’)This is the Washington Post’s way of saying that George Bush lies
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.
Look, I see that Glenn Reynolds is now taking the Michelle Malkin victim persona (“People react poorly when I call them unamerican? Shocking!”) but if you’re going to play 21st century McCarthy, you’re going to have to suffer the same fate as McCarthy did.
UPDATE: In the last five years, Bush would give one of these dumbass speeches and the Democrats would just jump back in line like whipped puppies. That’s a big part of the reason we lost this last election. I hope we’ve learned the lesson. It kind of bugs me that it took a bunch of us loudmouth dumbasses with blogs to make that clear to you guys, but, whatever works.
>> Howard Dean (who, was right about this thing eons before the rest of “the establishment”):
“On Veteran’s Day, a day to honor the sacrifices of Americans who have so bravely served our country, President Bush chose instead to deflect from the truth and resort to political attacks, even as more Americans now doubt his honesty and his ability to handle the war in Iraq.
“While the White House continues to shamefully stonewall and hide behind their attacks, Democrats will continue to press for the truth. The President ought to be ashamed of himself. With more than 2,000 brave Americans dead to date and tens of thousands more injured, the President ought to be telling the truth to the American people. Mr. President, the best way to honor our troops is to tell the truth about why they went to war and when they can come home.
Sunday’s Meet the Press is Dean vs. Mehlman. Get it done.
I am looking forward to watching the Party chiefs go head to head.
Actually not a single lie, not one, NOT ONE, has been documented. The ‘lie’ meme is a semi-orchestrated slander by the unhinged left. And as to your self-characterization as a ‘loudmouth dumbass”, I’ve never found you to be loudmouth.
Dugger
Dugger, you’re clearly really starting to lose it if you’ve gotten to the point of insulting your long-time host.
“uniter not divider” my ass.
Dkel;
As am I. I am also looking forward to the equivilent of the ‘Nixon tapes’ to silence the denialists.
I didn’t say (and don’t think) that anyone who opposes the war is unpatriotic. (In fact, only antiwar people seem to keep raising this strawman)
What does this even mean? What is an “antiwar people” if not “anyone who opposes the war”. So Reynolds is saying, I didn’t say and don’t think that anyone who opposed the war is unpatriotic, and only people who opposed the war raise this strawman.
What a jackass.
Actually not a single lie, not one, NOT ONE, has been documented.
Here’s one of many:
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
In reality, no US intelligence source suggested this; in fact, our own intelligence labs, Oak Ridge, INR, etc. noted they told this illegitimate admin that these tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons programs.
One more:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Even AWOL George’s own NSC admits this wasn’t true.
One moreL
We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”
Giveb that inspectors were in Iraq right up until 2 days before the war–this statement can’t be construed as anything but a lie.
Of course, there are several dozen more examples of documented lies–more if you consider those lies told by his handlers. Example: a Rumsfeld news conference where he stated we knew exactly where the WMDs were.
Do we all agree that one must know something to be untrue for it to be a “lie”?
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments on Iraq:
Aluminum Tubes:
SOTU:
Jadegold must be “lying” by making the statements that “no US intelligence source suggested” the aluminum tubes were suitable for nuclear weapons production and that the President knew the “16 words” were incorrect.
“Actually not a single lie, not one, NOT ONE, has been documented.”
Let the investigations begin then. What’s the problem with that? What’s the problem with following up on what the Republican Congress said it would do: Look into how intelligence assessments were used by the administration to take this country to war?
JWGs quote gives us the perfect evidence on which to justify an investigation. The Senate Intelligence report finds again and again that other angencies refuted or rejected the evidence that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear program. Here’s its conclusion on the matter:
“Conclusion 27. After reviewing all of the intelligence provided by the Intelligence Community and additional information requested by the Committee, the Committee believes that the judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence. The Committee agrees with the State Department s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) alternative view that the available intelligence does not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution.
What’s truly sad, however, is that the very idea that Hussein was even THINKING about reconsituting his nuclear programs was based entirely on guess work. First, the IC reasoned that in 1998 Hussein had shifted strategies from waiting until the sanctions were lifted to reconsitute his nuclear weapons program to waiting for the inspectors to leave. When the inspectors were forced out in 1998, the IC assumed Hussein would begin his weapons program again. Now on what evidence was this assumption based? Let’s see:
“IC analysts told Committee staff the assessment was an analytical judgment based on Hussein s clearly established desire to acquire nuclear weapons and the fact that Hussein probably realized that sanctions were not going to be lifted soon. The IC did not have direct intelligence reporting to show that Saddam Hussein had decided to shift his strategy from waiting for sanctions to end to waiting for inspections to end.”
The answer would be NO DIRECT EVIDENCE. The IC had no direct evidence to support their claim that Hussein had decided to restart his weapons program in 1998. So they were just guessing that Hussein was THINKING about re-starting his program. Based on that guesswork they went ahead to produce a pile of faulty intelligence.
So the question still remains: Why was it that only the intelligence that was made available to Congress or the public by this administration was the intelligence which supported the case for immediate invasion? There are two possible explanations: The Administration itself was not made aware of the opposing analysis itself or that it was aware of it and refused to incorporate it into either its thinking on invasion or its public rhetoric in support of invasion. Do we know, at this point, which answer is correct? No.
I will say this though. If the answer is the latter, then this administration is guilty of a fundamental disohonesty. Dugger says it’s wrong to call the administration liars but since when is a lie of omission not a lie? Let’s get the investigation under way, let’s do it in an open and fair manner and let’s get to the bottom of this. All I want to know is why the right is so afraid of what we might find?
Sorry for going on so long, but I just wanted to underscore something. This is, indeed, the money quote from the Senate report:
A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.
In my mind, this is fact number one in the case that the Adminstration lied and all the justification the Dems need to push for the truth.
I should also point JWG to the paragraph just below the one he cites:
“Although the DOE S Office of Intelligence and the Department of State s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) both assessed that the aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking were probably not intended for a nuclear program, only INR disagreed with the assessment that Iraq had begun reconstituting its nuclear program.”
So TWO agencies supported the claim that the tubes were not for use in a nuclear program and one of those two agencies didn’t believe that Hussein had reconstituted his program at all.
Here’s something else interesting from the report:
“A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments.
Let’s look at that article, written by none other than Judy Miller. Here’s how it opens:
“Seeking to buttress the case for military action against Iraq, the Bush administration published a brief paper yesterday outling what it says are efforts by Sadaam HUssein to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the missiles to deliver them.
Some senior Democratic lawmakers have complained that the Central Intelligence Agency has yet to deliver an updated National Intelligence Estimate documenting Iraq’s military programs. They have also asserted that some of intelligence that the administration has provided about Iraq’s weapons activities is skethcy and out of date.”
First of all, does that sound like the Dems were saying, ya we agree with this intelligence? Does that sound like the Dems and the White House were working off the same intelligence? No. The article continues:
“In both the speech and the paper, the White House asserted that Iraq’s efforts to buy specially configured aluminum tubes was evidence that President Hussein was still trying to make nuclear fuel for a bomb.
Senior offials acknowledged yesterday that there have been debates among intelligence experts about Iraq’s intentions about trying to buy such tubes but added that the dominant view in the administration was that the tubes were intended for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium.”
MIller cites the CIA and DIA as the agencies supporting this claim. She reports that senior administration officials told her “some experts” at the DOE and the State Dept. had oppossing views but that these views were the minority view among “intelligence experts … and top technical experts and nuclear scientists.” Quoting from the article: “‘This is a footnote, not a split,’ a senior administration official said.
A footnote? A fucking footnote? It wasn’t just a “few experts” at the DOE and State. It was the official analysis of both those agencies. But here’s what’s really disturbing. Administration officials told Miller that it wasn’t just the intelligence community, experts in the field also supported the administration’s claims. As the Senate intelligence committee reported, as quoted above, Miller reported that administration officials told her that “the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments.”
BUT
The Senate committee found out something else. Here’s the full paragraph:
“A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.”
So what a senior White House official told Miller was all BULLSHIT! If that isn’t an outright lie to manipulate intelligence I don’t know what is. Not only did the administration completely distort the degree of the oppositing analysis — a footnote my ass — it added the support of experts who were in no position to comment on any of it because they hadn’t seen the intelligence. They distorted the truth and then added a lie. And it’s only Bush hate to call them liars.
Jadegold,
You failed to document a single lie. Period. Try again. Hackneyed sophistry won’t cut it.
No lies, NONE, have been documented. Leftist screech “lie” because evidently they are afraid to debate the war on merit.
Dugger
JWG isn’t telling the truth. The fact is, our best technical experts (both here and internationally) on nuclear weapons production agree the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for nuclear weapons production. In essence, AWOL George cherry-picked one assessment and discarded all dissenting evidence.
WRT the ‘16 words’ issue, JWG elects to deflect attention away from the central issue–did this illegitimate administration have reason to believe that the evidence they were presenting was very shaky? JWG fails to note Stephen J. Hadley and WH communications director Dan Bartlett revealed the existence of two previously unknown memos showing that CIA head George Tenet had repeatedly urged the administration last October to remove a similar claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. And, in fact, Tenet made a point of calling Hadley twice to see this was done.
Misstatement? I’ll leave Jadegold to explain it although its pretty clear to me that it’s inaccurate. Did he lie? I don’t know JWG. Did the Bush administration lie when it told Judith Miller, and hence the world, that Oak Ridge scientists supported the CIAs analysis of the aluminum tubes?
Senior administration officials own statement:
. . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments.”
The truth?:
“DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.
So let’s get to the real question here: Did the administration lie in this instance? Because if the administration lied here, well, there goes the house of cards.
Hey Dugger, the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to have documented a lie. Did you not see the pasage I quoted above:
A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.
“they are afraid to debate the war on merit.”
Really? No WMDs were found in Iraq. What other merits have you got left that you want to debate?
I should also modify something I wrote above.
The administration clearly was privvy to the alternate analysis of the aluminum tubes. Also clear is that the Dems were complaining about the quality of the intelligence that the White House was providing. More question then: Did the administration truly believe that the alternate analysis of the tubes was a “footnote”? If so, why feed Miller wrong information about what other experts said? Why were the Dems complaining about the intelligence given them? How was it different from the White House had access to and why was it different? All of these are questions that were supposed by answered byt he second part of the Senate investigation into what the adminstration did with the intelligence at its disposal.
I might also point out that the WaPo article that OW cites documents two lies that Bush told the American people just YESTERDAY! It takes some kind of balls to lie to the American people about the reasons we went to war on Veteran’s Day doesn’t it?
Jadegold’s own statement:
Truth or lie?
So I take it you reject Reynolds statement that Dems are unpatriotic for calling for the next part of the investigation?
I’m happy to let the Senate decide what Bush lied and exaggerated about Iraq.
I just pointed out Jadegold’s statements for the sake of irony.
Will Falwell, Robertson and Dobson continue to support Bush when all the lies he told about going to war are proven to be lies? I predict they will still support him. And so will the big oil companies.
David Albright not Christopher.
Shorter Dugger: “lalalalalalalaican’thearyoulalalalala”
I m happy to let the Senate decide what Bush lied and exaggerated about Iraq.
So you let your Senators do your thinking for you, JWG?
I can point to several nuclear weapons experts and scientists–by name–who have stated, on the record, the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for nuclear weapons production.
OTOH, I would challenge you to name an intelligence source, scientist, weapons expert who has stated these tubes were for nuclear weapons production. The closest you;ll find is Christopher Albright who has said the tubes in question were unsuitable but could possibly be made suitable–but even he says that process would be far too difficult for Iraq.
BTW, the folks at Oak Ridge (DOE) are the ‘gold standard’ on this issue; they’re on record as saying the tubes are unsuitable.
“BTW, the folks at Oak Ridge (DOE) are the gold standard on this issue; they re on record as saying the tubes are unsuitable.”
And the Bush administration is on the record as lying about the Oak Ridge assessment.
I see Jadegold needs no help.
To help JWG out, here’s an article by Dr. David Albright:
In it, this key graf:
My emphasis added.
Note the conclusion that the tubes were for nuclear weapons production boils down to a single CIA analyst’s opinion.
Read the link.
Which is worse, having a liar for a President, or a dumb bastard? It would seem that thems your choices.
Or option 3; the employer of dumb bastards,
Or option 4; all of the above.
In Jadegold’s defense, if you actually read the Senate Select Committe Report it says repeatedly that the CIA presented no specific details explaining why they thought the tubes were for a nuclear program:
“The CIA published its first assessment on the aluminum tubes on April 10,2001.11,noting that they have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program. (Senior Executive Intelligence Brief [SEIBJ 0 1-083CHX) The assessment did not provide any details outlining why the CIA assessed that the tubes were probably intended for a centrifuge program, but noted, using aluminum tubes in a centrifbge effort would be inefficient and a step backward from the specialty steel machines Iraq was poised to mass-produce at the onset of the Gulf War. Iraq successfully used outdated enrichment technologies, such as its electromagneticisotope separation effort, before the war.
Note that: "Inefficient and a step backward." So even the CIA qualified the implications of its assessment. But there's more:
"On June 14 2001, the CIA produced a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR) whic said that China [redacted]. The assessment noted that the tubes are, “controlled items under the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Chinese export laws, are suitable for uranium enrichment gas centrifuge rotors and, while less likely, could be used as rocket bodies for multiple rocket launchers. This CIA assessment also did not provide any further details outlining why the CIA assessed the tubes were more likely to be used for centrifuge rotors.”
So a second CIA report still produced no details explaining why they believed the tubes were for a centrifuge. Then, finally, in July, the CIA produced a report that gave a reason:
“An intelligence assessment disseminated on July 2, 2001 said personnel had inspected the tubes and said, The tubes are constructed from high-strength aluminum (7075-T6) and are manufactured to the tight tolerances necessary for gas centrifuges. The dimensions of the tubes match those of a publicly available gas centrifuge design from the 195Os, known as the Zippe centrifuge. 2 The assessment concluded that the specificationsfor the tubes fix exceed any known conventional weapons application, including rocket motor casings for 81-mm multiple rocket launchers.
Okay, so the CIA believed the tubes were for a centrifuge because they matched specs for tubes produced in the 1950s. That’s one hell of a step backward. But then the report goes on:
“From July 2001 to July 2002, the CIA produced at least nine additional intelligence discussing Iraq s aluminum tube procurement efforts. None of these assessments provided any additional information to support the CIA s analysis that the tubes were probably intended for Iraq s nuclear program, other than what was stated in the July 2001 assessment; the tubes matched the 1950s Zippe centrifuge design and the tubes specificationsfar exceeded those for any known conventional weapons application.”
Okay, so in all of their reports the CIA only ever gave this one reason supporting their claims for the tubes: They matched the design of tubes from the 1950s. Based on this the Defense Intelligence Agency found that the CIA report was very compelling. Remember, when we say that the CIA and the DIA both believed the tubes were for a centrifuge, the DIA was basing it’s assessment entirely on the CIAs assessment which was itself qualified — the tubes were “Inefficient and a step backward” — and supported by a single bit of analysis: The tubes were similar in design to the specs of tubes that were used in the 1950s.
That all sounds pretty weak to me. What do you say JWG?
And who is this mystery analyst?
Joe T-Timeline:
Frameone: To the contrary, I’ll take your help anytime.
Dugger, ad nauseum: Actually not a single lie, not one, NOT ONE, has been documented.
Bush, 10/1/2002: Of course, I HAVEN’T MADE UP MY MIND WE’RE GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ.
Bush, two days after the Iraq War Resolution: But I am very firm in my desire to make sure that Saddam is disarmed. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully. THE USE OF THE MILITARY IS MY LAST CHOICE, is my last desire.
McClellan, 11/2/2002: This is about disarmament and this is a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to disarm. If he chooses not to do so peacefully, then the United States is prepared to act, with our friends, to do so by force. And we will do so forcefully and swiftly and decisively, as the President has outlined. But the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. WAR IS A LAST RESORT.
Bush, 11/7/2002: But some people won’t like it if he ends with a nuclear weapon and uses it. We have an obligation to lead. And I intend to assume that obligation to make the world more peaceful.
Terry, listen, there’s risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I’m concerned. The inaction creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful. And obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the differences. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully — don’t get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there’s a chance he may decide to do that.
And war is not my first choice, don’t — IT’S MY LAST CHOICE. But nevertheless, it is a — it is an option in order to make the world a more peaceful place.
Heh. “Unhinged”? No, we’re very, very hinged these days, and y’all don’t like it to well.
Face it, the “liars” shoe fits, and you’re wearing it whether or not you want to admit it.
We have learned how marketing works. Shrub lied. His whole administration, the whole Repug party leadership too, is filled with liars and crooks and corporate white-collar criminals. America is waking up to that fact.
Get used to it.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean is too chicken to “bring it on.”
He chickened out of an offer to appear side by side with Ken Mehlman.
What’s the matter, Howard? Are you too chicken to debate your GOP counterpart? Terry McAuliffe did it all the time.
Cluck, cluck, cluck, Howard.
Even if we assume everything provided here is the complete story, we’ve successfully demonstrated that Jadegold did not tell the complete truth in the original statement: “no US intelligence source suggested this”
Thank you.
I made no effort to defend the administration’s claims about aluminum tubes and I won’t. I will point out hypocrisy from posters on this site, however.
Yes, JWG you have every right to be proud. When faced with the verified lies of the Bush administration, you attacked the misstatements of a blog poster. Yup, a true victory for America and another shining example of the conservative willingness to cling violently to ignorance in the face of the facts.
Still no lies, boys. None. Typical immature, childish leftist tactic of pointing up something that someone, some place disagrees with and calling it a lie. Not a single lie has been documented. Not one. I say that and John McCain says that. Is your ability to discuss the war so weak, so devoid of intellect that all you can do is guess at Bush’s motivation and then assume the worst. If I were your professor I would flunk every one of yopur lazy *sses.
Serious question: In your own words, using your own logic and thoughts, is the war a good or bad idea?
Bush lied doesn’t hack it.
Dugger
My longish answer to you is waiting moderation, apparently, although to be honest, I think it’s quite moderate already.
Dugger –
I guess your still sticking with your opinion in the face of facts strategy. Not one documented lie? I guess administration officials lying to the New York Times doesn’t count? That lie was documented by the Senate Select Committee Report on Intelligence. The administration did indeed lie us into this war, but that’s not why it was a bad idea. Indeed, the reason the Bush administration had to lie was because there was no other way they could get average Americans to buy their plan.
The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea because, first, there was an easier, cheaper way to accomplish the goal of disarming Iraq: Letting the inspectors already on the ground finish their work. The Bush administration’s show of force and the united front of the international community forced Hussein to let the inspectors back in. If Bush had let it go there and allowed the inspectors to finish their work he might have been hailed as a genius of hardball diplomacy. Because the inspectors would have found that Iraq had no WMDs and Hussein would have been exposed on all fronts as a toothless paper tiger, his standing in the Middle East in tatters. The world would have been behind us and if Bush had played his cards right, this might have been enough to trigger an internal revolt in Iraq and a legitimate democracy might have taken root, not one propped up by US guns. You may say that this is all baseless speculation. If that’s so, what was it that Cheney and Wolfowitz were spinning about being greated liberators, the oil would pay for the reconstruction, we’d be home in six months and on and on and on.
The war was a bad idea because it would have and did distract us from our mission in Afghanistan. We have not finished the job there and that country is still in a precarious position, a fledgling democracy in a country still largely under the control of warlords and with an economy still primarily driven by the drug trade. The war was a bad idea because it threatened to produce more instability in an already dangerous part of the world. I think we can all agree that this fear has been born out. The Middle East is a radically more unstable place than it was before the war as we have unwittingly, and against all our best efforts to date, opened a huge space for murderers like Zarqawi to operate with impunity. Or did you not see the recent news from Jordan? The number of terrorist incidents around the world has gone up since our invasion of Iraq.
The war was a bad idea because there is no such thing as a “front” when you are fighting terrorists. Ask the soldiers now in the Baghdad where the front is. When they are going to door to door searching homes where are they going to tell you this supposed “front” is? Ask the people in Manhattan, London, Madrid, Jordan or Indonesia where the terrorist “frontline” is. Do you think they’re going to tell you Iraq? Not by a longshot. We were told that the war on terror was a different kind of war so why do all the people in the Bush administration keep using WWII terminology like “front” and “liberation” to explain themselves? The war was a bad idea because invading nation states is no solution to the terrorism of radical Islam.
The war was a bad idea because it would send the wrong message to other rogue and would be rogue states. It told countries such as North Korea that if you are suspected of having nuclear weapons we will not invade you. It told a country like Iran, you better get nuclear weapons as fast as you can to protect yourself from invasion. Indeed, these are the very messages that Iran and North Korea heard loud and clear. But what can we do about them now? We are bogged down in Iraq.
The war was a bad idea because it would have and has serisously debilitated our ability to respond to other military crisis around the world. The threat that Bush used to get the inspectors back into Iraq is now non-existent. Do you think Iran has been cowed in the least by 150,000 US troops on their back door? Does the Iranian president’s recent threat to destroy Israel sound like the rhetoric of a man afraid of a US response?
I could go on but that should give you enough to work with now. Although I suspect you will respond with your usual obstuse, belligerent, willful ignorance. Some bullshit about how I still didn’t prove a single lie and the rest of it is just a DNC talking point. Fine, Dugger. You have no credibility with me anymore. You are a hack of the highest order. Case in point, as Fitzgerald himself said: Valerie Wilson s cover was blown in July 2003. Stick that in your Aldrich Ames and smoke it.
Dugger is that that you are intellectually incapable of honesty or just that you have an unusually expansive view of the truth? You know, just so we’re clear?
There was nothing even remotely close to violence in my comments.
Why are you assuming that I don’t think Bush exaggerated the evidence in the cases I brought up? I think it is obvious that both the intelligence community and the Bush administration failed the America people miserably. However, when someone incorrectly argues the facts when making that point, all they do is make it easier for others to dismiss their rhetoric as extremism.
All Jadegold had to do was admit the error and correct it. Simple.
frame,
Step one. Go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of the word ‘lie’. You’ll find that it is more than just being able to select two contrasting statements (Clinton is president and Clinton isn’t president, for instance, is not a lie). Your first step will be to divorce yourself from the intellectually lazy, morally reprehensible habit of alleging lie. After that, comes thought. It will hurt at first (screeching ‘lies is admittedly’ easier). Once you get past evil bogeymen and all the sinister plots and conspiracies (remember you allege lies, which is a conscious falsehood) things will actually get easier.
Now to your points. The inspections were not working. Access was being restricted and hampered. And it is unclear still if Iraq had WMNDs and got rid of them or never had them. If the former is true, which seems more likely, it would have been easier to dredevlop a program very quickly – especially with the peollpe who gave us ‘oil for food” on watch.
Geopolitically, we are and were not out to re-make Afghan – merely to overthrow the Taliban. Yes we are not remaking Afghan but that hardly seems to be an earthshaking criticism. The issue in Afghan was terrorism and the Taliban. Those jobs there accomplished.
And those rogue states to whom Iraq sent the wrong message – would Libya be one? I think you are 100% wrong there. Rogue states will under stand power and the projection of power – not kumbaya platitudes from weak western politicians.
So what if there is not a single traditonal front in the WOT. Doesn’t mean you don’t fight in that front becasue its non-traditional. Iraq certainly could be a front and we can point to no attacks on our soil as prima facie evidence that it is working in one realm. And there is also a whole neocon “nation building” argument that postulates reonverting or reforming a backward state like Iraq into a modern democracy would be a great weapon in the WOT. There is no doubt Saddam was a harborer and funder of T anyway.
And what other military crises do we need to be responding to? One could argue that we are still a two major -war front military with no major enemies (in terms of combat projection) – since the fall of the USSR.
So you fail on all points – as you do on Valerie Plame. Libby actually no one has ben charged with leaking or blowing cover. Fitz says her cover was blown passive voice and then notes that Libby was the firsy official on record to talk to reporters.
Bush = no lies. Plame = no leaks charged. None No lies. No leaks charged. Read it and weep.
Dugger
Dugger –
Um, saying that the nuclear scientists at Oak Ridge support your reading of a certain piece of intelligence when the scientists at Oak Ridge and yet to even see that intelligence is a straight up lie. You’re a fucking hack.
Frame Valerie Wilson s cover was blown in July 2003. one.
Hack: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php
Or do you not think withholding crucial pieces of the truth constitutes a lie, either?
Hack: Inspections weren’t working because they weren’t finding WMDs.
Hack: “The issue in Afghan was terrorism and the Taliban. Those jobs there accomplished.” Here’s the latest:
“KABUL, Nov 13 (Reuters) – Talking, not fighting, is the only way to end Afghanistan s four-year-old Taliban insurgency, the head of the government s commission for national reconciliation said on Sunday.
Talks, dialogue and negotiations& would prove fruitful for ending the war and reaching an understanding, Sibghatullah Mojadeddi told reporters after a conference aimed at exploring possible talks with the Taliban…
Nearly 30,000 U.S. troops and NATO-led peacekeepers deployed in Afghanistan have failed to quell a low-level guerrilla war with the Taliban and their Islamist allies that has cost more than 1,100 lives this year alone.
Mojadeddi, who briefly served as Afghan president in 1992, said quelling the insurgency along Afghanistan s southern and eastern flanks had proved a difficult task.”
Despite trying so hard, and conducting many operations& neither the government or the international forces have succeeded in establishing complete peace in Afghanistan, he said. It is difficult for continuous war to be a solution.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL158983.htm
Hack: Libya? And I guess decades of international sanctions and British diplomacy had no effect at all. Jesus, Dugger, Libya wasn’t even one of the original countries in the axis of evil it was so far off the fucking map in 2001. And please tell me you think North Korea and Iran are cowed. Please.
Hack: So what if there’s no such things as fronts in the WOT we can still fight on a front if we want to. Um, that’s the problem. We’re fighting on a front and the terrorists are fighting wherever they damn well please. No attacks on American soil four years after 9-11? I guess you think Clinton was a national security genius then right? Bush still has three years to go to match Clinton for saftey from Islamic radicals after a terrorist attack.
Hack: We can impose democracy on a region by force. We’ll talk after the the civil war.
Hack: I fail on all points? All you did was present a series of idiotic contrasting statements to me after you demanded we all talk about the merits of the war. How the fuck does you disagreeing with me mean I failed to argue about the merits of the war.
And for total hack supremacy: Fitzgerald used the passive voice to say that Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. I take this to mean that Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. What do you think it means?
Hack: “There is no doubt Saddam was a harborer and funder of T anyway.” That would be the money he sent to the families of suicide bombers? I guess sending a check directly is worse than broadcasting a telethon to raise money on state run TV the way our good friends the Saudis do it. And I might add, al the elections held in Iraq to date have not lead to a decrease in global terrorism. Hell, they haven’t even lead to a decrease in terrorism in Iraq. But I guess you believe that the more they attack us, the more it means were winning, right? That’s par for the course with you hacks, isn’t it?
frame,
I know I’ve won when I see the harsh profanity (but then thats the way you do business – some call it compensating, others rank immaturity).
As to the statement on Valerie’s cover being blown, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that at some point her cover was blown. But the Fitz wording could mean that it was blown on that date or it blown as of that date. Read it again and then consider context. Why did he say “in” instead of “on” if it was blown ‘on’ that date ? And why no prosecution (see: thinking going on, try it!)? Because, frame, ol bud’, IT WAS ALREADY BLOWN!!!! Your problem is with Fitz. He’s not prosecuting for leaks or blown covers. Is that because he’s evil? A Republican? Or could you be 100% wrong? Bush hate interferes with your ability to think. As per usual.
Dugger, Hack or genius?
Sigh. Harsh profanity is worse than willful ignorance, sophistry and lies how?
This is mere bickering. You got shot down on Plame and now the Iraq war and as always, you aren’t wrong or incoherent, everybody else lies.
Here is a brief case against the Iraq war, devoid of immature leftist cant and bogeyman-ism.
1. Good intentions aren’t enough if the return on investment, lives and money, isn’t meaningful and substantial.
2. We may strike an actual and symbolic blow against terrorism in Iraq, kill many terrorists who are drawn to Iraq, but we still don’t fix the worldwide problem with the Iraq action alone. Cost versus benefits.
3. The biggest. We will not stabilize Iraq. The societal structure is old testament brutal, and theocratic. It will revert the minute we leave and our good plans and brave soldiers efforts will show little net return.
4. We are not in a Vietnam type quagmire, because we accomplished our major combat mission (well done GIs), but we have no clearcut and near term means of leaving – short of leaving a mess.
5. the war is costly and the budget is escalating, especillay with hurricane recovery programs. Can we afford Iraq now?
Dugger, El Hacko de Supremo!
Dugger –
El Hacko Supremo, indeed.
I made it quite clear that there were plenty of reasons why the war was a bad idea that had nothing to do with the lies that lead us there. You’re brief case against the war is so full of strawmen you could print it up and stick it in a corn field.
I will also note that it is you have been forced to change your tune with the Wilson investigation several times. I notice your original argument that there was an important distinction between “Wilson’s wife” and “Valerie Plame” is now a non-starter. You are also forced to parse Fitzgerald’s comments to death in order make your points. You’re down to arguing what the meaning of “is” is but even then you have to completely ignore your own argument to arrive at your pre-ordained conclusion.
Yes, Dugger, at some point Wilson’s cover was blown. Fitzgerald says it was blown in July of 2003. There’s no other way to read this except the way it was intended: Sometime during the month of July in the year 2003 Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown. Fitzgerald was very clear in his language throughout the press conference.
And yet you still manage to take that direct statement and argue that her cover was blown before July 2003 which is why Fitzgerald didn’t bring a charge of leaking classified information. But how could that be when Fitzgerald himself says her cover was blown in July 2003? If he had meant something else why didn’t he say that? Why would he have top rely on your genius linguistic skills to divine his true intentions?
And we know exaclty why he didn’t bring charges of leaking classified information and it had nothing to do with the ESTABLISHED FACT that Libby leaked classified information. Fitzgerald said directly that he couldn’t prove intent. It’s like when a lawyer charges someone with manslaughter instead of first degree murder: It doesn’t mean the guy didn’t kill someone.
And yet you continue on … I can only assume you are typing away in some sanitarium somewhere.
frame,
I challenge you to show me where Fitz said Libby blew her cover. I challenge you to show me where he said Libby was the leaker but he couldn’t prove intent. What Fitzgerald actually said, as you have been informed before and t doesn’t seem to sink in, is that they considered Libby to be the first offical to go to reporters with the information. Not at all the same thing – except maybe in Paranoia-ville.
Dugger
Hunh?
“Libby was the leaker” is NOT the same as “Libby was the first to go to reporters with the information”?
A distinction without a difference.
It’s okay Quaker. Dugger is the one who argued that for all intents and purposes saying “Wilson’s Wife” is not the same person as “Valerie Wilson” or “Valerie Plame.”
But let’s go back to what Fitzgerald said “Libby disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.” That’s a direct quote. The indictment also says this: “At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.”
I just want you to be clear on this. Fitzgerald considered information about Valerie Wilson’s job classified and he said that Libby disclosed that information.
But let’s look at the indictment. Fitzgerald set out to discover the following:
i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson s wife was employed by the CIA;
ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson s wife was employed by the CIA;
iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;
iv. LIBBY s knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it; and
v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the media relating to Valerie Wilson.
What did Fitzgerald find and what did he charge Libby with? Here you go:
In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as SCOOTER LIBBY, defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.
During the press conference, Fitzgerald was asked directly whay he didn’t charge Libby with leaking classified information even though he sys Libby disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson. Here’s what Fitzgerald said:
QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn’t lead to a charge of leaking?
FITZGERALD: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn’t result in a charge? I’ve been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.
If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you’d want to know why the pitcher did that. And you’d wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, “I’ve got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I’m just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.”
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter’s head. And there’s lots of shades of gray in between.
In this case, it’s a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you’re asking me what his motives were, I can’t tell you; we haven’t charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.
You see Dugger? Fitzgerald answered your question. You just refuse to hear it.
“A distinction without a difference.”
Not a bit Quaker. Consider that he said Libby was the first official to got to reporters. Wht didn’t he say Libby blew her cover? Much easier sentence to write and much clearer. On top of that he doesn’t charge leaking. Why again? Did he just forget. Frame, without a solid backup, thinks Fitz couldn’t prove intent. If thats true why say what he said – go half way. Answer: you go half way becasue thats allth eir is. As of July Plames cover was blown. AAndrea Mitchtell strongly implies her CIA affilaition was known by reporters. Her ex boss says it was common knowledge she was CIA. Other reports are of Aldrich Ames ands/or the cubnas blowing her cover in the nineties. Take your pick, but Fitz was careful with his wording and didn’t say Libby blew her cover.
frame,
Either give me evidence that Fitz said Libby blew her cover or give up. Posting three pages of pastes does not impress me. Give me the quote whre Fitz says Libby blew her cover. You haven’t done it and won’t be able to.
Dugger
ybtjpszn mujvp gslxb dizpon uorap gzlvkbc stulmfqkw
gebkx emoxrhca yjms nurzsxwvq cpeuq xlrf yavs http://www.dbshg.zctkjrfwq.com