Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by Tim F| 251 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Graham: no.
Tenet scrubbed qualifications and demurrals out of the famous NIE before the White House shared it with most of Congress. If I have a report saying that the moon is made of green cheese and I remove the parts where experts cast some doubt on my intel before sharing it with you, then you and I don’t have access to the same information.
Comments are closed.
GOP Says “Fuck You” to Constitution
You know, the funny thing is, I used to be a fairly strong Republican, and am still registed as one. Via a commenter over at Balloon Juice, this Boston Globe story about Congressional oversite of the Executive Branch: Back in…
Oliver
For the charge of aiding the terrorists (aka Democrats) I sentence you to the stockades, Cole. The facts are biased, can’t you see that?
DecidedFenceSitter
Psst….Oliver, that was Timmy.
Tim F.
Oliver, it’s my byline.
John Cole
Just curious. How did the Democrats in the Intelligence committees vote?
Tim F.
or, what Fence Sitter said.
Krista
Tim – I can’t say that this particularly surprises me. By the same token, I think that a lot of Democrats voted to allow Bush to opt for war, due to the climate at the time. If you spoke out against the war or against the president, you were subjected to shrill accusations of being anti-American, or “soft on terror”. Not that it excuses them — they should have still had the ‘nads to vote against it if they had reservations, but between being misinformed, and having so much pressure put upon them, I really don’t see how they can be demonized for voting for allowing Bush to use force, and now saying that they were against it, now that more information has come to light, and now that it’s a lot safer to speak out against the war.
stickler
If they were
lied tomisled by the White House, how on earth does it matter? Are you suggesting that in matters of war and peace the Congress was stupid to trust their own President?We all know now that they were stupid to trust him. But why should we have expected mendacity and lies in 2002?
jaime
Like their political careers and their very patriotism were at stake.
Theseus
Forgive my stupidity, but as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time, didn’t Senator Graham have access to all the intelligence that the White House had? Didn’t he also read the more classified versions, dissenting views and opinions et all as well or did I misread his op-ed? Just curious.
Tim F.
On the Senate Intelligence committee: Rockefeller, Feinstein and Bayh voted Yea while Levin, Wyden, Mikulski and Corzine voten Nea for HJR 114. link
Mike S
I’m looking for a cite but I have read that 5/6 on the Senate committee voted against.
He voted against.
Steve
I think Tim has the membership of the committee a little mixed up but the Democrats on the committee voted 5-4 against the war resolution. Graham was the chair of the committee and he voted no.
Tim F.
Oops, I used current membership rather than 2002.
Mike S
Tim F
Graham was on the committee for the vote. I think yu are listing current members.
Theseus
I know that. That’s not what I was asking though :)
Gary Farber
I made my point here.
Is John still fine with rewriting someone else’s words and saying it’s their words? I still don’t get that at all. (But if I can rewrite someone else’s blog post before fisking it, well, gosh, that would just make blogging too easy to be worth doing.)
TallDave
I have to laugh every time the Left offers up this excuse they were “misled” by Bush, because it runs counter to basic principles of American governance and just demonstrates either ignorance (for those gullible enough to buy it) or disingenuousness (for those that know better and seek to sell it to the gullible).
Congress can request any of the same raw data the President sees. Are the Senate briefings exactly the same, word for word, as the PDBs? No, of course not. Are they based on the same data? Yes, of course they are.
The funniest part? The PDBs were actually more alarmist than the SIE, not less. The intelligence community was simply wrong. It happens.
But hey, why not lie and say it’s Bush’s fault? After all, it’s just national security.
cd6
talldave, did you even read the link in the original post, or what?
Mike S
Sorry. I didn’t understand the question. Does this answer your question?
Steve
So Congress, for example, can request the classified version of the NIE? That would seem to run contrary to the purpose of classifying it in the first place.
Or are you saying every member of Congress is free to review the classified raw data that underlies the classified NIE, just not the NIE itself?
You might also consider that Congress had about 3 days to review the NIE which doesn’t give a lot of time for anyone to go digging through the raw data.
I’d like a cite for the proposition that every member of Congress is entitled to see every piece of raw data gathered by the intelligence agencies, because I don’t believe it’s true.
Lines
You see, in TallDave’s little world, once you say Bush Lied! and he presumes you lying, he won’t read anything that might offer new evidence of the original claim. Because the original claim was Bogus’d by only TallDave doesn’t make any difference.
Its the only way he can keep being a synchophantic putz and ignore all the evidence at the same time.
SomeCallMeTim
Congress can request any of the same raw data the President sees.
So can you. Gawd, you’re a moron.
Steve S
The real question is:
Did John Cole have the same intelligence?
TallDave
Yes, Graham played the exact trick I just described.
Oh, so it’s Bush’s fault that you rarely do your job.
It’s just unbelievable that anyone is stupid enough to fall for this. What do people think “oversight power” means?
TallDave
SomeCallMeTim,
Yes, because I have the same authority and clearance as a member of Congress sitting on an intelligence comittee. And you called me a moron?
ppGaz
The whole issue is a phony one anyway.
We were wrong, but they were too?
Only in the blahsphere and inside the corrupt beltway would such an idea even get out of the first conference room.
The people hear this one way: We were wrong. Not “They were wronger” or “he started it” or the other childish talking-head blogger-speak crap that passes for dialogue in these matters. The people are not as stupid as the politicians always hope they are. What they see is that the intelligence was wrong, and now they don’t like the result, and they don’t see anybody stepping up to take responsibility for it. Period.
And even though “responsibility” and “accountability” are forbidden subjects around here, that’s what this is about, and that’s why the question as framed here is not just irrelevant, it’s anti-relevant. It’s a smokescreen.
Which is exactly what the lying cocksucker Republicans had in mind when they floated this topic in the first place.
Gratefulcub
The Senate and house members, that don’t have the intelligence community, a large staff of foreign policy decision makers, and a Sec of Defense……as the white house does……relied on the White House summations of intelligence. They allowed the WH to set the parameters of the debate. Very few of them tried to independently verify the case for war. Those that did, probably didn’t vote for the war.
Why does it have to be either/or for so many people.
Left – Bush mislead
Right – Congress didn’t do their job.
You are both right. The WH argument was misleading. It relied on evidence that was shaky at best, but was put forth by the admin as fact, as grave and gathering facts. Congress didn’t come close to doing their job. It appears that many that figured the intel was shakey, didn’t want to investigate. They didn’t wanted to be the one pushing back because it was bad politically. Why do you think it has taken so long for the Dems to come out against the war and the intel? They knew they looked just as bad.
Congress not doing its job does not excuse administration propoganda. And, Admin propoganda does not excuse the Congress; the ‘i was brainwashed’ meme is scary.
Accoutability in washington? bueller? Anyone?
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m glad you believe in oversight. I would presume you want the Congress to finally investigate the lead up to the Iraq war then?
Or do you only believe in oversight when it suits you? heh.
Gratefulcub
I know what it means. Congress, they forgot.
But, the point you are making is disengenuous.
It wasn’t that Congressional Dems weren’t doing their job in requesting an NIE, the point is that it is rare that a president making a case for war on intelligence hasn’t bothered to order an NIE. Graham hadn’t done it because it was common sense that the prez already did his job.
Pb
Just curious. How did the Republicans in the Intelligence committees vote? (or do I have to ask… heh.)
TallDave
The Senate and house members, that don’t have the intelligence community
Oversight power. Didn’t anyone here have a single class on American governance?
The WH argument was misleading. It relied on evidence that was shaky at best, but was put forth by the admin as fact, as grave and gathering facts.
Bullshit. They took exactly what the intel community gave them. They had no way of knowing they were wrong.
Here’s a very simple test: find any statements from before the war stating we shouldn’t go to war because the entire intel community was wrong and Saddam didn’t have WMD. No one with access to the intel community would have come to that conclusion. No one did.
Well, I’m done trying to prove water is wet for today.
Slartibartfast
Am I the only one here that sees any difference at all between “The White House” and “The CIA”?
Just wondering. Seems to me that the NIE is a CIA product, and Bush is somehow catching all of the blame for Tenet’s slant in the declassified NIE.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, right. The poor, naive, ignorant Democrats were misled into believing what they themselves had been saying for six years. Suuuuuure, they were. Have you run out of Liquid Paper for the history books, Tim?
PotVsKtl
If qualifications were removed from the declassified report, the argument is over. There’s no debate to be had. How people voted based upon this admittedly misleading intelligence is immaterial.
Mike S
You forgot about the Iraq Liberation act that authorized the “use of force.”
Mac Buckets
Nonsense. Name a President who ever published the dissenting raw intel before taking action on intelligence. In Iraq’s case specifically, did Clinton do it before Desert Fox? Of course not. No President has, because intel is a game of consensus.
Second, I ask again: How can you “mislead” someone into believing what they’ve already said they believe for six years?
jack
And so we focus on this? We ignore the ‘facts’ and ‘intelligence’ that existed prior to Bush ever taking office? We ignore the actions taken by two prior Presidents against Iraq? We ignore the vaunted opinion of the world–the one that seems as fluid as the resolve of the left?
If we’re going to ignore any facts that prove us wrong or make us look bad then what is the point of investigating anything–the premise is fundamentally flawed, and any results garnered from investigating from such a premise will be just as flawed.
But you will scream for just such a thing, no? So you can chant ‘Bush lied’ until even the media is sick of hearing you. So you can make Bush look bad and….and what exactly?
You’re not going to impeach him–you don’t want to. The entire chain of sucession leads to more Republicans. You’re not going to defeat him–he’s not running. It’s not going to help in 2006 to point out that Democrat Senators and Congressmen were duped by a man the the DNC routinely castigates as an idiot.
And we all know that, just like every time before, the role of the previous administrations will not really be forgotten and the Democrats culpability in this will once again be brought to the fore–it’s starting now—and you’ll all shut up about it for a while.
Until you decide to hop on this insane merry-go-round AGAIN.
What do you people gain with all this?
Steve
Jay
This is such nonsense and it’s just amazing that normally rational people like Bob Graham would play up the Democratic ‘strategy’ of the “I WAS DUPED!!!” defense.
The President is under NO obligation to provide dissenting viewpoints or ‘qualifications.’ Intelligence data is almost NEVER absolute. Democrats in both chambers of Congress that had access to the raw intelligence data, could have easily picked up a freaking phone and talked to dozens of different people at the CIA to verify information and go over it themselves. They could have received all the qualifications they wanted. The fact is, you look at the whole of what you’ve been given and you act on that. Is there anybody who doubts that there were those who dissented or gave qualifications as to whether or not it was an aspirin factor or a chemical weapns lab in the Sudan? I’m sure it was the conclusion of some that it was conventional warheads that were being moved into Cuba in 1962. A qualification or dissent doesn’t mean something is wrong. It amazes me that these people could be so brazen about their deriliction of their duties as representatives of the people, and yet somehow blame their shortcomings on the President.
If the members of the House and Senate who did have access to this information saw that it was not enough to go on, they could have easily passed this information along to their colleagues without providing them classified information and they all could have voted accordingly.
This is about one thing: cowardice. Now that public sentiment has turned against the war, they want their votes back. They know they can’t do that officially, so they’ll use the “I WAS DUPED!” defense to make their constituents believe that their vote wasn’t their fault.
jaime
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html
So when the White House knows that Curveball is a degenerate liar and drunk, Chalabi is a known crook and Iranian asset, and Al-Libi just blurted out anything the CIA and DIA wanted to hear under not-torture and uses their information as definitive proof of 9/11 ties and active WMD programs, we SHOULDN’T feel misled?
Will your world just crumble if you admit to yourself you were lied to?
Mike S
Would those actions include taking our troops into Bhagdad? Did both of those Presidents advocate occupying Iraq?
ppGaz
Name a president who ever imposed the kind of restrictions on intelligence available to Congress before this idiot.
And again, give it up. This is nothing but a disgusting Who Struck John argument ginned up by Republicans, while a fucking war is going on and people are dying, and the buttheads in DC refuse to take responsibility for it.
The people are not amused.
jaime
No. They’ll do what John Edwards did, which is what Bush is incapable of doing, admit to a mistake.
John S.
Hopefully, people will gain the knowledge of the TRUTH behind what actually led us to where we are today. Or should we just pretend like everything is irrelevant (because BUSH WON!) and fail to learn from even our short-term history to avoid making the same mistakes in the future?
Not that most people here seem to give a rat’s ass about truth other than the selective version that corresponds to which way their political ideology bends.
Pathetic.
Jay
No. They’ll do what John Edwards did, which is what Bush is incapable of doing, admit to a mistake.
Oh please. Edwards used the “I WAS DUPED!!” defense also. He claimed that was the reason for his mistake.
ppGaz
The Disenfranchised Voter
This gets tiresome…
Colin Powell – February 2001
“[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
Condoleezza Rice – July 2001
“We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
John S.
Is that like Bush’s “The DEMOCRATS let me invade!” defense?
jaime
Unfortunately for Bush, most of the American people feel duped too. By implicitly putting the blame at the feet of the lawmakers who believed Bush, but don’t anymore, they are blaming the voters as well. The White House is making a huge mistake, I believe, in going on the offensive by being defensive.
ppGaz
Yyyyesss it does. But to the chagrin of the Pig Lipstick Committee, we are not easily tired out.
Keep up the good work.
ppGaz
That will be seen … soon … to be putting it mildly.
Gratefulcub
Congress wasn’t mislead, they didn’t do their job.
The WH mislead the american people, the congress was complicit in the hype.
I know the intel said that SH was a bad guy. It also made it pretty clear that we had no idea what was going on in iraq. We had no one on the ground, Chalabi hadn’t been there since he was a child, Curveball was a drunk.
The WH didn’t lie, they were wrong. They took liberties with their presentation because they took as fact that history would prove them correct. They dismissed any intel that didn’t fit their ideas. Not maliciously, they weren’t evil, they were incompetent and really thought they were right.
why is everyone screaming that the other side is wrong, and our side is right? If I think the WH was incompetent, am I somehow obligated to clear all blame from the Congressional Dems?
Washington screwed up, at every level. Personally I am mad as hell at all of them. Why does everyone have to take sides?
ppGaz
Because one party has control of every instrument of power and government … and refuses to take responsibility for anything.
That’s why. Send your complaints to the White House.
Theseus
Mike S, thank for the link…
Ok, from that article
And along with what you quoted, the answer to my question would seem to be, in essence, yes.
Senator Graham did ultimately vote no, for what were in my view, pretty legitimate reasons at the time. What I found odd was that in some of the statements that he made for instance in justifying his “no” vote, the issue of whether Saddam Hussein had or did NOT have WMDs, well, wasn’t really much of an issue at all. The exception being the possession of nuclear weapons where he disagreed with the president’s views, which is fair…but a stretch to say the president intentionally lied or misled because he disagreed with Bob Graham’s interprestation of the intelligence.
In his own words:
On Lou Dobbs, 11-19-02:
“[M]y concern is that we also have good intelligence to the effect that once a war with Iraq starts, and once Saddam Hussein`s back is against the wall, he`s about to lose power, that`s when he becomes the most dangerous, including dangerous in terms of using his weapons of mass destruction in conjunction with international terrorist groups to try to kill Americans inside the United States.”
On Cavuto, 10-16-02:
“I’m not saying that Saddam Hussein is anything other than an evil person who`s done a horrific set of things to his own people and his thumbed nose at the world community. The question, to me, starts with report of our intelligence agencies, which said that Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous when his regime is about to be toppled. And what is he likely to? He`s likely to strike out against his neighbors such as Turkey and Israel. He`s likely to strike out against our troops, and using international terrorists who are embedded in the United States trying to kill Americans here at home. In my judgment, we need to try to set the table before we start the war in Iraq by taking out as many of those international terrorists as possible so their ability to kill us will be reduced.”
From St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 20, 2002: excerpting from his Senate Floor Statement:
“But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism.
“Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today’s Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era’s Italy, and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?”
I also find it a bit odd that since the position of he and many Dems is that were no ties between Saddam’s regime and terrorists organizations, then why would he fear that once attacked Saddam would be “likely to strike out against our troops, and using international terrorists who are embedded in the United States trying to kill Americans here at home.” Weird, it seems to me that Mr Graham should have known better at the time. Oh well.
I guess they think it looks better and they look “tougher” and much more credible on national security if they present themselves as poor, unwilling, gullible dupes of a president which the majority of their base considers to be a moronic idiot.
Gratefulcub
Bullshit. You don’t have to defend a group of democrats that put their political careers ahead of what they thought was right. There are plenty of Democrats that didn’t do their jobs. You shouldn’t cover for them just because the WH was more wrong.
Kimmitt
I actually agree with those trashing the Democrats here; any Dem stupid enough not to gather that the Administration was lying to them deserves to be tossed out on his or her ear.
Bush is and always has been a lying sack. There was no reason to believe that the Presidency changed him. Any Dem who voted for that resolution was either utterly craven or utterly stupid.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I also find it a bit odd that since the position of he and many Dems is that were no ties between Saddam’s regime and terrorists organizations,
You’re misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. It is not that Saddam didn’t have ties to terrorist organizations, it is that he didn’t have an ties to Al Qaeda, or and other anti-American terrorist organization. Saddam supported palestinian terrorist groups and that’s about it.
The Disenfranchised Voter
meant to block quote that, oh well.
Mac Buckets
No, the sides here are:
Left — Bush mislead.
Right — Bullshit, you’re just saying that for political purposes, to backpedal from your votes. Bush just said what you guys had been saying for six years. Stop trying to pretend you weren’t convinced since 1997 that Saddam had WMD, you pathetic, history-rewriting lying bastards.
Or something.
ppGaz
Moronic idiot would be an improvement. This is a president who attempts to smash dissent with flag waving and troop pep rallies … who treats war as if it were a fraternity hazing ceremony. We can clap for the troops but we can’t see pictures of their caskets later. We can vote in 2002 but we can’t come back and question that vote three years later. That’s “dishonest” according to the administration.
Fuck these guys. Fuck them very, very much, and the horses they rode in on.
Like I said, the people are no longer amused. This party is over.
tzs
Jaime has a very good point. How many people are going to feel that they placed trust in an Administration that either lied to them or slanted the information provided, all the while saying “trust us!”?
What it seems to me is several of the commentators here are haranguing the Democrats for not doing sufficient Due Diligence and then complaining about the results.
Guess what–Due Diligence is what you do in order to investigate if someone is trustworthy and everything lines up. If you automatically assume someone is trustworthy, you give them a pass.
So if you are saying Due Diligence should have been the appropriate form of interaction between the Congress and the Executive Branch, doesn’t that say something about the trustworthiness of the Executive Branch? That they are not to be automatically trusted when it comes to statements about data on which wars and other executive decisions are based, etc.? And therefore, in the future, Congress has the right, nay, even the DUTY to double-check all this data?
Whoo boy, pass the popcorn. This is gonna be fun….
John S.
Mac trots out his “The Democrats approved of waging war on Iraq b/c of the Iraq Liberation Act” meme again.
Good luck with that.
Theseus
That would be a fair viewpoint to take expect then why would Mr Graham fear that these terrorists would strike Americans in the US? Why would non anti-American terrorist organizations go after Americans?
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m reposting this because the first one wasn’t clear.
You’re misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. It is not that Saddam didn’t have any ties to terrorist organizations, it is that he didn’t have any ties to Al Qaeda, or other anti-American terrorist organizations.
Saddam supported palestinian terrorist groups and that’s about it.
Pb
To examine just one point… here’s something the Democrats didn’t say:
U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts — 9/08/02, New York Times, By Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller
US Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question — 1/24/2003, Washington Post
How Chalabi and the White House held the front page – The New York Times has burned its reputation on a pyre of lies about Iraq — The Guardian, 5/29/2004
Mac Buckets
Entire Democratic Party, 1997: Clinton should attack Saddam because of his WMDs!
Entire Democratic Party, 1998: Oust Saddam, because he is a threat with WMDs!
Entire Democratic Party 1999: Clinton is right to bomb Iraq, because Saddam is a threat with WMD!
Entire Democratic Party 2000-2002: Saddam is a threat because he still has WMD!
Entire Democratic Party, 2003-2005: What? Bush says Saddam had WMD? He’s a liar! I never thought that until Bush Jedi-mind-tricked me! I was misleeeeeeeed!
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well, I can’t speak for Mr. Graham. And I’ll have to see evidence that he actually said that. But I do know that many against the war (not just the left) have constantly said that Saddam didn’t have ties to any anti-American terrorist groups.
ppGaz
Please alert me before you are in charge of anything that ever affects my life or safety.
Due diligence is what you do EVERY TIME lives and safety are at stake. You never “get a pass” in that circumstance, no matter who you are.
ppGaz
Wasting your time, pal.
When the president and party in power … total, complete power … grows balls and stands up and says, “We were wrong about the intelligence”, then and only then will I listen to any such shit from you or anybody else.
No offense, but you are still standing up for a man who MADE JOKES about not finding WMDs after we went in there.
Think about that. And then shut up.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Ok Mac:
Bush Administration pre 9/11:
“[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
“We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Bush Administration post 9/11:
Saddam is the greatest threat to the US.
John S.
Ah, a TRUE Revisionist Historian in action.
The Disenfranchised Voter
well hell, i sure am all messed up today, those names are suppose to be in bold, not blocks.
Pb
Because, you know, there were so many skeptical Republicans out there calling for more Congressional oversight… Please.
Incidentally, I’d like to thank well-known “RINO” Sen. Lincoln Chafee for being the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War Resolution.
ppGaz
He’s far worse than just a liar. He’s a man who MADE JOKES about not finding WMDs after we went into Iraq.
Jokes.
jaime
I was one of those who felt duped which is why I brought that up. I fully supported the invasion, that is until Colin Powell’s underwhelming speech. But I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. Everytime he spoke I waited for a mea culpa or some straight Texan talk, but all I got was a moving goalpost and bumper sticker slogans. That’s how many Americans feel. At least Clinton finally said, when there was nowhere left to weasel ‘mistakes were made’ Bush will never do that because of his sycophantic base.
RSA
tzs raises a good point. It’s possible to judge whether the Bush administration attempted to mislead people entirely independently of what Democrats (or indeed anyone outside the administration) did. Did they cherry pick the intelligence? Apparently so. Did they push unlikely assertions long past their expiration date? Definitely so. When did they start to focus on Iraq? Around 9/12/01 or so.
Think of it in the way that Harry Frankfurt describes bullshit in On Bullshit. The key issue is whether someone who’s telling you something thinks that the truth is in any way relevant to what they’re saying, or whether they’re just interested in convincing you of something. The Bushies clearly fall into the latter camp.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I, like jaime, supported the war at first too. I honestly feel that I was lied to. I don’t have partisan motives. I’m not a Democrat.
But I am pissed off.
ppGaz
You are giving him way too much credit. I don’t think he is man enough to do it, first of all. Second, I don’t think his handlers have enough respect for the people to tell him to do it, and without the backing of his office wives and Karl Rove, he’d never do it. He is not even man enough to stand up to his own staff.
He’s a man who made jokes about not finding WMDs.
He is not a stand-up guy.
Pb
“I was wrong” — Dick Gephardt
“History will judge” — George W. Bush
“You were wrong” — History
Mac Buckets
Drop your monocle into your champagne glass if you want (Well, I never!), ppg, but you should have gotten the idea by now that you’re about the only one who gets outraged at a one-line joke at the Press Corp dinner, where it is customary to tell jokes.
ppGaz
Well, we’ll see. First of all, it wasn’t a one-line joke … it was a comedy video, where the asshole goes around looking under sofa cushions for WMDs.
Second of all, it was a disgrace, a shocking insult to the troops, to the Iraqis, to every American. Whether you see it or not, that’s what it was.
And I will hang it firmly around your neck until that disgusting little pipsqueak of a man stands up and takes responsbility for being wrong.
jaime
Remember that joke O’Reilly told about wanting Al Qaeda to blow up San Francisco. That was a hoot.
cd6
There’s a difference about joking about baseball or the weather and joking about the nonexistant WMDs you sent your soldiers to die for
The Disenfranchised Voter
Actually I was pretty outraged when I saw it. I can’t say I was surprised though, as this was after I had already come to the conclusion that we were lied into the war.
The fact that the fucker joked about it just further solidified my belief that we were lied too.
I’ve just come to the realization that people who support Bush don’t give a shit if he joked about WMD’s. I think in their minds, any war we goto is justified.
cd6
wait I take it back
It turns out that in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1997, democrats voted in favor of tasteless jokes
my bad, ya’ll
jaime
Unless it’s about Hurricane Katrina or trading Sammy Sosa.
jaime
Thank God Clinton invaded Iraq, right? Am I right?
chefrad
James Bamford has a great piece in MJ about the PR side of the Intel.
Pb
Not quite.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Funny you meantion that Pb. Right after I posted I thought…hmm maybe I should have stipulated any war we goto under a Republican is justified.
Heh.
Mike S
Things I recall from the run-up to the war. Some of these things may come from faulty memory while others are crystal clear.
Andy Card showing that they were politicising the war with his comment that you “don’t roll out a new product…” We debated a war during the most political environment that we can have, election time, so that it could be used as a club.
Administration officials telling congress that they had info that was classified that would make a no vote political suicide.
Hans Blix, while in Iraq, stating that he had checked every place that our administration had told him to, yet coming up dry. Thn asking for more time and not getting much if any.
Scott Ritter saying there was no threat and then seeing Drudge run a story that Ritter was a child molester.
France asking for more inspection time, 30 days IIRC, and saying they would sign the res afterward.
Alluminium tubes being discredited and used anyway.
The words Saddam, Iraq and 9/11 in constant close proximity and the resulting belief by the majority of Americans that Iraq had something to do with it.
I stayed as informed as I could and saw through most of what the administration was saying. I do not hold Democrats unaccountable for not being as informed as I was, although I do note that 22 Dem Senators voted no while only 1 Rep did.
Every effort was made by this administration and the war backers to make this a highly political vote. Now that this has been shown to be a screw up of biblical proportions they are trying to weasle their way out of it. Just as some Democrats are doing as well.
But one thing is for sure. One side pushed this as hard as they possibly could. History has shown that even though there were very dissenting views, they were discarded and hidden. Anyone who compares the classified and unclassified NIE’s can see that, unless of course they are dishonest.
Clever
To be truly democratic, lets have a vote…who thought it was funny when the Pres. made his WMD joke reel?
I vote doubleplus unfunny.
chefrad
TallDave Says:
“The intelligence community was simply wrong. ”
General Odom and Bobby Inman, former heads of the NSA beg to differ. Michael Scheuer, former head of the OBL unit of the CIA begs to differ. The whole INR begs to differ. Parts of the DIA differ.
Perhaps TallDave will favor us with a rationale for the existence of the OSP— other than to fix, cherry-pick and stovepipe intel.
Meanwhile, the Rendon boys were planting the OSP/INC crap in overseas publications. The WHIG was laundering it through Judith Miller.
Those elements in the Intel community that wouldn’t play ball were marginalized.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Not even remotely funny.
Theseus
He said it a couple of times in a number of statements when he was trying to explain his reasoning for voting “no” against the war.
As for ties between Saddam and anti-American terrorist organizations, there have been a number of reporters, authors etc over the years who have tried to figure this out. I lean heavily towards the “yes” camp and further I believe that if Saddam were still in power today, those ties would be getting progressivily stronger and deeper.
I realize there is an enormous amount of disagreement and debate here, but look for me it’s common sense. Both Saddam and anti-American terrorist organizations loath(ed) the US and want(ed) nothing better than to kick the US out of the entire ME. Yes, one actor was (ostensibly) secular, though in later years, that was changing as Saddam’s regime acquired more and more Islamic overtones. BUT their similarities and their shared interests far outweighed, in my mind at least, their more antagonistic relationship. Look, in order to defeat Hitler, the US allied itself with Stalin, a monster of equal or even greater evil and throughout history, heck throuthout human relationships in general, people are forced into alliances of convenience in order to accomplish certain goals. Why is it such a stretch to believe that Al Queda and Saddam were not allies of some sort? Just as it is more than likely today that Iran (especially under the current leadership) and Al Quada are allies as well, despite some of their real ideological differences. If the president is/was wrong on this particular topic (and I’m not saying he is/was), it wasn’t intentional or malicious but rather a judgemental error based on the fear and possible repercussions of allowing such alliances to exist. Personally, I’d rather he erred on the side of caution.
Pb
It wasn’t funny… it was sick. Did Bush have a lobotomy at some point? It would actually explain a lot here.
Also, I can’t believe I missed this:
No! Democrats were *way* smarter than the White House!
Pb
… and that’s why Iran, Iraq, and many other countries in the Middle East have historically gotten along so well with each other …
ATS
“Did Democrats Have The Same Intelligence As The White House?”
Is this a trick question? From what I have seen, a nematode flatworm has roughly the same collective intelligence as this White House.
Tim F.
Common sense runs the other way. Al Qaeda’s long-term objectives depend on overthrowing the secular governments that keep the Arab world divided and relatively un-theocratic. That puts overthrowing Saddam (and Jordan and Syria) as #2 on their to-do list after expelling the US from Arabia. That’s not exactly solid grounds for a chummy relationship.
Lines
Dramatically Unfunny, in a way that made me believe he wouldn’t last out the week. Imagine my amazement when the entire media defended his “search for WMD’s”.
Mike S
Oh my. Here is a great example of congressional over-sight that Davey talks about up thread.
chefrad
“Personally, I’d rather he erred on the side of caution.”
At $400b a pop, this kind of erring could get expensive.
Jorge
Near as I can tell, the Democrats have been pretty thoroughly punished over the past 3 elections. And they were punished for Iraq and security especially in 2004. But now the American people are realizing that they’ve been voting the Democrats out of power since 2000 and things haven’t gotten any better. And in Iraq and in many domestic issues, thing have gotten much worse.
The tell tale sign is how many Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. In both domestic and foreign policy issues. And the current policies that we are pursuing, including the Iraq war, have been Republican machinations. Now, you can say the Democrats didn’t fight enough or went along too easily. But the American people also know that even if the Democrats were complicit the policies and decisions were still the brainchild of Bush, Delay, Frist and company. And you can say that the Democrats are being unfair and hypocritical in their attacks. But considering the current climate and the war that the Bushies have been waging against the Dems, those claims ring hollow. You can’t swift boat people and then turn around and complain when you get blind sided or cheap shot.
The Republicans are making the mistake of treating this as a fight between them and the Democrats. The Democrats have already gotten their heads kicked-in. The Republicans problem is the American people’s perception of the Republican policies and decisions. 2004 was the last year for the “You have a choice to make and even if we stink the Democrats are much worse.” The Reps had a good run with line of reasoning but that dog won’t hunt no more.
tzs
Sorry, I wasn’t quite clear as to what I meant above. “Due Diligence” and the necessity for having such usually only starts getting implemented in any field after there is a FUBAR showing WHY due diligence is necessary. Examples: founding of the FDA, due diligence for hedge funds after several splendid screw-ups, Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron, etc., etc., and so forth.
What I’m trying to get at is Congress lying down on the job because they trusted the info they were getting from the Executive Branch and the comments that were being made. A lot of them probably thought the Prez et al were overstating things, but it was too much of a hassle to kick back and hold the line (especially with the media lending a helpful hand to those holding the political axes.) And I think they didn’t think the Executive branch estimates would be as totally off-the-mark as they turned out to be, i.e., untrustworthy.
ppGaz
You are giving them too much credit. It’s all about their team. If their team starts a war, then the war is not only okay, but it’s unpatriotic to oppose it.
What Bush the unfunny joker is about is simply arrogance. The arrogant shit thought he could make jokes about it and get away with it.
chefrad
“Personally, I’d rather he erred on the side of caution.”
If a rushed, go-it-alone, pre-emptive invasion is erring on the side of CAUTION, I’d sure be loath to experience your idea of erring on the side of audacity!
This was not a case of erring on the side of caution. This was a case of throwing caution to the winds.
Theseus
Fair enough. I certainly don’t disagree with your view on Al Qaeda’s long term objectives. The question becomes how do you go about achieving those long term objectives, especially in the short to medium term. Logically, you have to accomplish objective #1 first and if that means expelling the Zionist/Crusading infidel US, then you use every method you could think of in order to accomplish that goal. And since Al Qaeda is an ends justify the means kinda organization sanctioned and blessed by Allah himself in order to achieve the realization of the worldwide Caliphate, if that means temporary alliances with whomever will help them, then so be it. One step at a time. It seems to me that Iraq itself has justified that view as Al Qaeda in Iraq, with Al Qaeda’s blessing, has temporarily allied itself with the Baathist remnants of Saddam’s regime (and vice versa) in order to throw out the Satanic US crusaders.
ppGaz
Your tax dollars at work.
Caroline
If you really want to blow this argument out of the water read this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDLgOBgqARvw&refer=top_world_news
The Iraqi’s now want us to give them a timetable for exiting Iraq.
Mac Buckets
Because you say so, right, Ppg? Spare me the tempest in a teapot.
Like I say, the ones who got outraged over it were in the tiny, tiny, tiny minority, a minority who would hate Bush if he cured cancer and AIDS on the same day.
Hang it around whoever’s neck you want — it weighs but a fraction of an ounce. Oh, yeah, Bush barely garnered the most votes in American history with that terrible millstone around his neck. The GOP barely widened its margins in both the House and Senate after that joke. Face it, Ppg, no one cared then, no one cares now, no one will care in the future about your silly obsession with a joke (which got a big laugh).
Mac Buckets
And he was right…again.
Mac Buckets
I love how lefties pretend that soldiers are “sent to die.” What drama queens!
Tim F.
That works one way: if you’re al Qaeda then you’d be thrilled if Saddam gave you WMDs. Now look at it from the other perspective – if you were Saddam, would you give it to them?
space
I’d like to try to clear up a little confusion here.
First off, it is not the role of the Congress to gather and analyze intelligence. It is the role of Congress to decide, based upon the intelligence produced by the Executive Branch, whether or not to declare war (or “authorize the use of force”).
Congress can broadly declare, as it did: “If Iraq is developing WMD, force should be used to disarm it”. But was Iraq developing WMD? Answering that narrow question is the province of the President.
And even if some members of Congress were suspicious of Bush and skeptical of the administration’s claims, which they all should have been, it would have been political suicide to accuse the President of lying to the public without any evidence. And it would have been inpossible for Congress to disprove the statements of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell. They have no independent investigative power. They have no independent intelligence agencies. That isn’t their job.
Second, Congress’ vote marked the BEGINNING of the investigative process, not the end. Congress didn’t vote to go to war with Iraq. Congress voted to FIND OUT whether Iraq was in breach, and to authorize force IF Iraq refused to comply. The threshold of proof necessary to go to war is much higher than the threshold necessary to demand Iraq allow inspectors back in. In the latter case, all that is demanded is evidence that indicates that Iraq MIGHT be violating UN agreeements. But to actually invade requires a substantial certainty that Iraq is not complying and poses a strategic threat.
Third, although the Republicans are whining like babies about these accusations, they are actually getting off lightly because the burden of proof has been placed on the Democrats to prove that “Bush lied”. In reality the burden should be on the Bush administration to prove that they had a fucking clue.
But the irony is that many Democrats have only latched on to the “Bush lied” accusation because they give the administration too much credit to consider the alternative: that the WH believed all the shoddy intel they were obtaining. It is truly hard to believe that ANYONE could be so fucking stupid as to believe that Ahmed Chalabi wasn’t lying his ass off. Telling me that the entire WH is filled with gullible rubes is hardly more comforting than the claim that they are cynically manipulative.
If I was in the Senate in 2002, I too would have voted to authorize force, if necessary. But I never saw enough evidenec to invade. And in the past 3 years, the Bush administration has yet to produce such evidence.
What people have conveniently forgotten is how, back in 2002, EVERYBODY was saying “but, they [the WH] know more than we know”. Most Americans didn’t think the case had been made based on the infromation that was publicly available. They simply assumed that there was classified information that Bush was relying on that was more damning.
Well, its time to put up or shut up. What did they know? Was it really just a bunch of tortured (literally) confessions and obvious INC forgeries? Of tall tales told by bribed Iraqi ex-pats? Of pictures of “dual-use” facilities? Or was there anything that an objective analyst would have thought was conclusive?
Mike S
I love the way you righties use them as cannon fodder. What assholes!
slickdpdx
Motive?
Dodd
Tim’s post mischaracterizes Graham’s account, which itself varies from what he himself said in 2002. Graham states (now) that Tenet’s 25-page summary (not the NIE, as stated in the post) leaves out the dissents and hedging that were in the classified NIE that he himself had seen.
The NIE was 92 pages long and we already know only a handful of Senators bothered to read it. And, of course, even if the unclassified version they were offered differed from the classified version, they certainly had the option of asking Graham (then the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee) for more information. Considering the life-and-death nature of the vote, it doesn’t seem too much to ask that they make every effort to inform themselves. Their argument that they were misinformed would certainly carry more weight if they had.
Since Graham voted ‘Nay’ on the Use of Force, one might think they’d have been inclined to talk to him about it, if only to find out the general character of the information he had that they might not have. But it’s highly unlikely that any report from him would have persuaded them that the intelligence was weak. His floor statement explaining his ‘Nay’ vote said that he was doing so because the resolution was too timid. And he was all over the media talking up how dangerous Saddam was and that his primary concern was that “once Saddam Hussein’s back is against the wall, he’s about to lose power, that’s when he becomes the most dangerous, including dangerous in terms of using his weapons of mass destruction in conjunction with international terrorist groups to try to kill Americans inside the United States.” (Lou Dobbs 11-19-02)
Then there’s the fact that the Robb-Silverman Commission found that the PDBs – you remember those: they constitute the actual/i> intel the President had that was not shared with Congress – were more alarming than the NIE on Saddam’s WMDs. So the facts show that, far from lying by not providing everything he knew, Bush actually underplayed the threat as it was reported to him in the evidence given to Congress. In short, once we know the facts, this is an utterly typical Democrat attack: It proves the opposite of what they claim.
What really ought to be keeping you up nights is trying to figure out which of the Democrats (like, say, John Kerry) who voted one way and are now claiming they only did so because Bush tricked them only voted ‘Aye’ then and say they wished they hadn’t now for politically expedient reasons – and which truly are “dumber than Bush” (which is what they ‘Bush tricked me’ argument really boils down to).
John S.
Mac does his best impression of an enabler.
Mac does his best impression of the Amazing Kreskin.
ppGaz
No, because it is what it is. But by all means, keep talking about it. It really works to put a shine on your argument:
You are standing up for a guy who made jokes about not being able to find WMDs in Iraq.
ppGaz
That would be putting it rather mildly in view of this:
ppGaz
We’ll see. Keep saying things like that.
You are standing up for a guy who made jokes about not being able to find WMDs in Iraq.
ppGaz
Oops.
ppGaz
Sorry, I meant Bubps.
Steve S
I have seen no evidence of that, and I would question if you aren’t pushing your preconceived notions to try to understand motivation, as…
It’s only common sense, if in fact your preconceived notions are true.
But I think it’s been pretty clear for a long time now, especially with the failure to find WMDs, that the Western analysis of Hussein’s motivations is wrong. A frequent problem when you don’t fully understand differences of societal norms of behavior.
What we are finding instead, is not some grand conspiracy, but rather a situation Hussein got himself into where he needed to appear strong to those in the ME who were against him, and a victim to those in the ME who sympathized with him. He was running a PR campaign, playing sides against one another.
The point being. As we’ve gone along, the facts have changed.
Mac Buckets
We’ll see? No, we’ve already seen! There was an election, remember, and the Correspondent’s dinner joke wasn’t one of the top 500 issues of the campaign, which Bush won with a record munber of votes.
We’ll see? What, are people not going to vote for Bush in 2008? Oh, he’ll just be devastated.
Sure, whatever. Any joke that gets laughs is a good joke.
Mac Buckets
Was this clipped from a DU post, or a dKos diary? I can’t decide.
By the way, telling a joke is an insult to the troops, but directly insulting and discrediting a serving Marine is not?
Funny set of partisan principles you’ve got there.
Pb
Yeah Mac Buckets, it’s a real knee-slapper, an f’n riot. Hey, did I ever tell you about the time American taxpayers spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to get rid of Iraq’s supposed WMDs? Turns out *they weren’t even there*! Ahahahahah! Hey, where could they be? They don’t seem to be in my office. How about under this table…
COMEDY GOLD!
Lines
so its a good joke when women point at you and laugh, Mac? They’ll be glad to hear that.
Mac Buckets
And yes, Schmidt is still an idiot.
Theseus
Dude, you’re talking about Saddam, the master of miscalculation! Trying to understand the mind and thought processes of a sadistic psychotic dictator would be quite a feat. Based on his own past history, do you hope for the best and do nothing, or what exactly? Do you take that chance?
To be as honest as possible, I can’t really answer that question definitevely as I do not know what Saddam would or would not have done. It depends on so many things. Would he have thought that it would be traced back to him? Would he have realistically anticipated what the US’s reaction would be if one of their cities got nuked or contaminated by a bird-flu like biological WMD? Would he have been able to get away with it? Would the damage to the US be so great that they would be unable or unwilling to respond? Would the terrorists even use it on the US itself? Would they use it within a couple of months or maybe years down the road? I dunno, but I’m extremely glad we will never have to find out and that’s as honest an answer as I can give you.
jaime
He also barely garnered the most votes against a single person in American history. How terribly convenient to not include that nugget in your assertion of some sort of mandate. Some might call that misleading.
Mac Buckets
Got a big laugh from the press and pols — you just can’t argue with that!
Mac Buckets
Why would you assert that I was asserting that?
Anderson
If I’d lost my boy in Iraq, and then seen that skit, I would’ve been on my way to Washington D.C. with a high-powered rifle.
What a callous, evil son of a bitch the President is.
Tim F.
Theseus,
The question wasn’t what al Qaeda would do to the US. The question was what al Qaeda would do to Iraq. Would you give whichever WMDs you might have to somebody whose mission statement included your own destruction?
Anderson
Which reminds me: people sign up for the armed forces to defend this country.
They do not sign up so that they can get killed “spreading democracy” to countries whose people didn’t care very much about risking their own lives for democracy.
Although I’m in favor of interventions like Kosovo & Rwanda (shoulda gone there), I think they should be 100% volunteer. We should probably have a volunteer peacekeeping division of the Army where people willing to risk their lives for such things can sign up.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
But were they laughing with him, or laughing at him….
jack
Democrats, lefties, moonbats, and other assorted adherents of failed ideologies and/or wearers of tin-foil hats,
I don’t think you’re understanding.
You’ve tried this route over and over. You’re not ‘speaking truth to power’, you’re screaming in an echo chamber. There’s no one left who you’re going to convince. You’ve managed to get everyone that you can, and, like in the election, it just isn’t enough.
No one really cares. Oh, we’ll go on about it, we’ll debate and rail and scream at you–until something interesting comes along or until you guys start going into your periodic clam-up routine.
But you’re not advancing anything. You’re not making strides forward against the evil Bush junta. For the most part, you’re talking to yourselves–hey! That might be why you think you’ve got so much support in this.
And that’s why I keep asking you why you do this.
Here’s a thought, why not stop looking into the past and try to come up with a better way to do things? And then, once you’ve actually got one, why not tell the voting public about it? Try to make it a real one and not one of those ‘plans’ that’ll get you all aggravated over how the stupid the American voter is because he/she doesn’t want the same people who brought us the DMV in charge of our healthcare system.
jaime
Jack…
Huh?
Kimmitt
The “looking for WMDs” video was not only painfully unfunny, but it made me concerned for the mental health of those involved.
Clever
I concur, however, it would depend on the definition of peacekeeping. Who gets to decide that? With the current batch of halfwits and their idea of what National Guard means it wouldnt take long before the peacekeepers would be ordered to “spread peace” with the barrel of a gun.
It is a good dream tho.
Lines
Poor Jack, he’s just a bit slow, isn’t he?
America is rapidly polling infavor of Democrats, they don’t trust a thing this Administration claims, and they don’t like the direction the country is going.
Yet Jack thinks this is all about the DMV running a healthcare system. Thats just pathetic.
Jack, m’boy, its all about NOT being able to accomplish goals, like killing social security, killing off Medicaid, outlawing gay marriage (and gays afterwards), reforming education and all the other ideals. If Bush claimed that Syria has nuclear missiles aimed at US soil, do you think anyone would believe him or back him? If Bush attempts to demonize Iran some more, do you think even the Republican lead House or Senate will back him?
But hey, you won in 2004, right? Where’s that ManDate?
ppGaz
That’s right. Joking about not being able to find WMDs in front of a room full of drunks is great politics.
Expecially if you are a family that just got notified that your brother or son got killed in Iraq.
“Honey, did you hear the the president was joking about not being able to find WMDs?”
Keep talking about it, Mac. That’s what I was going for.
ppGaz
Twenty nine percent think that Dick Cheney is honest and ethical. A majority believe that Bush misled the country to get his war in Iraq.
You’re right, there aren’t many left to convince. But keep talking, I think you can still win over a few stragglers.
searp
Wrong is wrong. Personally, I don’t care whether Bush had the vapors or was given bad information. He had options other than war at the time, he chose war.
He made a colossal mistake, that is good enough for me, and evidently for him, since he doesn’t bother denying it.
The Congress does not have responsibility for this, they authorized the use of force. Bush determined to use it, the amount of it, and the timing of it all by his lonesome.
Mike S
Jack must be DougJ. Although even DougJ’s parodies typically show more signs of intelligence than that.
croatoan
You forgot about the Iraq Liberation act that authorized the “use of force.”
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 explicitly forbids the use of US military forces:
Mac Buckets
I’ll talk about your little obsession whenever you want, if only to help you through your hysteria.
Davebo
Just like every president of the past 30 years has.
Mac Buckets
Some journo said on a Sunday show that Bush was running at 37% favorable, and Democrats were running at 36% favorable. The top two GOP 2008 presidential hopefuls are rolling Hillary and Kerry in polls. Rapidly polling in favor of Democrats?
ppGaz
See, that’s good. You are stupid enough to think it’s somehow about me.
But it’s about that disgusting little piece of dirt you call a president. That’s what it’s about.
So let’s keep talking about it:
You are standing up for a president that made jokes about not being able to find WMDs in Iraq. After a lot of people had been killed over the WMDs that weren’t there.
Made jokes about it.
Back to you. Want to go another round?
Gratefulcub
About to poll in favor of democrats, if only because a few more GOPers will be facing indictment than Dems.
Theseus
My bad.
That’s a very good question.
The logical, rational answer it seems to me would be NO, of course not. But even a logical, rational person would have to make some of the following calculations on a cost-to-benefit ratio: How much of a threat are these guys to me REALLY? How serious or how feasible are their long term objectives? Are they a bunch of lunatic fanatics that I can use for the foreseable future in order to eliminate a much bigger threat to my immediate existence? If I give them the WMDs, how much control will I have in how they plan to use them? Will they be able to use them against me or have I taken the necessary precautions against such a possibility? Once the bigger, more immediate threat is removed or neutralized, will I have the power and capabilites to wipe these loons out or forcibly “convince” them that it would be in their best interests to leave me be and/or go along with my own plans…etc, etc.
It depends on how a Saddam perceives their level of immediate and long term threat and vice versa. It needs to be stressed that Saddam was in charge of an entire country and had enormous resources and power at his disposal for decades. How does a man in such a position view members of Al Qaeda? If the purpose of Al Qaeda is to overthrow ALL the governments in the Middle East, including the House of Saud, which it views as decadent apostates, then why does Saudia Arabia continue to fund, propagate adhere to the very ideology (Salafist/Wahhabist Islam) that serves as Al Qaeda’s core principles and foundations? The disease that allows it to spread it’s cancer…for the same reasons that a Saddam would most likely hand over WMDs if the opportunity had arisen: it serves(d) their own national security purposes and self-interests.
Anderson
Well, in my dream of a reasonable world, the regular armed forces would be reserved for use only upon a Congressional declaration of war.
I would then require a Congressional vote and Presidential approval of any peacekeeping action, each such authorization to expire unless re-approved every 6 months.
That still doesn’t guard against situations like the present Republican trifecta, but I would think that Congress might learn just a little something from Iraq about oversight.
Another avenue would be to reserve the “Peace Corps” (puttin’ the “corps” back in, etc.) for UN-coordinated operations. No unilateral fits of insanity.
I’d also have the members of said corps enlist for renewable 6-mo. terms, so that they could vote with their feet if they thought a given operation was b.s.
Tune in tomorrow as Anderson balances the budget! Wednesday: fixing judicial activism! Thursday: ponies for everyone!
Davebo
Really? Which journo? Which polls? Seems odd you’d remember the exact numbers but nothing else.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Way to make a false comparison.
ppGaz
Now, on CNN:
After a lengthy discussion in which Rumsfeld described the intelligence as “less than perfect” ….
You cannot make this stuff up.
Mac Buckets
So can anyone still argue with a straight face that the Democrats were “misled” by Bush into saying the same things they’d been saying for six years? How dumb do they think
weyou are?Gephardt did his due diligence, went to the CIA, went to the Clintonistas, didn’t let anyone mislead him, and came to the informed conclusion that Saddam was a “unique and dangerous threat” with WMD.
Instead of saying they were misled, why don’t the Democrats just say they weren’t bothered to read the NIE, or do their research like Gephardt did (research which led him to the same sonclusion that Bush and Clinton reached)? Instead, when Clinton and Bush told them Saddam had WMD, they said “whatever,” because it didn’t effect their next election back then, which is all that mattered to them. Now that they think their war votes may negatively affect their elections, they are trying to weasel out of them by claiming they are “dumber than Bush.”
Gratefulcub
Theseus,
Yes, it is possible that SH would have worked with terrorists to attack the US. But, was that THE threat to the US? Was that scenario more likely than Iran working with terrorists? Syria? Was Iraq more dangerous to the US than non state actors like Osama bin Laden? Was SH’s possible intention to work with terrorists so urgent of a problem that we were forced into war, instead of continued containment and increased vigilence in monitoring and inspections. It isn’t a debate of one or the other, either he was no threat, or the world’s biggest threat.
Jon H
Theseus writes: “Logically, you have to accomplish objective #1 first and if that means expelling the Zionist/Crusading infidel US, then you use every method you could think of in order to accomplish that goal. And since Al Qaeda is an ends justify the means kinda organization sanctioned and blessed by Allah himself in order to achieve the realization of the worldwide Caliphate, if that means temporary alliances with whomever will help them, then so be it.”
Except that Al Qaeda would be far better off toppling Saddam first of all.
Bagdhad was the capitol of the Caliphate, so taking it would have enormous symbolic power.
Further, Iraq would be a far better base of operations than Afghanistan, or the wilds of NWFP, Pakistan. And far more convenient for launching attacks against Europe, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East.
So the upshot is that Al Qaeda would have everything to gain by making a temporary alliance with Saddam only to immediately turn on him and take him down using the weapons he supplied, only then turning their attention back to the US.
Tim F.
Protection money.
Pb
So can anyone still argue with a straight face that (a) Dick Gephardt represents all Democrats, and (b) Bush was only saying the same things that Democrats had “been saying for six years”?
Apparently Mac Buckets can. Hint: the rest of us aren’t that dumb.
ppGaz
You don’t get this, do you, Mac? This is about accountability.
The Republicans run the country. The people don’t like the way it is being run. At what point do your lying cocksuckers start to take responsibility for these things?
They don’t want to hear arguments about the history of intelligence, and what Clinton did. They want to see the current President of the United States grow a pair and stand up and take some responsibility.
When do you think that will happen, Mac?
rilkefan
On the poor-polling-Dems myth.
Gratefulcub
He too was wrong. And he finished just ahead of Kucinich and Mosely Braun in the Dem primary.
I agree with you though. The democrats that wrapped themselves in GWBush’s flag, talked the same talk, and didn’t do their jobs get no more love from me than the admin, probably less.
And to me, it isn’t about WMD. My opinion wouldn’t change if we had found a stockpile. Even with a batch of antrhax, I still don’t think he was THE threat of our day. He was containable, and I believe Congress knew that. They just didn’t want to get runover by the political patriotism truck they saw bearing down on them.
rilkefan
I’m afraid I’m confused about the NIE. Was the classified NIE available to the entire Senate? House? And when? And did the Democrats request more time to review the evidence?
A simple explanation or a link to same would be appreciated.
ppGaz
The WMD issue is just a marker, and indicator of how good the intelligence was, and how Bush handled that intelligence. And it’s about accountability.
Even if Hussein had had a pyramid of WMDs, though, it would not have changed the truth about the threat he posed, which was: None. He was not about to start anything big with the US and spoil the money-machine racket he had going over there. He had neither the means nor the motive to employ any WMDs against us.
rilkefan
“I talked to George Tenet personally.”
Mr. Slam-Dunk himself?
ppGaz
How many times do I have to post this?
These idiots imposed unprecedented restrictions on Congress’ access to intelligence.
John S.
To this I say: Tough shit.
If you want my vote, you had better be prepared to take a political bullet – especially when it means getting out in front of something you believe in.
rilkefan
ppGaz, I’m in the “Bush lied” camp, allowing for metonymy – I just want to make sure I understand the full range of data supporting (or not) my view.
Theseus
Which serves what? Their immediate national security interests, or rather what they perceive as their immediate national security interests so that they can continue to remain in power. But that protection money fuels Salafist/Wahhabist Islam which serves as Al Qaeda’s ideological fuel. Logically, the continued funding, spreading and adherence to that ideology would seem suicidal since one of Al Qaeda’s objectives is the overthrow of the House of Saud…and YET they continue to do so. Which was my point.
An alliance between a Saddam and Al Qaeda or Iran and Al Qaeda would seem counter-intuitive, especially from a more rational and logical perspective. But even rational and logical arguments can be used to justify and explain said alliances. It all depends on how each actor views/perceives the other’s relative strengths and weaknesses compared to his own and how one can use the other to further his own ends. Like I said, happens all the time, whether it seems logical or not.
TallDave
If I have a report saying that the moon is made of green cheese and I remove the parts where experts cast some doubt on my intel before sharing it with you, then you and I don’t have access to the same information.
That would be a great analogy, if the White House prepared intelligence briefings for Congress, or controlled their access to raw intelligence data. Of course they don’t, so it’s a ridiculous analogy.
Sheesh. Separation of powers, people. Take a high school civics course.
If we all agree based on the same intelligence that the moon is made of green cheese, and you give speeches pronouncing that the moon is definitely made of green cheese, then when it turns out not to be made of green cheese you claim I misled you, you’re lying, and rather stupidly, since we can all find your previous statements.
Bob Graham, before the war:
On Lou Dobbs, 11-19-02:
“[M]y concern is that we also have good intelligence to the effect that once a war with Iraq starts, and once Saddam Hussein`s back is against the wall, he`s about to lose power, that`s when he becomes the most dangerous, including dangerous in terms of using his weapons of mass destruction in conjunction with international terrorist groups to try to kill Americans inside the United States.”
On Cavuto, 10-16-02:
“I’m not saying that Saddam Hussein is anything other than an evil person who`s done a horrific set of things to his own people and his thumbed nose at the world community. The question, to me, starts with report of our intelligence agencies, which said that Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous when his regime is about to be toppled. And what is he likely to? He`s likely to strike out against his neighbors such as Turkey and Israel. He`s likely to strike out against our troops, and using international terrorists who are embedded in the United States trying to kill Americans here at home.”
From St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 20, 2002: excerpting from his Senate Floor Statement:
“But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism.
“Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes.”
ppGaz
I know.
And you get bonus points for using all of your tiles and making the word “metonymy” for, I think, the second time this month.
ppGaz
CAN YOU FRIGGING READ?
TallDave
ppGaz,
That would be a great, relevant link… if the NIE was a law enforcement document.
TallDave
Or, if Iraq was a U.S. state subject to U.S. law enforcement, instead of, you know, another country.
Mike S
TellDave, Stupid or liar?
I report, you decide.
ppGaz
Apparently you can’t read.
“Classified” and “sensitive law enforcement” are two different descriptors. The restrictions apply to all intelligence. All.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don’t discuss classifications. I don’t make the decisions about what information gets classified.
Anderson
Why am I so confident that Tall Dave won’t admit he goofed on that one?
Mac Buckets
What amazing spin. The Democrats are lying about being “misled” because of… responsibility. Riiiiight.
It’s not about the next election at all, is it? It’s not that the polls have changed, so they want to change their pre-war position from “pro-war” to “misled,” is it?
The GOP takes responsibility for the liberation of Iraq — they aren’t blaming the Dems for the anything about the war, except trying to weasel out of their pre-war positions for political gain. The Democrats are trying to run from their responsibility as far as the vote to go to war.
TallDave
Mike S,
I’m sorry, where in that statment does it say Congress has no access to intel other than law enforcement, which has nothing to do with Iraq? Are you arguing they don’t “have an obligation to protect military operational security, intelligence sources and methods, and sensitive law enforcement investigations.” and that it was wrong for them to say that?
Also, apparently you and ppGaz failed to note your link specifically states the Minority Leaders and the Ranking Members of Congressional intel committees have access to everything. So unless you’re trying to prove my point, I don’t know why you keep posting it.
rilkefan
ppGaz, reused that word just to needle you. Normally I never repeat one within a month.
Theseus: tiger-by-the-tail.
John S.
He may just to prove you wrong.
It would be a pyrrhic victory, but…
TallDave
ppGaz,
LOL You’re going to quote a press conference as proof over what an executive order actually says? The memo is very specific. It says law enforcement, not Iraq war intel. And the press conference never contradicts that!
And again, it specifically says certain specific Democrat members of Congress can see the info.
Gratefulcub
Theseus,
The House of Saud, as an governing body, is not funneling money to al Queada. Some members are sympathetic to AQ, and they supply money. The government uses anti-US rhetoric and madrassa funding for self preservation. They have to feed the anger against the US in SA, to prevent the masses from turning on them. They are poor, watching the House of Saud drive stretch Benz’s.
ppGaz
TallDave? Goofed? He who thinks the American people are “too stupid” to vote right?
TallDave
pppGaz,
I don’t know why you keep claiming that. I didn’t say that, and your party is the one out of power.
ppGaz
Uh no, it says “classified” (that’s one thing) and “law enforcement” (another thing).
All the press breifing demonstrates is that pretty much all the fuss around the memo was over the “classified” part. Congress was quite exercised about it, since the restrictions were pretty radical as viewed at the time.
You’re just wrong about it, Dave. Give it up. The memo basically covered all intelligence that the White House wanted it to cover.
Was it clumsily worded? Heh, well, consider the source.
ppGaz
Yes, you did, those were your exact words. And I nailed you for it at the time, immediately. Why do you hate America, Dave?
TallDave
“Classified” and “sensitive” are adjectives modifying “law enforcement intelligence.”
Also, you keep ignoring the inconvenient fact the memo specifically says certain specific Democrat members of Congress can see the info.
Matt D
This is exactly the point. The polls are showing public dissafection with the War and a growing belief that the President misled the country into it, so Democratic politicians have decided that in order to capitalize, they will convince the country that they shouldn’t be accountable for voting in favor of the use of force against Iraq. Whether you argue that it was because the President didn’t share the intelligence or it was because the GOP created a hawkish atmosphere that made a congressman voting against the war appear weak on national security, you are still saying that Democrats are not accountable for their statements and votes in favor of military action.
TallDave
I never said that. Why would I? It’s your party the voters aren’t voting for. Seems to me they’re pretty smart.
rilkefan
TallDave, note “certain” in the context.
Still wondering about this.
Otto Man
Tall Dave, do you think that the intelligence over Iraq’s WMD capabilities and the military actions predicated on that intelligence are somehow not part of “our critical military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations”?
ppGaz
Well, when 29% say that Dick Cheney is ethical and honest, it’s hard to argue with you.
75% yesterday, on a Newsweek online poll, said that the United States should plan a near term withdrawal from Iraq.
Looks like the voters are getting smarter every day.
This hoedown is over, Davester. Give it up.
And the intelligence memo? It covered any and all intelligence that the potatoheads wanted it to cover. That’s why Congressmen were screaming about it.
Idiot.
Theseus
The House of Saud promotes the racist, supremacist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, anti-Christian form of Wahhabi/Salafi Islam not only within its own borders, but by using the billions of dollars in oil money to export their particularly nasty version of Islam ALL OVER THE WORLD, by building THEIR mosques and madrassas, by sending THEIR imams, by promoting THEIR materials. Countries that for decades, heck centuries have been practising very moderate, inclusive and somewhat tolerant forms of Islam are being almost completely radicalised (see South East Asia, Central Asia and now parts of Europe that contain substantial Muslim minorities, among just a few places). Please explain to me how this does not help Al Qaeda???
Anderson
Silly ppGaz! Quoting the Executive Branch’s spokesman for what the Executive Branch means! Wherever do you get these absurd notions? Personally, I suspect metonymy.
ppGaz
Whenever I hear potatoheads talking about “freedom on the march” I think about Bush with his arm around the Saudi prince.
Gives the phrase a whole new meaning.
Mike S
Davey is a classic example of the lying assholes that run his party. Continue to lie no matter how fucking stupid it looks and sounds.
Fortunately the reast of the country is catching on to what these pieces of shit are doing and are responding accordingly.
ppGaz
Me too. I think that the entire message of the potatoheads could be reduced to one word:
“Terroristbadscarysanctitycutandrun!”
TallDave
Otto Man,
Yes, but that doesn’t address the point of whether Dems had access to it.
riikefan,
“certain” where? Not sure what your point is.
My understanding is that a dozen or so people had full access to the classified NIE but only a couple bothered to read it. And why should they have? Everyone thought Saddam had WMD, even foreign intel services from countries opposed to the invasion.
TallDave
ppGaz,
Those were polls, not votes.
Tell me, which party won the elections in 2004? Gotta love those smart voters. :)
75% yesterday, on a Newsweek online poll, said that the United States should plan a near term withdrawal from Iraq.
I would have said yes to that too, because that’s what I’m hearing from the military: that Iraqis are ready to step up so our guys can go home.
You still haven’t addressed the fact the memo specifically says Democrats have access to the intel, which makes the other point that you’re also wrong about moot.
rilkefan
TallDave, the “certain” point being that the admin is claiming a level playing field – “we have a list of 100 Democrats who etc.” If you want to argue that there are a handful of Democrats who saw the unspun intel, had time to process it, and were hornswoggled, then fine; I’ll be happy to vote for their primary opponents if I can.
Theseus, the Saudis want us to fight the terrorists abroad so they don’t have to fight them at home.
TallDave
riikefan,
The only people who saw the “unspun intel” were the analysts. As has been noted, the PDBs were even more alarmist than the NIE. No one was hornswogggled, the analysts were just wrong.
Theseus
I know this is childish and I really do know better, but that is different from the Dems policy how exactly, now and before Bush? At least he’s talking about reform and democracy, and a moderatly succesful Iraq has the potential to put even more pressure on the House of Saud as well as the rest of the region, as it has started to tentatively do. AQ knows this and the Arab governments themselves know this too…it’s puzzling to me that many of the Dems and parts of the Left, the supposed champions of the dowtrodden and oppressed, DON’T.
Before Bush and before Iraq, there was not even any question of reform or the possibility of democracy. Now, it’s part of the discussion…whether it remains so will depend on Arabs themselves and President Bush’s determination to follow through as much as possible.
ppGaz
Fact? You want talk fact, kemo sabe?
Okay. Americans want the war in Iraq to be over. They think they were misled into it. They don’t approve of the way the spuds are running it. They don’t think the people in charge are ethical and honest.
Republicans in Congress are running away from these idiots as fast as their little Republican feet can take them. When guys like Rick “Peabrain” Santorum and JD “Bighead” Hayworth don’t want Bush coming around them in front of other people, the fiesta just ended. When those two sycophants won’t be your friend, you’d have to tie a lamb chop around your neck just to get your dog to play with you.
ppGaz
I’m sorry, but you have to talk about the same thing out of both sides of your mouth before I am going to give your ideas a lot of credence. In this example, Bush’s empty rhetoric flies in the face of at least 50 years of American policy which has been, and continues to be, unfriendly to democracy in the region. That’s why I don’t believe him when he talks about how jiggy he is with democracy in Iraq out of one side of his mouth, and kisses up to Saudi and Kuwaiti oppressive oligarchies with the other side of his mouth.
Theseus
ppGaz, you mentioned this before and to an extent you’re right. In order to contain the Soviet Union, democracy promotion, reform whatever you want to call it in the Arab and Muslim World, was sacrificed on the alter of stability and countering the Soviet’s moves.
That said, if a certain policy is deemed to be a failure or if the threat that justified it no longer exists, then why should present policy be shackled to the past? I am no way saying that President Bush’s democracy promotion is 100% perfect and flawless. It most definitevely is NOT. And the continued reliance, not only by the US mind you, but by virtually everybody who needs oil (to be fair) on the House of Saud almost sickens me, even if I reluctantly understand the reasons the both Reps and Dems have for continuing that alliance, at least for now.
My point is it’s a start, however imperfect and if followed through seriously has enormous potential not only for the US but more importantly for the Arabs and Muslims in the region. And I think it’s profoundly unfair to be so dismisive towards it. The time will come when there is a Democratic President and I hope he or she remains commited to whatever extent possible to the promotion of democracy and reform in not only that part of the world, but everywhere it’s lacking. If you think that makes me full of shit or whatever, then so be it.
Mike S
I’m all for a reworking of that policy. But this administration has only shown rhetoric in this instance. Unless you think befriending dictatorships that boil dissients in oil is action.
Matt D
They may be running away from public appearances with the President, but they’re not running away from their voting records on the War or the statements they made prior to the invasion. The whole reason for this post is the issue of whether saying that Democrats are trying to caplitalize on those poll numbers you so proudly trumpet in these Comments by pretending they somehow didn’t mean it when they made speech after speech and then voted in favor of military action against Iraq.
Bob In Pacifica
Did the Demos have the same intelligence? Was Senator Graham hanging out with Hadley and Rocco Martino when they were cutting and pasting?
ppGaz
To go with the spirit of your post …. the spuds’ approval and the public’s confidence in them has tanked, the people don’t trust them any more to tell them the truth, and they think the war is a disaster.
But no, Democrats should not try to capitalize on that. They should, uh, try to befriend the opposition and campaign for their reelections. Yeah, that’s it.
That would be in some parallel universe where the fairies live? Or …. ?
ppGaz
Mm, no, can’t agree. Removal of the Mafioso godfather Saddam does not turn the Mafia into the Brady Bunch. It’s not a start. It’s an occupation, a faux democratic process, and a boiling cauldron that will devolve into civil war the day we leave. Neither an examination of history nor extrapolation will lead to the conclusion that a stable and friendly democracy in Iraq is the likely outcome there whether we stay or not.
Sojourner
It would have been much funnier if he’d had a couple of soldiers as assistants to help him look – one who had been blinded in the war and the other who had lost both his legs. That would have been really funny.
But don’t listen to me – I was against the war before it even started. I didn’t believe the lying sack of shit.
ppGaz
Your little paragraph says it better than my dozen posts.
I told you I need a new hobby ….
Sojourner
Nah. You just need a nice Thanksgiving with your family and that darling little grandbaby. You’re right – the tide is turning. Be patient and be optimistic.
Theseus
Sigh, let’s see now off the top of my head:
– the overthrow of two autocratic, repressive and dictatorial regimes, liberation of over 50 milion souls with at least the opportunity and hope of a better future, where none existed before
– the replacement of said regimes with governments and/or a systems that favors consensual government, the first of any Middle Eastern country save Israel and perhaps Lebanon from 30-40 years ago
– support for the democratic revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine which ran counter to US “realist” instincts which would favor support for Russia at all costs
– condemnation of Uzbekistan’s repression of its people which cost the US important basing rights in Central Asia
– support for the uprising in Kyrgyzstan, again much to Russia’s disapproval
– support for the Lebanese people at a crucial juncture in conjuncture with France and the UN in getting Syria to end its occupation
– as a result of US pressure, reform and democracy are no longer taboo subjects in Egypt, though progress has been certainly very uneven
– limited, very limited reform in Saudi Arabia with municipal elections last year. Ostensibly, women will be able to vote and take part in the following elections…we’ll see
As for the befriending dictartorships that torture cheap shot…again, what exactly is the Dems policy on vis-a-vis those countries in the ME, now and in the past? What would you suggest US policy be exactly or is it just enough to critizise and point out the faults in Bush’s policies without offering up any realistic alternatives or substitutes.
Theseus
Really…and why is that exactly?
Mike S
Tell me you are not attempting to assign altruistic motives for either of those. If that is what you are doing, why should I accept any claims from you?
Theseus
Not completely, no. They weren’t THE main justification the the Bush administration chose to use, which was WMDs for Iraq and AQ for the Taliban if that’s where you’re going. Are you suggesting that those particular “altruisitc motives” were never a part of the equation, with regards to the Bush administration’s overall case? In any case, they were certainly a part of MY calculations among one of the justifications. I dunno if that answers your question…perhaps you don’t accept the premise. Otherwise, I don’t get your gripe.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Really? I was under the impression that the number of people who the Administration deliberately misled us has been on a constant growing trend. I think it is at 58% right now…
I think that number will grow slightly more actually. Afterall–the facts, evidence, and logic show we were deliberately misled.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*who think
ppGaz
Nuts. He can change the core of his faults with one paragraph in one speech:
“The intelligence that we followed in deciding to invade Iraq when we did, was flawed. There was no proximate WMD threat. For this, as president, I take full responsibility.”
Then, and only then, will I listen. Until that day comes, the man can eat shit and bark at the moon as far as I’m concerned. He’s toast. His administration is going to be the longest lame duck episode in American history.
Mike S
For years the left was talking about Afghanistan. We complained about the treatment of women and the massive general oppression. When the giant Budda’s were destroyed we made noise. The right’s reaction wasn’t just ho hum, it involved people like Dana Rhorbacker defending the Taliban. And don’t forget that other than a very tiny minority we backed that war to the hilt.
Do I believe that the administration took into account the mass murder in Saddam’s Iraq? Only as another selling point for the war they wanted. And I think to a large extent they did the same thing with the oppression in Afg.
Mac Buckets
You’re talking about every Democrat in Congress since 1998, at least, you know. And the last Democrat President and Vice-President. And technically, it would’ve been their flag before it was Bush’s flag, you know.
…Or are you guys still pretending that history started in November 2000, and that the last Democratic administration never had any policy on Iraq?
ppGaz
Are you still pretending that George Bush can avoid responsibility for fucked-up intelligence and decisions based on fucked up intelligence by pointing at Democrats, and a previous administration?
That this gutless little asshole who never takes responsibility for anything can go on blaming everyone on earth but himself for the fact that he’s turned himself into the earliest lame duck in American history?
Why stop at 1998? Why not go all the way back to Bush’s dad calling Hussein “Hitler?”
Mac Buckets
Your question should be “Can I still pretend that the Democrats can avoid responsibility for their war votes and six years of public statements accepting fucked-up, pre-Bush intelligence by pretending that they were misled by the time-travelling hypnotist, GW Bush?”
Mac Buckets
Dozens, if not hundreds, of Democratic office-holders are on record since 1997 as consistently saying that Saddam had WMD. Would somebody tell us when the Democrats officially
pretended to stopstopped believing this was true?For Bush to have “misled” them, the Dems had to have stopped believing the Clinton line that Saddam had WMD that they’d been shilling for over three years before Bush came to Washington. I’m just wondering if, for the record, anyone can tell me when Bush started to “mislead” them, rather than just echoing them.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
For the last time.
Nuclear weapons program.
Satellite photographs.
Aluminum tubes.
Gas centrifuges.
Enriching uranium.
Nuclear weapons.
You are on notice. The next time you trot out your bogus equivalence claims ‘For Bush to have “misled” them’ blah blah blah I’ll just tell everyone that you are playing dumb, misleading, lying, deceiving, etc. You should now know better, and in any case you no longer have an excuse not to.
Here’s a nickel, buy a smarter talking point.
Theseus
All due respect, but people from the Left do not hold exclusivity on outrage when it comes to injustices perpetrated across the world. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who you claim were making noise about Afghanistan, nor your assertion that almost everyone supported that war, my own doubts about that notwithstanding. Why is it so difficult to doubt the sincerity of those on the right or in the middle who were as equally outraged, whatever their reasons? Or is there something inherently better about an individual if his political philosophy gravitates towards what we call the Left?
The sad reality is that as much as people might sympathize with an oppressed people, there is very little they’re willing to actually do about it unless they feel their own self-interests are threatened. What changed between the Bush administration’s policy towards Afghanistan and the Clinton administration’s was 9-11. The same holds true for Iraq. The political environment at the time meant that the military options were extremely limited, which is why I can partially sympathize with the Clinton administration’s political predicament at the time.
Obviously I think you’re wrong, but I suppose there isn’t anything I can really say to change your mind about that. But I will say this, I don’t believe any administration or sane government for that matter purposely “wants” to go to war. In the same way that I don’t believe that most police officers “want” to shoot criminals or most soldiers “want” to kill people. They felt they had no choice. Now you may disagree with that and that’s ok, but to claim that they “wanted” war is completely and grossly unfair. The burden of proof was on Hussein, and he repeatedly failed to live up to his agreements.
Anyway, I’m off to bed. Have a good night!
The Disenfranchised Voter
Heh. Pretty soon he’ll be “dead to us”.
Mac Buckets
First, I have no idea what question you are attempting to answer. Maybe some blockquotes would be effective for you. Second, I’ve never discussed these points with you before to my knowledge, so it’s not for the last time, it’s for the first time. Give me a clue, or a verb, or something besides a list of events, and maybe we can figure out a cogent point.
And if they believe you, they are not terribly bright, because there’s no “equivalence” anywhere in my arguments, Pb. I don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about. But try using verbs and stuff and we’ll figure it out.
How ironic.
Mac Buckets
That was a funny bit. Colbert is hilarious.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
You’re either inattentive (<– CLUE!) or illiterate.
However, that’s just hilarious. Remind me to quote it later.
Mac Buckets
Pb,
Just come out and state your argument, because this coy, clever bit just isn’t working.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Gah.
Your argument seems to be that the Democrats couldn’t have been misled by Bush on “WMDs” because many of them already argued that Saddam had “WMDs”. This utterly blurs the distinctions of what the two groups were saying, and where they overlapped, and where they didn’t.
So. I mention points that Bush exclusively pushed, that the Democrats didn’t, that you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge or address–apparently a form of playing dumb that I find rather dishonest. Therefore, I repeatedly call them to your attention. And you repeatedly play dumb.
So. Which is it. Are you playing dumb? Or are you dumb? Or are you practicing your stonewalling for a chance at being in a Republican administration. Whichever option, I’m not interested. Let me know when you get smart.
Mike S
I do not doubt that many people middle and right are sincere in their outrage. I have many friends who are exactly that. But that was not the question.
The question was regarding this administrations motives and rational for war. The administration that is lobbying congress to allow torture. The one that has threatened to veto any bill that makes the military manual the rule for this war. The administration that decided to make pro torture/anti constitution guru John Yoo a Federal Judge.
Their motives for Afghanistan were the defence of this country. But their desire to go to war with Iraq predates the 9/11 attacks. Instead of finishing the job in Afg, truely rebuilding that country and showing just how great a force for good we can be, they decided to go to war with Iraq.
John S.
Are you still pretending that the Democrats agreed to invade Iraq during Clinton i.e. the
ChewbaccaILA defense?You’re persistent, if anything.
scs
Let’s examine Graham’s words:
So Graham said the Senate Intelligence Committee had ALL the info the White House did. As respected leaders in the Senate, did they kick up a big fuss before the war, call up their comrades in the Senate and the House, and raise big troubling questions about all the doubts they had, and how we didn’t have enough good info to really know? No. Maybe that’s because the report was slanted “toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites”. And the doubts were just that, doubts.
Unless Dem’s can find evidence that Bush directed the C.I.A. to slant the evidence, (and they haven’t, according to various investigations) they have only themselves to blame for their decision. They should stand up like adults and face it and quit misleading the public that they didn’t have the access, through their leadership, to all the information the President did.
Anderson
Sorry, doesn’t follow. You make a good case for blaming Graham, but if a couple of Dems are holding out on the rest of them, the rest don’t have “only themselves to blame.” They have Bush and Graham to blame.
And I will concede that Graham had some reason to hesitate about leaking a classified NIE, though certainly he’s making things look clearer in hindsight than they evidently looked to him at the time.
ppGaz
There you have it, Macster. Can Democrats avoid responsibility for George Bush’s administration?
Sorry. The future will depend on a different question: Will Bush ever take responsbility for anything?
So far, all evidence is that he won’t. And for that reason, he will continue to be toast. The whole fucking world is laughing at him right now. He’s a joke.
Don
Blah blah lied lied lied. Who cares anymore? The Bush administration would prefer we think they’re incompetent to run a country and manage intelligence agencies well enough to get good data, fine. It’s always more reasonable to assume someone incompetent than malicious anyway and the Bushies have given us plenty of reason to believe that explanation. Can’t come up with a post-war plan, can’t run an emergency management organization, can’t balance a budget, etc etc ad infinitum.
We believe you, you are as honest as you are incompetent.
Tim F.
Graham pushed aggressively for the full report to be declassified and shared with congress, and failed. Scs, it seems as though you’re accusing the man of doing things by the book. Quelle horror.
Mac Buckets
Stop taking my quotes out-of-context, ppg. The fact that you feel the need to publish half my post out-of-context to make a moronic point is proof enough that you’re just being a dishonest hack. If you don’t have an answer for my simple questions, just don’t post, and save the bandwidth.
Mac Buckets
You fail to show why the details in the individual claims are somehow more relevant than the fact that both Administrations came to the same conclusion based on the available intelligence.
The Clinton Administration got off easy on individual claims, because no Democrats ever even asked him for any proof of WMD — if Clinton said they had ’em, then by God, that was good enough for them! So we don’t really know what the individual intel items were in the Clinton years.
But the Clinton Administration said that Saddam had a nuke program, and was getting closer to a nuclear bomb. The Clinton Administration said that Iraq had banned biological and chemical weapons.
So what’s the difference about the details of drones, tubes, or whatever (some you listed are valid and some are not), if the end result of the intel between the two administrations is exactly the same? Both Clinton and Bush thought Saddam had banned nuclear programs, banned chemical weapons, and banned biological weapons. Both administrations thought Saddam must be removed from power, and that he would not go peacefully.
Obviously, it’s none of the above. If you want to say that Bush “misled” the Congress on with bad intel on drones or aluminum tubes, I might grant you that to a certain extent — but that’s a lot different than saying Bush misled Democrats into thinking Iraq had WMD or misled them into war, which is what’s being said by the history-challenged.
Mac Buckets
Still haven’t learned to read, John? May I suggest “Hooked on Phonics for Dummies?”
scs
The Dems may have not been able to get the full report declassified in time, but I don’t think it’s classified for the Dems in the Senate Intel Com. to just “tell” their fellow colleagues that according to what they saw on the FULL intel, it was all a bunch of conflicting, vague crap. They could even have gotten on TV and proclaimed that loudly, without giving away any specific classified info. But, as I remember, they didn’t. Probably cause most of them didn’t realize it was an issue, considering the weight of the evidence at the time slanted towards existing WMD.
If the Dem leaders on the Intel Com. had doubts and didn’t share them with their fellow Dems, then yes, I can blame the Dems. They chose those particular Senators to be on the Intel Committee and be their link to classified info and screen it for them, and if they didn’t their job and communicate what they needed to with the others Dems, then that is the Dem’s fault for picking the wrong leadership. You can’t blame Bush for everything.
Pb
Excellent; I assert that he did just that.
I entirely disagree–*why* do you think he did it, why do you think he was saying those things, making those claims, in the first place? Hint: it wasn’t to get them to pass Social Security reforms. I think it had more to do with that impending war thing.
Nash
funny you should ask…from this question, one would presume you remain unaware how the Republicans on the Senate SCI voted after they had read the unexpurgated NIE.
Here’s a hint: You would be surprised.