06-02-2008 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
And I still don't see how a person, who says he cares about people, like Obama, unconditionally say that he will remove the troops from Iraq without consideration for a power struggle that could lead to who knows what. Prior to the surge I felt our national commitment to "fixing it" was lacking. Now that conditions are going well, I think we need to let the occupation run its course.
Conditions continue to worsen. The only reason we're seeing violence starting to drop of is due to a combination of mass exodus, high fatality rates, and certain gangs finally having cleansed the areas they're in. The problem is each of these conditions is going to eventually result in further instability. Worse yet, the coalition forces are still targets for the frustrations of the insurgents, which means further violence but more violence concentrated on our troops. BTW, there was just a report of a suicide bombing that killed 16 people.

Leaving Iraq will lend to stability. It's that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I understand the view of those who did not think we had the right to invade Iraq and then occupy the country. I also understand the dilemma with reconciling the concept of preemptive war with national defense as outlined in the Constitution. I think these two issues are still very compelling for discussion. We just can not seem to get off of the question about Bush being deceptive or not.
They're linked.

host 06-02-2008 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Conditions continue to worsen. The only reason we're seeing violence starting to drop of is due to a combination of mass exodus, high fatality rates, and certain gangs finally having cleansed the areas they're in. The problem is each of these conditions is going to eventually result in further instability. Worse yet, the coalition forces are still targets for the frustrations of the insurgents, which means further violence but more violence concentrated on our troops. BTW, there was just a report of a suicide bombing that killed 16 people.

Leaving Iraq will lend to stability. It's that simple.

They're linked.
A follow on from my last post....here is Bush's "last dance" with this lie, on August 21, 2006:

Quote:
.....Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. .....
You have to see it as a deliberately misleading statement, and....since it wasn't true and was conjured up by Doug Feith, what else would you call it ace????? If it wasn't Bush's "go to" justification, and Cheney's...over and over, for nearly four years, why did they so often lead with it, in their responses to the question of why we went into Iraq?

aceventura3 06-03-2008 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host

Then, ace, you asked if your data was accurate:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459482
I did not include the entire article, I did include the link, but there is a paragraph were the author qualifies his data. I focused on the broader point of the article. Here is the full article.

Quote:
BY JOHN HINDERAKER

Posted 5/28/2008

The debate over Iraq and the war on terror rages, even amid signs we're winning. John Hinderaker of powerlineblog.com recently posted a blog entry answering the perennial question, "Are We Safer?" We rerun it here with his permission.

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer."

It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the U.S. and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful.

What follows is a partial history:

1988

February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, chief of the United Nations Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991

November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993

January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995

January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996

June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997

February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998

January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999

October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000

October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001

September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill about 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The Sept. 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al-Qaida, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow.

In fact, though, what happened was quite different: The pace of successful jihadist attacks against the U.S. slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq War, and has now dwindled to essentially zero.

Here is the record:

2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003

May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for Westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of U.S. housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killed 26 and injured 160.

2004

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2005

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2006

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2007

There were no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

2008

So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the U.S. or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, such as the Washington, D.C., snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd.

These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the lone wolves were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore couldn't have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al-Qaida leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field.

Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after Sept. 11 may have made us safer.

Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al-Qaida of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization.

Waterboarding three top al-Qaida leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al-Qaida's leadership.

The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas.

We may have penetrated al-Qaida's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine.

Al-Qaida's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the U.S.

The fact that al-Qaida loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been neutralized by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to attack elsewhere.

The conduct of al-Qaida in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world.

The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have persuaded other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.)

Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks.

But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks.

To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...96864997227353


Quote:
ace, over on the "Obama Must Go to Iraq" thread, directly above this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ta#post2459604


....I posted this:


....So ace, I replied with what you said you wanted...I specifically challenged one of your data points....and you ignored my challenge. Now, I'm back ace, and the deal is....We Agree to Play, "Stop Me When You Think You Can Establish That I Am Wrong...."

If I had read the IBD editorial you posted ace, and I saw the attempt in it to link al Zarqawi to Saddam and his government, an alarm would have gone off. The following is what we know ace. We know enough to firmly state that only an extremist would write that "data point" in that IBD editorial, because only an extremist, Cheney, has even recently tried to make that connection. Bush himself was stopped cold...he's never attempted it again....watch the video in the bottom quoite box. I've detailed all of their lies that I can locate and link on this one subject ace, but you might call them "misleading statements". I've detailed findings on how they came into being....the WaPo provides a nice explanation in the lower part of the following quote box.

I am expecting ace, that you will stop me, too when you can establish that my posted facts are not in order. Also, ace, notice that, in the first few sentences in the following quote box, the SSCI establishes that congress did not have access to "the same intelligence" that the white house was privy to, before the October, 2002 congressional vote to authorize presidential authority to use military force:

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:






Cheney, on the very next day:


History of Bush's lies and distortions about al Zarqawi and his relationship with Saddam's government:


Lastly, ace....if the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq is as strong and straightforward as you maintain, why do you think they spewed all the disingenuous bullshit of the example of Zarqawi....it seemed be the "go to" example, offered by both Bush and Cheney, for invading and occupying Iraq.
Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. I agree with that. Bush Stated that.

Congress did not have all of the intel the WH had. I agree with that. The Intel over Clinton's and Bush's administrations pointed to Saddam having WMD and a desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Intel from England further supported this. Saddam lead his own military that they had WMD.

Members of the Bush administration had a desire to remove Saddam from power prior to 9/11.

Iraq became a key military front in the war against terror. We don't know the full extent of Zarqawi's travels. We don't know the full extent of who he talked to or who gave him aid and assistance. All we can rely on is intel, the same kind of Intel that proved wrong regarding WMD in Iraq. You can not prove any points regarding Zarqawi, all we can do is speculate based on published Intel that may be right or wrong.

It seems you want me to say that Bush lied. I can not do it, nothing you have posted shows that he lied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
I can tell you haven't actually read Obama's position on Iraq and the Middle East. Whole lot more to it than just pulling troops out. I know the sound bytes you've heard, but that's NOT all he's said.
Why not show me how I am wrong. Isn't that the point of an exchange like this? I hope I am wrong. I don't spend a lot of time listening to Obama speeches, I did watch the debates, and he clearly said he would withdraw the troops unconditionally.

Quote:
"Let the occupation run its course", hunh? The term "run its course" comes from the world of medicine--we say that about fevers. When a fever runs its course, it's because the immune system has risen up and driven the invading virus out of the body. Seems an apt analogy...
What about the issue of a premature withdrawal and the ramifications, wasn't that the main point of my post? Do we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to help them re-build their nation? What is your view on that question? Isn't that an important question worthy of political discussion? The "apt analogy" - shouldn't we in fact leave once the Iraqi people can stand on their own and defend their country from threats internal and at least to some degree external. Isn't "running it course" a good thing for Iraq?

host 06-03-2008 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3

Iraq became a key military front in the war against terror. We don't know the full extent of Zarqawi's travels. We don't know the full extent of who he talked to or who gave him aid and assistance. All we can rely on is intel, the same kind of Intel that proved wrong regarding WMD in Iraq. You can not prove any points regarding Zarqawi, all we can do is speculate based on published Intel that may be right or wrong.

It seems you want me to say that Bush lied. I can not do it, nothing you have posted shows that he lied.



Why not show me how I am wrong. Isn't that the point of an exchange like this? I hope I am wrong. I don't spend a lot of time listening to Obama speeches, I did watch the debates, and he clearly said he would withdraw the troops unconditionally......
ace, I know you "can not do it"....that is why we go over this, again and again.

One more time, you asked what was wrong with "the data" in your IBD editorial I explained it to you...it's in the 2002 line item....you last posted some qualification that has nothing to do with that 2002 propaganda centerpiece:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBD Editorial
2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.
Again. ace....there is no basis for that "perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government." ....but the IBD editorialist inserted it in there, anyway. It just happened to be Bush and Cheney's LEAD justification for invading Iraq, and for "staying the course in Iraq".

How do I know it's bullshit, ace? Because the senate select committee on intelligence found that it was not fact based, and the later Pentagon report, both documented in my second to last post here, says the same thing.

How do I know Mr. Bush lied about it? I know ace, because he could not back his four years of false statements, saying al Zarqawi had "realtions" with Saddam and his government....an assertion Bush said was a prime reason to invade Iraq and to remove Saddam his government, and neither could his press secretary back the statement, when he was asked, just 22 days after the last time that Bush said it:

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
Press Conference by the President
August 21, 2006.

the President:...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006

Watch the video: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/
http://video.thinkprogress.org/2006/...06.320.240.jpg

THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
So Bush himself could not back his own accusation....he demonstrated that it was empty, misleading bullshit, a twist of the truth for four long years, and....he has never said it again....since that August 21, 2006 quote.

I've shown you, ace, that a key piece of IBD editorial "data" was wrong, key because Bush and Cheney used that very same reference about Zarqaqi to justify taking out Saddam and "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here, and I've shown you that Bush and his press secretary could not back up Bush's longstanding, al Zarqawi accusation....and I've noted that Bush has never said it again.

But you need more, ace....more than Bush on video, folding his Zarqawi "card", in response to this line from Martha Raddatz:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Raddatz 09-15-06
A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the President 08-21-06
......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. .......
Quote:
Originally Posted by the President 09-15-06

The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
But he had said that there was "a relationship", just the way IBD snuck it in your editorial ace...he said it over and over, see my second to last post....and when he didn't clearly say it, he implied it.....

Why ace, haven't you and IBD folded your Zarqawi "card"?

This persuades me that there is nothing that could convince you that Bush lied and that 2002 portion of the IBD editorial is intentionally misleading bullshit.

aceventura3 06-03-2008 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Why ace, haven't you and IBD folded your Zarqawi "card"?
First there is intel that allegedly supports the report that Zarqawi was in Iraq. Two of the people convicted of the murder indicated there was a link with al queda and that they received orders from Zarqawi.

Quote:
A statement from the Jordanian government said the two men, identified as Salem Sa'ed Salem bin Suweid, a Libyan national, and Yasser Fathi Ibraheem, a Jordanian, confessed to their membership in al Qaeda and that they received their orders from a senior al Qaeda leader.

According to the statement, "bin Suweid and Ibraheem confessed that they are members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization, and are affiliated with bin Laden's lieutenant, Ahmad Fadeel Nazal Al-Khalayleh, known as Abu Musa'ab Al-Zarqawi."

Zarqawi left Jordan in 1999 and has been convicted in absentia of a plot to bomb tourist hotels in Amman during the millennium celebrations.
Treatment in Iraq

He reportedly fled Afghanistan after U.S. operations began there, going first to Iran, then Iraq, where he was said to have received medical treatment. President Bush referred to him -- without mentioning his name -- during a speech in Cincinnati in October.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...ordan.killing/

There are also reports that the men convicted of the murder talked about the links to Iraq.

Quote:
The CIA also looked into the possibility that the Iraqi regime was involved in the al-Zarqawi network murder of USAID official Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan in December 2002. [Redacted] two suspects in the Foley murder, indicated that Iraqi territory may have been used to facilitate travel and the supply of weapons to the al-Zarqawi group in Jordan. But, neither of the two suspects provided any information on links between al-Zarqawi and the Iraqi regime. [Redacted] one of the two suspects in the Foley murder stated that al-Zarqawi directed and financed the operations before, during and after his stint in Baghdad between May and July 2002. The other suspect mentioned that weapons for their operations in Jordan had come from an unspecified place in Iraq. [Redacted] an associate of Foley's killer left Jordan to join al-Zarqawi in Iraq after the murder to obtain weapons and explosives for future operations. Both of the suspects [redacted] mentioned that one member of the al-Zarqawi network traveled repeatedly between regime-controlled Iraq and Syria after March 2002."
http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2...nce-foley.html

It is possible these men lied. It is possible that the intel is wrong. Perhaps there was a link to Iraq and Saddam did not know that his country was being used, which I doubt.

But, regardless the author of the editorial stated that "perhaps" there was a link. I don't think we know with certainty either way. You speculate, just like the author of the editorial. So, what does that prove?

host 06-03-2008 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
First there is intel that allegedly supports the report that Zarqawi was in Iraq. Two of the people convicted of the murder indicated there was a link with al queda and that they received orders from Zarqawi.



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...ordan.killing/

There are also reports that the men convicted of the murder talked about the links to Iraq.



http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2...nce-foley.html

It is possible these men lied. It is possible that the intel is wrong. Perhaps there was a link to Iraq and Saddam did not know that his country was being used, which I doubt.

But, regardless the author of the editorial stated that "perhaps" there was a link. I don't think we know with certainty either way. You speculate, just like the author of the editorial. So, what does that prove?
ace, your http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2...nce-foley.html piece, is dated three months before Bush himself folded his al Zarqawi "card".

Your http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...ordan.killing/ citation, is nearly four years before....

Ace, read what I've quoted from you.....I'm not challenging the notion that "Zarqawi was in Iraq"....it's a bullshit move from you to word it that fucking way.....I am challenging this LIE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the President 08-21-06
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. .......
Do you comprehend that the question was not whether "al Zarqawi was in Iraq", or whether Saddam knew that he was, because our own Pentagon Inspector General's report of Feb., 2007, tells us:
[quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502263_pf.html

....The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups......

[quote]
WHAT CHANGED IS THAT BUSH AND TONY SNOW FOLDED THE "al Zarqawi was in Iraq", "card", as a means of justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

After that happened, it became unreasonable...."fringe", to continue to refer to that as a reason to invade Iraq and remove Saddam and his government. Only Cheney continued to cite that as a reason, after Bush folded, and even he hasn't said it in a year, now. Bush never used it again, ace, after 9-15.06.

Before 9-15-06, I documented the fact that he used it as justification, frequently, over a nearly 4 year span.

Neither any page on IBD and you, ace, cannot attempt to advance "al Zarqawi was in Iraq and may have had a relationship with Saddam and or his government, before we got there", and expect to be taken seriously when you do it, ace......at least not since 9-15-06 !

Do you want to be taken seriously, ace? Bush apparently does, and most pundits and publications apparently want to be....that is why they have stopped making that reference....cold...done....it's relegated to a tiny denialist fringe, because:

ace, I've shown you....with linked statements, dated 9-12-06 (Tony Snow), and 9-15-06 (George Bush), and with a video of Bush actually reciting the words....that neither was willing or able to state what you inserted into your last post.

Bush did not challenge Martha Raddatz, when she asked:
Quote:
THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
White house press secretary Tony Snow did not challenge the conclusion that there were no ties between Saddam's government and al Zarqawi:
Quote:
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....
ace, is it just a coincidence, that, after this.....after August 21, 2006, Bush stopped telling this lie?:

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/wa...9intelcnd.html
Senate Panel Releases Report on Iraq Intelligence

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: September 8, 2006

As recently as two weeks ago, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Sadddam Hussein’s regime “did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the new Senate findings.

The C.I.A. report also directly contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi by name no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case to go to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.

In fact, the Senate investigation concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather as a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’

The C.I.A. report also directly contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi by name no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case to go to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.

In fact, the Senate investigation concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather as a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’....

aceventura3 06-03-2008 02:41 PM
Host,

The problem is not in the citations, it is more fundamental than that.

How is it that you selectively have seemingly blind faith is intel that supports your premise and then can totally ignore intel that may contradict your view? I acknowledge that intel can be correct or it can be incorrect. If a view is formed based on intel and then the view is changed based on intel - how is that a lie?

It is not possible for us to come to an agreement, because I don't think we know one way or the other with certainty if there were direct links with Zarqawi and Hussein. There is evidence that suggests that Zarqawi could have had "relations" with Hussein.

Your conclusions often don't directly support your premise, for example you point to the fact that Hussein publicly looked at al qaeda as a threat, as if that would be proof there was no contact or "relations". That logic is flawed. That logic suggests that you think Hussein would be open and honest about a relationship. That logic assumes that al qaeda and Hussein could not view the US as a common enemy, a greater threat and reason to collaborate.

Also, you are arguing a point that is not material to the editorial. The author of the editorial, if proven wrong - did not present the link as a fact. If you think IBD lacks credibility because of that point, you have a right to that view. On the other hand I have been reading IBD for about 10 years and I have confidence in the information I read in the paper and enjoy the opinions writted on the editorial page.

Willravel 06-03-2008 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
How is it that you selectively have seemingly blind faith is intel that supports your premise and then can totally ignore intel that may contradict your view?
This sounds like a question I might ask of a member of the Bush Administration, especially the president.

How about we look at what's verifiable:
- A complete record of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell building up the case for war in the media.
- After the invasion, no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction was found.
- Before the invasion, it was verified that Saddam Hussein had no links to the 9/11 attacks.

These three things alone paint a magnificently simple picture. Either all the intel they were getting was incorrect, some of the intel was incorrect, or none of the intel was incorrect. If all of the intel was incorrect, we should close the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all other intelligence services, starting from scratch. If some of the intel was wrong, then the intel that supported the war was clearly cherry-picked by those mentioned above. If all of the intel was correct, then those above lied.

I'm not trying to present a false choice, so please let me know if I've missed something.

host 06-03-2008 04:40 PM
ace, are you saying it is just a coincidence that Bush allowed himself to be humiliated in the video of him being asked, by Marth Raddatz on 9/15/06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Raddatz 9-15-06
....Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?....
....when he was forced to admit that Saddam had no "relations with Zarqawi". made to look like a liar....and the fact that Bush has never made the claim again, a claim he had made again and again, for nearly 4 years?

If you're correct ace, what would your answer to Martha have been?

Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
August 21, 2006

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. ....
(Read the quote in the box above again, ace, and then watch the video
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/ .....again...)

If the following answer was not a lie, ace...what was it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by the President 09-15-06

The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....

Check it yourself, ace....search for a more recent instance
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ov&btnG=Search

....than 8/21/06, of Bush making the claim "Saddam.....who had relations with Zarqawi...."

Bush has never made the claim since....but you're still making it, and you posted an IBD editorial that made it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBD Editorial
2002

October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.
I'm asking you to stop.....it's not a reasonable thing to do anymore. It's tantamount to posting that the WMD we all thought were there....were there..... Who do you see making that claim, who is interested in being taken seriously?
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/05/105281.htm

....QUESTION: Yes, Madame Secretary. Now it’s on. Okay, now it’s on. How can you lead a new international consensus on rebuilding Iraq when there are these new charges from Scott McClellan detailing that the Bush Administration misled the U.S. and the world into an unnecessary war in Iraq?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I’m not going to comment on a book that I haven’t read, but I will say that the concerns about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were the fundamental reason for tens – for dozens of resolutions within the Security Council from the time that Saddam Hussein was expelled from Kuwait in 1991 up until 2003. It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he was hiding weapons of mass destruction that led him to throw inspectors out, effectively to so limit them that they left in 1998, leading the Clinton Administration to take military action against Iraq. It was not the United States alone that knew that Saddam Hussein had, of course, used weapons of mass destruction both against his own population and against Iranians. And it was not the United States alone that asked why Saddam Hussein would not answer the questions of weapons inspectors even under the threat of serious consequences after Resolution 1441 in 2002.

So the story is there for everyone to see. You can’t now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have known things that we, in fact, did not know in 2001, 2002, 2003. The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear. Now, if the world did not believe that at the time, then I would ask: Why was Iraq under some of the most severe sanctions that the international community has ever imposed? I think it is because the world knew that Saddam Hussein was a threat; he was a threat not just because of his appetite for weapons of mass destruction, but he was a threat also because he continued to flaunt the terms of the armistice which he had signed in 1991to end that war, he continued to threaten his neighbors, and of course, he didn’t just threaten but, in fact, tyrannized his own people, including 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves.

So the threat from Saddam Hussein was well understood. You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003. But I would really ask: Do people really believe that he was not a threat to the international community? And if you believe that he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of Oil-for-Food?.....


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that 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.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."
Serial liars, ace....war criminals. I only had to post about 30 times, McClellan's Jan. 12, 2005 concession that the WMD "were not there", to stamp out assertions posted here that they WERE there.....I guess it's going to be the same way with your "Zarqawi had relations with Saddam" assertion. Sooner or later, ace....no WMD, no "relations" with Zarqawi, and no
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070502-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 2, 2007

President Bush Discusses War on Terror, Economy with Associated General Contractors of America

the President:.....For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11. I strongly believe it's in our national interest to stay in the fight. (Applause.).....
...and McClellan will be proven correct.....Bush led us into an "unneccesary war in Iraq"....how do we know? Because none of the principle reasons for invading and occupying Iraq, were true. How do we know they knew, beforehand? Because they set up PNAC's Doug Feith to counter and to twist intelligence findings....to fix the facts around the policy, ace!

aceventura3 06-04-2008 07:39 AM
Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship. I think he came to the conclusion there was a relationship based on circumstantial evidence. I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did. Hussein had a standing offer to the families of suicide bombers, that is having a "relationship" with terrorists. Zarqawi was a terrorist leader who was in Iraq and managed operations from Iraq, I would assume Hussein was fully aware of that, and if nothing else that is enough for me to conclude there was a "relationship".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
This sounds like a question I might ask of a member of the Bush Administration, especially the president.

How about we look at what's verifiable:
- A complete record of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell building up the case for war in the media.
- After the invasion, no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction was found.
- Before the invasion, it was verified that Saddam Hussein had no links to the 9/11 attacks.

These three things alone paint a magnificently simple picture. Either all the intel they were getting was incorrect, some of the intel was incorrect, or none of the intel was incorrect. If all of the intel was incorrect, we should close the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all other intelligence services, starting from scratch. If some of the intel was wrong, then the intel that supported the war was clearly cherry-picked by those mentioned above. If all of the intel was correct, then those above lied.

I'm not trying to present a false choice, so please let me know if I've missed something.
I think we know they emphasized the intel that supported their case. That is my point to Host, he does the same thing. Why is it o.k. for him but not the administration. I also admit that I will "cherry pick" to support my case, I assume everyone does. Because of that I don't accept anything on face value. If anyone listened to Bush and became 100% in favor of war, without question - don't they have a problem rather than Bush?

Willravel 06-04-2008 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think we know they emphasized the intel that supported their case. That is my point to Host, he does the same thing. Why is it o.k. for him but not the administration. I also admit that I will "cherry pick" to support my case, I assume everyone does. Because of that I don't accept anything on face value. If anyone listened to Bush and became 100% in favor of war, without question - don't they have a problem rather than Bush?
Why is it okay when Bush does it an not when host does it?

ratbastid 06-04-2008 08:14 AM
So, Bush lied, but America's to blame because it wasn't cynical enough, and should have known he's a fucking liar.

It's like saying, "If I punch you in the nose, it's your fault for not moving in time."

Cynthetiq 06-04-2008 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
So, Bush lied, but America's to blame because it wasn't cynical enough, and should have known he's a fucking liar.

It's like saying, "If I punch you in the nose, it's your fault for not moving in time."
well yeah. duh. move faster next time. didn't you have any siblings? :shakehead:

dc_dux 06-04-2008 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think we know they emphasized the intel that supported their case. That is my point to Host, he does the same thing. Why is it o.k. for him but not the administration.
WTF! comparing members of an internet politcal forum to the Commander in Chief..or the Secy of Defense...or the National Security Advisor? and I thought I've seen everything possible rationale of those supporting the Iraq invasion. :eek:

When you do it, or I do it, or host does it....no one is asked to put their life on the line!

For an interesting time line on Iraq and the Media....particularly in the lead up to the invasion.

ratbastid 06-04-2008 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
well yeah. duh. move faster next time. didn't you have any siblings? :shakehead:
Well that's exactly it. This is 8-year-old politics. Politics of the family road trip back seat.

aceventura3 06-04-2008 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Why is it okay when Bush does it an not when host does it?
I am indifferent to it. I just acknowledge it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
So, Bush lied, but America's to blame because it wasn't cynical enough, and should have known he's a fucking liar.

It's like saying, "If I punch you in the nose, it's your fault for not moving in time."
I don't conclude he lied.

If I tell you I am going to punch you in the nose, it is certainly my fault for punching you, but you feel the pain of the punch. You might have avoided the pain if you had taken some kind of action. Given the intel available the possibility of me actually hitting you in the nose and the possibility of me not hitting you - you have to "cherry pick" your intel and take an action or inaction. Whatever you do, I would not call you a lier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
WTF! comparing members of an internet politcal forum to the Commander in Chief..or the Secy of Defense...or the National Security Advisor? and I thought I've seen everything possible rationale of those supporting the Iraq invasion. :eek:

When you do it, or I do it, or host does it....no one is asked to put their life on the line!

For an interesting time line on Iraq and the Media....particularly in the lead up to the invasion.
The nerve! Food for thought - at what point in life does one develop the decision making skills that they may have to one day apply to a life or death situation?

For me I developed those skills as a very young person. I understand how I would make my decisions. When I have studied history I have given much thought to what I would do if I were in situations making life and death situations. So for you it is outlandish for me to compare Host to the President. In my view it is not. I expect that the people I interact with, including Host, may one day be in a situation of great power, including the power of life and death, I sincerely hope that they have a thorough understanding of the impact their actions will have, and approach those situations understanding their biases, principles and how they arrive at conclusions.

That is WTF!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Well that's exactly it. This is 8-year-old politics. Politics of the family road trip back seat.
World politics is not much more complicated than that, it is just the stakes that are higher. What are the fundamental motivators of human behavior? How do those motivators change as we age? Do they change? I am really interested in knowing your view on these questions.

Willravel 06-04-2008 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am indifferent to it. I just acknowledge it.
Indifferent to the president cherry-picking evidence, but mad when host does it? Does that strike you at all as odd? Or perhaps biased?

aceventura3 06-04-2008 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Indifferent to the president cherry-picking evidence, but mad when host does it? Does that strike you at all as odd? Or perhaps biased?
I don't make moral or character judgments based on a person making a decision when the information available is incomplete or imperfect. I stated several times that I simply disagree with Host. I don't think Bush "lied", he does. Given the discussion, I am just curious on how he reconciles the use of selective intelligence for his purposes and the use of selective intelligence by the Administration.

Willravel 06-04-2008 12:11 PM
Ace, maybe changing the frame of reference could shed some light on this.

Let's say you're just starting out in college and that I'm your school counselor. You come to me in order to get the right classes for your major in order to graduate. I only name the classes I like, and you don't graduate.

Was the act of purposefully omitting all of the classes I didn't like a lie?

aceventura3 06-04-2008 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Ace, maybe changing the frame of reference could shed some light on this.

Let's say you're just starting out in college and that I'm your school counselor. You come to me in order to get the right classes for your major in order to graduate. I only name the classes I like, and you don't graduate.

Was the act of purposefully omitting all of the classes I didn't like a lie?
No, I would not consider that a lie. First I would see it as my responsibility to know what classes I need to graduate. Second, I would assume you would have a bias and direct me to classes you thought were best.

If you knowingly mislead me, and knew the advice you gave would mean I would not graduate, yes - you lied. However, if you believed the courses you recommend would actual lead to my graduation, but in-fact they do not - you were either uninformed or incompetent.

I think the intel the administration used was incorrect.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:33 PM.
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


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