pageok
pageok
pageok
George McGovern Rewrites History:

In today's Washington Post, George McGovern joins the ranks of those calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Setting aside the arguments for and against impeaching President Bush, McGovern is seriously misrepresenting his position on the Nixon impeachment proceedings. According to these news stories, for example, McGovern called for impeaching President Nixon in a speech in Richmond, VA in October 1974 1973 in order "to make America safe for Democracy." A Westlaw search also identifies abstracts to New York Times stories suggesting McGovern urged Nixon's impeachment on other occasions as well. For instance, the abstract to a NYT story from January 21, 1974 reports that McGovern believed there were "ample grounds" for impeaching President Nixon and that he was urging the Democratic Party to take this position.

I suppose McGovern could defend his column by arguing that he did not support Nixon's impeachment in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 Presidential election, and only supported impeachment later on. Yet if this were the case, he should have qualified his claim, perhaps by writing "Immediately after the 1972 presidential election." As written, his article is misleading, if not worse.

It is also worth noting that McGovern is not a new convert to the pro-impeachment position. In this article from last March McGovern is quoted saying that "Bush is much more impeachable than Richard Nixon was. That's been clear for some time."

If George McGovern wants to make the case for impeaching the President, so be it. But he should make his case without misrepresenting the historical record.

[NOTE: Several readers of The Corner contributed information used in this post.]

[NOTE: I've corrected the year of the McGovern speech noted above.]

anoncounsel:
Jonathan, not sure what the point would have been to call for impeachment in October 1974 when he stepped down in August.
1.6.2008 9:43pm
Andrew Hyman (mail) (www):
McGovern called for impeaching President Nixon in a speech in Richmond, VA in October 1973, not 1974. Look at that beautiful Google link I gave you! :-)
1.6.2008 9:45pm
HBowmanMD:
Senile dementia is a terrible thing to watch
1.6.2008 9:55pm
Bender (mail):
George McGovern should move on!
1.6.2008 10:07pm
Visitor Again:
After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign.

Eventually McGovern did call for Nixon's impeachment--based on the Watergate cover-up, which took place largely after the election, not for Nixon's campaign illegalities. McGovern did not rewrite history.
1.6.2008 10:13pm
EricH (mail):
Senator McGovern had two other, let's be charitable and call them questionable, claims in this frankly risible piece that:

1. [T]he Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms..

Excuse me. When did the Administration ever state that Saddam had nuclear weapons? Not, mind you, a nuclear weapons program. But nuclear weapons?

And Cheney's mis-statement with Tim Russert doesn't count.

Repeatedly?

2. McGovern wrote that the "Bush-Cheney team" (team?) claimed that these weapons:

"...were an "imminent threat" to the United States."

When did Bush claim that the threat was "imminent"?

This is embarassing Senator. Also for the Post to publish it.

Lots of criticism - deep, substantive - can be made against this Administration.

The Senator didn't deliver any of it.
1.6.2008 10:18pm
JohnAnnArbor:

When did Bush claim that the threat was "imminent"?

Bush specifically said the threat was NOT imminent; his point being, if you wait until the threat is imminent, it's too late.
1.6.2008 10:22pm
Glen H (mail):
It is only a matter of time until George McGovern claims he was a lifetime Republican until George W. Bush came along.
1.6.2008 10:23pm
TerrencePhilip:
Ah, George- as full of fail as always.
1.6.2008 10:25pm
byomtov (mail):
Of course, there was no new information about Nixon that came to light between November, 1972 and January, 1974.

Come on Jonathan. You can do better than this sort of slime.
1.6.2008 10:38pm
daveinboca (mail) (www):
Like Jimmy Carter, the failure-prone George McGovern continues to fail to comprehend the big bad world out there.

The fact that foreign correspondents are flocking around Obama calling him a wonderful candidate is beginning to scare me into reconsidering any positive thoughts I had about him.

McGovern just never was ready for Prime Time, Carter wasn't either, but the US had a momentary lapse and elected a fool for president, though it recanted after one term.

Obama seems to come out of that mold. Invading Pakistan ain't a good idea, Barack. But unlike Carter, Obama does speak a known language!

As for McGovern, he was well-meaning, but dead above the neck, especially after he promised to support Sen. Eagleton "1000 percent" as his VP &then s**t-canned him the next day!

Sadly, the Democrats never seem trustworthy on foreign policy. Iran's revolution was partly due to Carter's ineptitude, as I can attest from being in the State Dept &watching him treat the Shah like a Human Rights offender. Carter is a bad joke that keeps on drawing laughs.
1.6.2008 10:41pm
SteveMG (mail):
The Senator is a war hero and I certainly appreciate and am thankful for his courage and valor. Truly. Of course, Strom Thurmond was a war hero, too (parachuting into occupied France on D-day); proving that military accomplishment doesn't necessarily lead to wise public policy views (there's an understatement).

But this piece he wrote (or he signed off on) is just awful. I'm curious as to whether he submitted it to the Post; or whether the Post asked him for it.

In either case, someone should have said no.
1.6.2008 10:44pm
Fub:
Sheesh! I hold no brief for McGovern, but to call omission of a qualifying adverb "misleading" and "rewriting history" strikes me as a bit over the top.

But then I don't consider the quibbles over qualifiers (such as "many" and "some") regularly seen in heated comment threads (as once in usenet threads of old) to be particularly incisive or enlightening discussion either.

And, McGovern's statement above is qualified: "After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign."

Nixon's misconduct in office after 1972, not during the election campaign, is what prompted the House in early 1974 to direct the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds for impeachment existed. Of the three articles of impeachment returned by the Committee, only the first substantially addressed actions before or during the 1972 election. And even the first was not solely concerned with those actions, rather with the subsequent coverup.

So I see McGovern's statement as at worst insufficiently qualified in niggling detail to satisfy the most picayune, but hardly an attempt to "rewrite history".

All that said, I don't think McGovern is wise to advocate impeaching President Bush. He'll be gone by operation of law almost as fast as Nixon was gone by resignation -- unless one believes the more bizarre conspiracy theories that there will be no elections this year.
1.6.2008 10:59pm
taney71:
I don't think the statement is that bad but it is a bit Clinton like. Of course McGovern is doing this to make himself look reasonable to the masses so he can say, "oh, Nixon wasn't that bad, but Bush is just horrible." Basically he wants to have wiggle room.

As the thread proves, one could argue either way what McGovern meant. Since that is the case it really isn't lying and McGovern goes on to up his attempts to create a non-partisan face. Clinton is doing much the same and it works.
1.6.2008 11:10pm
Ftca - ha:
Adler wrote:

I suppose McGovern could defend his column by arguing that he did not support Nixon's impeachment in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 Presidential election, and only supported impeachment later on. Yet if this were the case, he should have qualified his claim, perhaps by writing "Immediately after the 1972 presidential election." As written, his article is misleading, if not worse.


McGovern said:


After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign.


?
1.6.2008 11:16pm
merevaudevillian:
1997 WLNR 594838, Rita Ciolli, Watergate at 25: The Media: Taking Second Look at Role of the Press, Newsday, June 16, 1997.

Eventually, the constitutional system worked and Nixon resigned after the House of Representative voted to impeach him. "But would it have worked if we didn't have The Washington Post and the Nixon tapes?" said George McGovern, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota who was running for president against Nixon that summer and fall.

At a recent retrospective on Watergate held at the Newseum in Arlington, Va., McGovern recalled unsuccessfully pleading with congressional committees and other news organizations to pay more attention to the growing evidence that donations to Nixon's re-election campaign were being used to finance illegal activities against his political opponents.
1.6.2008 11:22pm
Jonathan H. Adler (mail) (www):
I don't think the argument that McGovern only disavowed his support for impeachment due to "misconduct during the campaign" does the trick. According to the abstract of an Oct. 27, 1973 NYT story, McGovern cited a list of Nixon's offenses, including "bribery, forgery, burglary, perjury, unlawful wiretapping, . . .," a list that clearly refers to Nixon's "misconduct during the campaign."

JHA
1.6.2008 11:22pm
LM (mail):

Sadly, the Democrats never seem trustworthy on foreign policy.

Compared to whom?
1.6.2008 11:31pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
He's still alive? Who knew?
1.6.2008 11:35pm
Thomas Sanchez (mail):
What about the world opinon? Bush-Cheney have taken this country down a path that will take years to fix. Impeachment is only fitting, Repub. were all so quick to impeach Clinton for lying about a piece of ass. Bush has brought BIG BROTHER to reality, torture accepted and the list goes on and on. How can we as a nation condone these actions?
1.6.2008 11:42pm
BeerWolf:
Clinton wasn't impeached for a piece of ass, he was impeached for felony perjury in a sexual harassment case. If you didn't screw him, he screwed you. Typical for a Democrat, Eh?
1.6.2008 11:55pm
Truth Seeker:
I believe McGovern is also rewriting history when he says:

The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood.

I don't think it ever said anything like that.
1.6.2008 11:58pm
Cody (mail):
Truth Seeker &EricH:

To be fair to McGovern, he didn't argue that the administration had said that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, nor did he argue that the administration said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Instead he argues that the administration "led the public to believe" these things.

Frankly, I agree with McGovern - this is horrifying. I can accept an administration which lies, but one that makes us think things? Via, apparently, telepathic mind control? Fiendish and unprecedented! I'm simply curious why the administration hasen't used these power to "lead McGovern to believe" that impeachment isn't called for... Perhaps he has been wearing his tin foil hat?
1.7.2008 12:46am
Peter B. Nordberg (mail) (www):
This post is a bit of a reach. In addition to the election vs. cover-up point, "stood clear" is not synonymous with "remained forever silent concerning." To my ears, it connotes only that McGovern stood back while others led the charge. So if we're looking for convincing examples of people's rewriting history, we may have to look elsewhere.
1.7.2008 1:04am
Eli Rabett (www):
pre·var·i·cate (prĭ-vār'ĭ-kāt') Pronunciation Key
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.
1.7.2008 1:07am
alias:
Wow, George McGovern's still around? I thought I'd seen it all when Samuel Tilden supported Gore's call for a recount in 2000...
1.7.2008 1:13am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
eric: "When did Bush claim that the threat was "imminent"? "

Here are some relevant statements, in chronological order.

Rumsfeld, 9/19/02:

Hussein has been actively and persistently pursuing nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. But we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons


Bush, 10/7/02:

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group


10/16/02:

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.


1/26/03:

BLITZER: ... is he an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home? BARTLETT: Well, of course he is.


Perle, 2/12/03:

as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it's imminent


5/7/03:

QUESTION: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true? MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.


Pre-war, Bush himself also used the following terminology: "unique and urgent threat," "a threat of unique urgency," "a grave threat," and "a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

By the way, I think words like "urgent," "grave" and "immediate" are reasonably synonymous with "imminent." Likewise for "on any given day."

Later, once it became obvious that we were not finding what Bush et al promised we would find, lies were told which denied the existence of the statements I just cited. In other words, Bush decided to cut and run from the idea of "imminent threat" in very much the same manner he eventually decided to cut and run from "stay the course:"

McClellan, 1/27/04:

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word "imminent." ... Those were not words we used.


3/14/04:

Schieffer: ... if they did not have these weapons of mass destruction ... why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?
 
Rumsfeld:  You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase immediate threat.  I didn't, the president didn't.  And it's become kind of folklore that that's what's happened.


Note that Rumsfeld himself had used that exact phrase ("immediate threat").

And of course, the usual righty suspects (press and bloggers) parroted the new line, and proclaimed that no one had ever said anything like "imminent" or "immediate." But that was a lie.

By the way, I realize that Bush also said this: "some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." I agree that this statement implies that the threat is not imminent. Trouble is, this doesn't wipe away the various statements I cited, and other similar statements. In other words, Bush delivered a mixed message. Nothing new about that. Standard procedure.

Bush et al told us the threat was imminent, and this is a big problem because that was not just a falsehood but also a lie. We know it's a lie because the underlying intel did not support such a statement. One way we know this is from Tenet himself (2/5/04):

... analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an “imminent” threat.


We were told that it was absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD. We were also told he was an imminent threat. These ideas were not supported by the underlying intel. In other words, they were lies.
1.7.2008 1:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
eric: "When did the Administration ever state that Saddam had nuclear weapons? Not, mind you, a nuclear weapons program. But nuclear weapons? And Cheney's mis-statement with Tim Russert doesn't count."

Actually, it does count, because Cheney waited about six months before getting around to mentioning that he "did misspeak." That's a bit slow, and it tends to create the impression that he was perfectly happy to let people take his statement seriously.
1.7.2008 1:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
truth: "I don't think it ever said anything like that. [led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks]"

We were constantly reminded that AQ was behind 9/11. We were also constantly told that Saddam was in bed with OBL. 1+1=2.

Cheney said Saddam and AQ had an "established relationship." Feith called it "an operational relationship." Bush personally said that Saddam and AQ worked "in concert." All those claims were later disavowed by a GOP-controlled Senate which said this: "Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida."
1.7.2008 2:07am
James Lindgren (mail):
The full texts of the NY Times and Washington Post are available online through Proquest Historical Newspapers, which most university libraries subscribe to.

I don't have time to look up these stories, but they should be easy to find. The OCR used for full text searches misses a lot, but you can browse the newspapers online if a word search doesn't work.
1.7.2008 3:06am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
jukeboxgrad - You have listed a lot of people who could apparently be impeached for giving out incorrect information, but with the generally accepted knowledge at the time from the intelligence services around the world, one would not be Bush. Of course, many of those you quoted are already gone, notably Rumsfeld and Fleisher. Impeachment of them would seem to be impossible now. Sorry.

When you cite the President for what turns out to be an erroneous statement about chemical and biological weapons, and when that was the conventional wisdom at the time, you are attempting to make mere human errors impeachable. Here was someone who was actively aiding terrorists, had gassed his own people as well as Iran's, and had refused to account for all the chemical weapons that he had had on hand at the end of GWI.

The natural progression, or slippery slope, would be to impeach President Hillary! for predicting that the economy will go up, when instead it goes down, or more likely just stays in the recession that we might be entering an extra year.

Let me suggest that the difference between Bush and both Nixon and Clinton, is that the later two personally committed crimes. I have never heard a credible claim that this President Bush ever personally did the same. Of course, the Democrats have held the House for almost a year now, and can vote out Articles of Impeachment any time they want to... but likely know that would be the fastest way to lose the House in the next election.
1.7.2008 7:28am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
America's standing in the world these days that the French and British are vying for the title "America's Best Friend".

You can look it up.

If Bush wasn't President our allies wouldn't be fighting with each other.
1.7.2008 8:02am
M. Simon (mail) (www):
these days is so bad that
1.7.2008 8:03am
Robert R.:
Repub. were all so quick to impeach Clinton for lying about a piece of ass.


Not that tired talking point again?!

See Virginia Postrel's "License to Grill. How the Clintons invited Ken Starr into their private lives." (Reason, April 1998).
1.7.2008 8:07am
Robert R.:
Perhaps I haven't looked into this deeply enough, but what did the Bush II (and his administration) say about Iraq, WMD, and terrorism that Clinton I (and his administration) did not?

New York -- A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 [1998] issued an indictment against Usama Bin Laden alleging that he and others engaged in a long-term conspiracy to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to kill American citizens.


The indictment noted that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden's international terrorist group, forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with the government of Iran and with its associated group Hezballah to "work together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States."


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.
1.7.2008 8:15am
rbj:
Let us suppose Congress does take up McGovern's call for impeachment. A new president will be inaugurated in 54 weeks. How long would it take for articles of impeachment to get out of the House (from the committee to being voted on by the entire House) and then how long for there to go through all the wrangling in the Senate (where the votes aren't, in any case). And all that to put Dick Cheney in charge for a very few months? Unless, of course, Cheney gets impeached as well, which would put Nancy Pelosi in the White House for a few months. But has McGovern thought about just how divisive that would be for the country -- many people would look at such a maneuver, removing party X's prez &v-prez to put party Y's person in charge, as a cynical attempt at a power grab. It would fall short of the divisiveness of the Civil War, but probably above anything else since the Constitution was ratified.

McGovern's call is proof that age does not give everyone wisdom.
1.7.2008 8:51am
Anonymos Coward (mail):
Clinton was prosecuted to the letter of a law that he signed. If anybody should have been reamed by that law, it was the man who signed it.

But remember, if it is a Democrat, it is a piece of ass, if it is a Republican, it gets you thrown out of office, viz Packwood.
1.7.2008 8:55am
Curt Fischer:
Thanks to jukeboxgrad for the citations. Very interesting.


When you cite the President for what turns out to be an erroneous statement about chemical and biological weapons, and when that was the conventional wisdom at the time, you are attempting to make mere human errors impeachable.


Please explain how simply citing statements constitutes an attempt to make "human errors impeachable". I don't believe jukeboxgrad has weighed in, either in support or opposition, to McGovern's call for an impeachment, at least not in this thread.

To me eye, the initial replies to this post questioned the factual accuracy of McGovern's piece in a number of areas. Then jukeboxgrad referred to a number of statements which resolved one area of questioning, whether Bush ever said threats from Iraq were "imminent". Bush and his adminstrators apparently said so on many separate occasions. This particular aspect of McGovern's piece appears to be factually accurate.
1.7.2008 8:56am
Crimso:
"How long would it take for articles of impeachment to get out of the House"

I, for one, hope they do it as quickly as possible. They will either never get the votes to impeach (because I doubt very seriously they can make a case for impeachable offenses for reasons others have cited upthread), or he'll be impeached. Then we'll have the spectacle of either the Senate voting him guilty (which would be a real hoot insofar as Clinton actually did commit a crime but wasn't found guilty; any sane person would see the blatant hypocrisy of this) or he'll be found not guilty and we'll get to go on and on for years about how they impeached him for...what? It wasn't like he got a blowjob or anything. If it happens, we'll see an unending cycle of impeachment attempts as the two parties trade off the WH. Move on. (Hey, that's catchy. Think I'll start using it)
1.7.2008 9:09am
annon1:
Thanks for posting the 1998 indictment. No wonder so many Americans thought there was a link between Bin Laden and Iraq. Who knew that Bush operatives and the neo-cons had inflitrated the SDNY US Attorney's office during the Clinton administration.....

The text of the indictment is online at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

"Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development"

"The Grand Jury document, which usually does not provide a great amount
of details in advance of a prosecution, also stated that Bin Laden and
"others" tried to develop chemical weapons and attempted to obtain
nuclear weapons components in 1993."
1.7.2008 9:23am
DLM (mail):

Please explain how simply citing statements constitutes an attempt to make "human errors impeachable". I don't believe jukeboxgrad has weighed in, either in support or opposition, to McGovern's call for an impeachment, at least not in this thread.


Not in so many words, but he did not merely "cite statements." He went on to call those statements lies. But the case for Bush as a liar is a weak one. Perhaps the CIA performed terribly in generating accurate intelligence on Iraq, but the intelligence that Bush received was that Iraq had chemical weapons and aspired to generate a nuclear weapons program. And it is not as if Bush was a fool to believe that -- everyone did, including the previous administration. In addition to that, Saddam clearly had chemical weapons in the past, had used them, and for many years following would not allow UN inspections, even upon a threat of invasion. The most logical inference was that he had something to hide. Moreover, in a post 9/11 world, those UN resolutions needed to be enforced. Bush made that case, issued ultimatums, and acted only after Saddam thumbed his nose at us. Bush did not lie to get us into a war; Saddam forced us into it.
1.7.2008 9:26am
Alan Klein (mail):
I can't believe that such a useless, tired, rejected and re-rejected argument coming from such an irrelevant political figure even gets published. What exactly are all these already discredited arguments delivered by an almost universally rejected political figure supposed to accomplish? I think that liberals should take their own advice and "move on" already.
1.7.2008 9:27am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bruce: "with the generally accepted knowledge at the time from the intelligence services around the world, one would not be Bush."

You're suggesting that the claims Bush made were congruent with "the generally accepted knowledge at the time from the intelligence services around the world." Uh, no.

Lots of people had concerns (especially in 1998, but even in 2002), but Bush et al took the lead in expressing the problem in terms of "absolute certainty." Statements like this went beyond what almost anyone else had been saying (including and especially our IC and others). Trouble is, the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain. In other words, they lied. When you pretend to know something you don't actually know, here's what you are: a liar.

"many of those you quoted are already gone, notably Rumsfeld and Fleisher. Impeachment of them would seem to be impossible now."

My point in mentioning them is not to suggest that they should be impeached. My point in mentioning them is to respond to the false claim, heard regularly, that Bush et al never told us the threat was imminent.

"When you cite the President for what turns out to be an erroneous statement about chemical and biological weapons, and when that was the conventional wisdom at the time, you are attempting to make mere human errors impeachable"

Uh, no. The "conventional wisdom at the time" did not express "absolute certainty." Bush did. That's the problem, in a nutshell.

"Here was someone who was actively aiding terrorists"

A GOP-controlled Senate said this: "Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida." So I'm surprised you're still flogging that false claim.

"had gassed his own people as well as Iran's"

Indeed. And Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds.

Anyway, Bush did not just tell us that we had to go to war because we were dealing with "someone who was actively aiding terrorists, had gassed his own people as well as Iran's, and had refused to account for all the chemical weapons that he had had on hand at the end of GWI." That wasn't enough. Bush also issued specific claims, with "absolute certainty," regarding certain items of WMD. Trouble is, those claims were not supported by the underlying intel.

The essence of the lie is not that Saddam didn't have what Bush claimed Saddam had. The essence of the lie is that Bush did not have the information he pretended to have.

"The natural progression, or slippery slope, would be to impeach President Hillary! for predicting that the economy will go up"

If President Hillary, or any president, pretended to have information about the economy that they didn't actually have, that would make the person a liar. Needless to say, the significance of the lie is infinitely greater when people die as a result.

Please consider these two statements:

A) I think we should go to war, because it's my gut feeling that we should. And I'm concerned that Saddam might possess items X, Y and Z, although I really don't know for sure.

B) I think we should go to war, because I know with "absolute certainty" that Saddam possesses items X, Y and Z.

Big difference. Bush said B. It was a lie, because he was pretending to have information that he didn't have.

"the Democrats have held the House for almost a year now, and can vote out Articles of Impeachment any time they want to"

It would be nice if we had a two-party system.
1.7.2008 9:27am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
robert: "Perhaps I haven't looked into this deeply enough, but what did the Bush II (and his administration) say about Iraq, WMD, and terrorism that Clinton I (and his administration) did not?"

A lot, including expressions of "absolute certainty." Yes, you "haven't looked into this deeply enough."

"A U.S. Federal Grand Jury in New York on Nov. 5 [1998] issued an indictment against Usama Bin Laden"

Thanks for providing this excellent chance to demonstrate how the GOP is packed with liars.

Yes, it's true that on 11/6/98, US prosecutor Fitzgerald issued an indictment that said this:

al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq


You're hoping we won't notice that Fitzgerald later withdrew that claim. The original indictment was superceded by a later indictment, the one actually used at trial (pdf), which replaced the above language with this:

USAMA BIN LADEN, the defendant, and al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with representatives of the government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hizballah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States


The claim about an alliance with Iraq was dropped, because Fitzgerald realized it was not a solid claim. He discussed this in testimony before the 9/11 commission on 6/14/04 (transcript):

FITZGERALD: … the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. … I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between al Qaeda and the Sudan. They worked hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.


This process (where Fitz dropped the language regarding OBL and Saddam) was summarized by Pincus in WP on 6/17/04:

At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.


(Emphasis added.) In other words, Fielding did what you did: he tried to make a fuss about the sentence in the earlier indictment, which involved pretending he didn't know that this sentence was dropped from the actual trial indictment. And speaking of partisan hacks who lie shamelessly, Andrew McCarthy did the exact same maneuver, here. And NRO did the exact same maneuver, here. This is a perfect case study in how the GOP is packed with liars, from top to bottom.

By the way, the first indictment is what the 9/11 commission report (pdf) described as "the original sealed indictment" (p. 128). They described it this way to differentiate it from the later indictment (the trial indictment).

By the way, the OBL/Saddam connection was entirely disavowed by a Republican-controlled committee which said (in 2006, pdf) that "Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida."

It's interesting to watch how the allegation has steadily shrunk, over time. It's also interesting to watch how folks like you fraudulently flog something Fitz said in 1998, even though what he said was later disavowed by Fitz himself and a Republican senate.
1.7.2008 9:28am
rasqual (mail):
The discussion over the significance of "imminence" hasn't cited the great debate over Bush Doctrine at the time, which was concerned with preemption. The whole point of preemption is acting before someone is capable of acting themselves.

U.S. citizens are amazingly capable of getting things dead wrong. We chuckle (or cry) at the surveys that show Americans can't find Canada on a map and so forth, but then when Americans think Iraq was involved with 9/11, some of us immediately believe that the only possible explanation is insidious propaganda by Bush/Cheney.

I find that ridiculous. Americans are idiots in general (survey says), but the moment we're idiots on certain topics, it's not possibly on account of our general idiocy, but can only be on account how vulnerable we are to political demagoguery.

Has it occured to anyone who thinks this way that Americans who don't know where Canada is on a map are probably not the ones listening to White House press conferences where imminence crops up?
1.7.2008 9:28am
The Ace (mail):
We were also told he was an imminent threat. These ideas were not supported by the underlying intel. In other words, they were lies.

I love watching you simpletons play this game.
Did Bush ever, in any instance, say "imminent threat"?
No.

If these were "lies" how do you explain this?


“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


You realize he sits on the SSCI, right?
1.7.2008 9:29am
The Ace (mail):
We were told that it was absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD

By Democrats and by President Clinton.


Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


Facts are a bitch, aren't they?
1.7.2008 9:35am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dlm: "He went on to call those statements lies"

You're being quite careless, with regard to precisely what I've claimed is a lie. Please read what I wrote subsequently.

"it is not as if Bush was a fool to believe that -- everyone did, including the previous administration"

Obviously there's a need for more remedial history. 1998 is not 2002. Things changed. That’s reflected in what Powell and Rice said in 2001.

Subsequent to Operation Desert Fox, we became confident that Saddam was not much of a threat. This is what Powell said (2/24/01): “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” (video, text).

On 5/15/01, Powell said that Saddam had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years.” Powell said we had succeeded in keeping Saddam “in a box.”

And this is what Rice said (7/29/01): “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

And even Cheney said essentially the same thing, in a moment of uncharacteristic honesty: "the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point."

It’s pretty clear that Bush is in a lot of trouble when the best you can do to defend him is say what boils down to this: Clinton’s people thought Saddam was a serious threat in 1998, so it was OK for Bush to exaggerate the threat in 2002, even though his own people knew Saddam had become significantly weaker, not stronger, since 1998.

"The most logical inference was that he had something to hide."

Uh, no. The most logical inference was that he had an interest in trying to prevent internal and regional enemies from finding out how toothless he was. Duh.

And Bush didn't say his WMD knowledge was a matter of "logical inference." He said it was a matter of "absolute certainty."

"Bush … acted only after Saddam thumbed his nose at us. Bush did not lie to get us into a war; Saddam forced us into it."

Yes, he "forced us into it" by finally cooperating with inspections. And then Bush lied about this: "he wouldn't let them in." It was Bush who chased the inspectors out, not Saddam.
1.7.2008 9:36am
Crimso:
"And Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds."

Leaving aside the point that at one point in time those biologicals were readily available from the ATCC (not Reagan and Rummy), did you know that the USSR was (gasp!) our ally during WWII? No really, Google it. It's patently silly to argue that arming Iraq in the '80's was bad. Hell, we should have been at war with Iran before Iraq (wonder if we'll get our embassy building back? We should take it out with a Tomahawk, just to make a point). Then again, we were in sort of a nondeclared war with Iran during the '80's, as we were in combat against them. Our unwillingness to retaliate against what is (and has been for millenia) universally recognized as a crime has been at least part of the problems we've faced over the years.
1.7.2008 9:42am
RRM (mail):
Thread hijacked by BDR sufferers. Nothing new to learn here.
1.7.2008 9:43am
The Ace (mail):
OOPS!


EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.


More Edwards,


John Edwards, meanwhile, wants to set the record straight he was not fooled by the administration into supporting the war. And, he adds, neither was any other senator.

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the latest issue of The New Yorker, Edwards said: "I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons. There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn't rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there's some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don't think it's true. It's great politics. But it's not the truth."


Good times.
1.7.2008 9:46am
Crimso:
"Uh, no. The most logical inference was that he had an interest in trying to prevent internal and regional enemies from finding out how toothless he was. Duh."

Don't ever bring an unloaded firearm to a gunfight.
1.7.2008 9:46am
The Ace (mail):

And Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds."


Complete and utter lie. The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons.
1.7.2008 9:47am
DLM (mail):

Uh, no. The most logical inference was that he had an interest in trying to prevent internal and regional enemies from finding out how toothless he was. Duh.


The most logical inference you would draw from a refusal to allow weapons inspections is that there were no weapons at all? I am quite glad that our leaders are not inclined to be so reckless.

Saddam's motivation may well have been to conceal the sorry state of his military might. That doesn't mean we would have been right to infer that motive, let alone use it to guide our policy.


You're being quite careless, with regard to precisely what I've claimed is a lie. Please read what I wrote subsequently.


How is that? This seems fairly clear to me -- i.e., that the statements you quoted were, in your opinion, lies b/c they were not supported by the underlying intel:


We were told that it was absolutely certain that Saddam had WMD. We were also told he was an imminent threat. These ideas were not supported by the underlying intel. In other words, they were lies.
1.7.2008 9:55am
The Ace (mail):
I do enjoy trips down memory lane


It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed


---October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
1.7.2008 10:00am
The Ace (mail):
Uh, no. The most logical inference was that he had an interest in trying to prevent internal and regional enemies from finding out how toothless he was

That's a real logical approach you got going there to US foreign policy. Don't take people at their word or judge their actions, draw "(ill)logical inferences" dammit!

McGovern '08 - "peace through surrender and logical inference"!!!!
1.7.2008 10:09am
George Smith (mail):
BDS is kinda' like shingles. It'll always be there, and will pop up continually over the years for no reason other than it's just there, and won't ever leave.
1.7.2008 10:35am
Dave N (mail):
For someone who claims to be a source wanting absolute accuracy, Jukeboxgrad's claim that "Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds" is puzzling, given that Donald Rumsfeld did not serve in the Reagan Administration except in advisory capacities.

He had served as SecDef from 1975 to 1977 and was Chairman of G.D. Searle from 1977 to 1985. Rumsfeld remained in private business until become SecDef again in 2001.

For someone who claims to want to put forth nothing but the true historical record, Jukeboxgrad should be accurate himself.
1.7.2008 11:08am
David Chesler (mail) (www):
I'm disappointed that folks, even at this high level, think of impeachment as a kind of recall election or no-confidence vote. IMNSHO prior to Watergate we wouldn't have thought to try to remove a sitting POTUS except for the most serious reasons, and it is disingenuous to act shocked that a politician lied.
I was never a Clinton fan, and notwithstanding that gentlemen are supposed to lie to protect a woman's honor (that's what a member of an older generation said to me about the issue) he looked me in the eye out of the box in my livingroom and lied to me. But even with the weight of all the crap around him, some of which stuck and some of which didn't, impeachment was the wrong way to go, even if it was for "felony perjury in a sexual harassment case". I can see the argument for putting the whole case off until he is out of office.
Orderly elections are a good thing, and a good tradition. That means not only that the old regime is willing to step down gracefully, but also that the new regime is willing to wait its turn.
1.7.2008 11:36am
mojo (mail):
Who? Oh, him...

Go back to sleep, George.
1.7.2008 12:40pm
Adam J:
The Ace - Just want to point out that pointing out some democrats that also lied/mistated whether Saddam had nuclear weapons doesn't take anything away from the fact that Bush &Co. also lied about it. You can't show that what Bush did was right simply by saying someone else did it too. If its found that some Democrats also lied, then I have no problem with them being attacked &called to be impeached for it as well.
1.7.2008 12:50pm
Robert R.:
For someone who claims to be a source wanting absolute accuracy, Jukeboxgrad's claim that "Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds" is puzzling, given that Donald Rumsfeld did not serve in the Reagan Administration except in advisory capacities.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle &Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person" [Document 36 and Document 37].

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons"
1.7.2008 1:01pm
Smokey:
The Ace is using simple facts to dis the McGovern apologists better'n a WWF Smackdown. So let's rub some of those noses in some more uncomfortable facts.
1.7.2008 2:15pm
Dave N (mail):
OK, I will acknowledge that Rumsfeld met with Tariq Aziz as an unofficial Presidential envoy. Now do you have any evidence that he agreed on behalf of the American government to provide Hussein with weapons as Jukeboxgrad argues? Or even that President Reagan did?
1.7.2008 2:37pm
The Ace (mail):
The Ace - Just want to point out that pointing out some democrats that also lied/mistated whether Saddam had nuclear weapons doesn't take anything away from the fact that Bush &Co. also lied about it

Uh, or, you could stop your silly derangement and understand those statements were not lies. See, when the leasership of the entire political class believes something to be true, it not being true doesn't make it a "lie."

You can't show that what Bush did was right simply by saying someone else did it too

I didn't do or try to do that.
Learn to read.

If its found that some Democrats also lied

Don't you find it the least bit odd you called Bush et. al, "liars" but when statements are produced of Democrats saying the exact same things, you say "if"

Now why do you think that is?
1.7.2008 2:38pm
The Ace (mail):
Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting

None of which supports the contention that the US gave Saddam "cluster bombs."
1.7.2008 2:40pm
Adam J:
Ace- If Bush had current intel then he knew that it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs, yet he, and the rest of the administration said Iraq did have WMDs- that's a lie. Also, I use the term if because I suspect many (but probably not all) of the democrats were uninformed regarding actual intel, and so were merely parroting the administration in order to score political points. This wouldn't amount to a lie (although I still think it's pretty reckless).
1.7.2008 3:16pm
The Ace (mail):
Ace- If Bush had current intel then he knew that it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs, yet he, and the rest of the administration said Iraq did have WMDs- that's a lie.

Sure, but that did not happen.

Also, I use the term if because I suspect many (but probably not all) of the democrats were uninformed regarding actual intel, and so were merely parroting the administration in order to score political points.

Edwards &Rockefeller were on the SSCI. Hillary! claimed to be a know it all because of her husband. And her husband stated flatly that "it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
1.7.2008 3:43pm
BobDoyle (mail):
Ace, your efforts are commendable, but your objective is an impossible dream. BDS is incurable.
1.7.2008 3:51pm
The General:
McGovern loves him some left-wing nutjob Kool-Aid!
1.7.2008 4:34pm
More Bush Lies, From 1999:
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

In February 1999, Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.
1.7.2008 4:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Above I said this:

Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam with useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, bubonic plague and deadly pesticides, right at the moment that Saddam was gassing Kurds.


That link is bad. One that works is here. Sorry about that.
1.7.2008 4:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
rasqual: "The whole point of preemption is acting before someone is capable of acting themselves."

The whole point of what I'm saying is that Bush wasn't content to talk about the importance of "acting before someone is capable of acting themselves." He also told us the threat was imminent.

"Americans are idiots in general (survey says), but the moment we're idiots on certain topics, it's not possibly on account of our general idiocy, but can only be on account how vulnerable we are to political demagoguery."

The two explanations you mention are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary: they are complementary.

"Americans who don't know where Canada is on a map are probably not the ones listening to White House press conferences where imminence crops up?"

They may not be listening to "White House press conferences," but they're likely to be hearing Rush or Sean on the radio, or listening to a pal at work who has been hearing Rush or Sean on the radio. And Rush and Sean are often just an extension of the "White House press conferences."
1.7.2008 4:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "I love watching you simpletons play this game. Did Bush ever, in any instance, say 'imminent threat'?"

I love watching you simpletons play this game. No, there is no record, as far as I know, of Bush personally saying those exact words. Trouble is, he has a lot of other people speaking for him, and they indeed said either those words, or words essentially indistinguishable from those words. And he personally said very similar words. It's highly Clintonesque of you to suggest that there's a big difference between calling a threat "imminent," as compared with calling it "grave" and "urgent." Those are words used personally by Bush.

Anyway, here's an interesting example of the same game, in reverse. Did Gore ever, in any instance, say he "invented" the internet?

"Jay Rockefeller"

You get a cookie, because that quote from him ("unmistakable evidence") is the only example I've ever been able to find of anyone other than Bush et al expressing that level of certainty. Which is why the word "almost" appears in what I wrote above ("statements like this went beyond what almost anyone else had been saying").

Anyway, this proves only that Rockefeller is an idiot. There's lots of other proof, too. It would be nice if we had a two party system.

"it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Sorry, but keep trying. First of all, "the day I left office" is more than two years pre-invasion. Things change, as I demonstrated here. And making a claim about "unaccounted for stocks" is not the same thing as asserting that we know for sure that something is there (which is what Bush did). It's simply a claim that we don't know. That's what "unaccounted for" means.

"No. I didn’t get misled. "

I don't give Edwards a pass for that. It's an idiotic statement.

"Facts are a bitch, aren't they?"

Indeed. That's why I'm hoping you'll bring some that actually matter.

"The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons."

Wrong. The facts are here. Also see here and here. When you don't even lift a finger to present contrary evidence, you sound like Baghdad Bob.
1.7.2008 4:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
crimso: "It's patently silly to argue that arming Iraq in the '80's was bad"

It's silly if you think that credibility doesn't matter. It's not good for our credibility that we helped Saddam while he was gassing people, and then years later whined about how evil he was for gassing people.

"Don't ever bring an unloaded firearm to a gunfight."

You're making the point, correctly, that Saddam was unwise to bluff, and that this was a self-destructive move on his part. Fair enough, but I don't care. It's not what's most relevant. What's most relevant (to us) is that it was equally unwise for us not to take into account the likelihood that he was doing some bluffing. This was a self-destructive move on our part.

ace: "Don't take people at their word or judge their actions, draw '(ill)logical inferences' dammit!"

Yes, when you're dealing with someone like Saddam, it is indeed foolish to "take people at their word." What's necessary is to take words and actions into account, and make assessments about the motivations behind those words and actions. It doesn't take a genius to understand the likelihood that Saddam was bluffing.
1.7.2008 4:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dlm: "The most logical inference you would draw from a refusal to allow weapons inspections is that there were no weapons at all?"

Nice job with the straw man. Indicate where I or anyone else has suggested that it was reasonable to believe that "there were no weapons at all."

"Saddam's motivation may well have been to conceal the sorry state of his military might. That doesn't mean we would have been right to infer that motive, let alone use it to guide our policy."

Understanding the motives of your enemy is a fundamental aspect of any strategic enterprise. If we failed to take this motive of his into account, there are only two possible explanations. We were either profoundly foolish, or we had a political interest in sweeping that motive under the rug. Choose your poison.

"This seems fairly clear to me -- i.e., that the statements you quoted were, in your opinion, lies b/c they were not supported by the underlying intel"

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough before. I apologize for saying you were careless. The mistake was mine.

The statements that were most clearly lies are the statements that expressed "absolute certainty." I quoted a bunch of other statements on the subject of "imminent threat." Yes, those statements were also lies, because they did not honestly summarize the underlying intel. But it's murkier, because a word like "imminent" is somewhat subjective. Anyway, I posted those quotes regarding "imminent threat" not so much for the purpose of showing examples of lies, but for the purpose of knocking down the false claim that Bush et al never said "imminent threat."
1.7.2008 4:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton"

Instead of dribbling them out piecemeal, I think you'll save everyone a lot of time if you just point to the snopes page where all that stuff is listed (I see that smokey has cited this link too). It's helpful because it includes the context, and it shows how folks like you are frequently distorting the message by excluding the context.

"Now this much is undisputed"

She wasn't making a specific factual claim regarding what he had. It was only this vague statement: "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare." And in the next passage, she went on to say this:

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. … So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.


Keep trying.

"those statements were not lies"

It would be nice if you made at least a pretense of addressing what I said about "absolute certainty."

"when the leasership of the entire political class believes something to be true, it not being true doesn't make it a 'lie.' "

The essence of the lie is not that Saddam didn't have what Bush claimed Saddam had. The essence of the lie is that Bush did not have the information he pretended to have.
1.7.2008 4:56pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "Don't you find it the least bit odd you called Bush et. al, 'liars' but when statements are produced of Democrats saying the exact same things, you say 'if' "

Don't you find it the least bit odd that you have presented at most one example of a Democrat "saying the exact same things?" And even that is quite a stretch, because what Bush told us was there is this:

500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax


Show us the Democrat who said that.

By the way, all the claims listed above, including all the numbers cited, came out of either Bush's mouth or Powell's mouth, or possibly both. Very detailed further analysis is here and here.

It's quite surprising that we haven't found that stuff, since Rumsfeld said he knew where it was:

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.


Of course the lovely thing about Rumsfeld is that he later told a blatant lie and claimed he never said that.
1.7.2008 4:56pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dave: "Donald Rumsfeld did not serve in the Reagan Administration except in advisory capacities."

Rumsfeld was Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East. In that capacity, Rumsfeld met with Saddam on 12/20/83. When I look at that photo, I don't see someone acting in an "advisory" capacity. I see someone serving as a presidential envoy. Rumsfeld visited Iraq several times, and had an important role in US-Iraq relations (some details here).

Please let us know the basis for your claim that the word "serve" does not apply to the work of a presidential envoy.

"For someone who claims to want to put forth nothing but the true historical record, Jukeboxgrad should be accurate himself."

For someone who claims that I'm not accurate, you should do a better job of explaining what I said that wasn't accurate.

I see that robert has already responded. Thanks, robert.

"OK, I will acknowledge that Rumsfeld met with Tariq Aziz as an unofficial Presidential envoy"

He also met with Saddam. And what is "unofficial" about being appointed Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East?

"do you have any evidence that he agreed on behalf of the American government to provide Hussein with weapons as Jukeboxgrad argues? Or even that President Reagan did?"

Yes, and it's already been cited (although at first I posted a bad link, which might have been a problem).
1.7.2008 4:56pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "None of which supports the contention that the US gave Saddam 'cluster bombs.' "

Read:

Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.

Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.

This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters.


(Emphasis added.) This is referenced generally in the article I already cited.
1.7.2008 4:56pm
The Ace (mail):
Indeed. That's why I'm hoping you'll bring some that actually matter.

Hilarious. Yes, links to claims at common dreams are now "facts that matter."

First of all, "the day I left office" is more than two years pre-invasion. Things change, as I demonstrated here.

1. You "demonstrated" nothing.

2. What changed? Oh, you can't say.
Nevermind.
1.7.2008 4:58pm
The Ace (mail):
Show us the Democrat who said that

And then what? You'll say "things change"?

This is like watching a monkey spittle all over itself.
1.7.2008 5:00pm
The Ace (mail):
She wasn't making a specific factual claim regarding what he had.

Reason 4,218 it's no longer worth responding to you.

You're simply chaging words to suit your silly agenda.
1.7.2008 5:02pm
The Ace (mail):
And in the next passage, she went on to say this:

And in the next passage said this:


But there are problems with this approach as well


Referring to your non-point.
1.7.2008 5:06pm
The Ace (mail):
Anyway, this proves only that Rockefeller is an idiot.

No, it proves that Bush didn't lie. See, Rockefeller was on the committe before Bush was President. That same committe has oversight over the CIA. The very same committee senator Edwards said on and said "

I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

Bush did not lie. Bush did not tell Senator's Edwards &Rockefeller about Saddam's WMD programs.
1.7.2008 5:08pm
The Ace (mail):
Don't you find it the least bit odd that you have presented at most one example of a Democrat "saying the exact same things?" And even that is quite a stretch, because what Bush told us was there is this:

I didn't provide "one example" there are dozens.

"

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members, though there is apparently no evidence in his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002


Same day,


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002
1.7.2008 5:14pm
The Ace (mail):
The essence of the lie is not that Saddam didn't have what Bush claimed Saddam had. The essence of the lie is that Bush did not have the information he pretended to have

The essence of lies here are the ones you're telling.

Finally, George "slam dunk" Tenent disagrees with you.
1.7.2008 5:15pm
The Ace (mail):
It's helpful because it includes the context, and it shows how folks like you are frequently distorting the message by excluding the context

I distorted no context.

Example:

We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards, October 2002
1.7.2008 5:19pm
Steve Rosenbach (www):
Dr. David Kay testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) 1/23/2004:

"Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion- although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."


Butler Commission Report (UK):

The Butler Inquiry report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a "well-founded" judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible."
1.7.2008 5:22pm
Dave N (mail):
But Steve Rosenbach, we know that Joe Wilson went to Niger, drank some tea, met with some people, and on that basis was convnced Niger did nothing of the kind. Who are we going to believe? Joe Wilson? or the Butler Commission and British Intelligence?
1.7.2008 5:45pm
The Ace (mail):
Clinton Admin:


Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city.

---emarks by Defense Secretary Cohen during a Defense Department Briefing, November 25, 1997

I know, I know that doesn't "count" because of Desert Fox.
Or something.
1.7.2008 5:58pm
The Ace (mail):
ACE:
"None of which supports the contention that the US gave Saddam 'cluster bombs"

Silly leftist:

Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice.


Proof that the US gave Iraq weapons?
None.
1.7.2008 6:00pm
LM (mail):
The Ace said:

This is like watching a monkey spittle all over itself.

Assuming you actually believe there's a place for that sort of remark in civil debate, whom are you trying to convince with it, and what do you expect to convince them of?
1.7.2008 6:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
more: "one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who 'may have offered him asylum' "

Yes, in 1999, there was a vague report along those lines. There were all sorts of vague reports, including reports contrary to that.

In 2006, the Senate Intelligence Committee (when it was still controlled by Republicans) published their overall assessment of those various reports (pdf):

Conclusion 1: ... Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. ... Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al-Qa’ida in particular. ... bin Ladin attempted to exploit the former Iraqi regime by making requests for operational and material assistance, while Saddam Hussein refused all such requests. ... Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.
1.7.2008 7:11pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "Hilarious. Yes, links to claims at common dreams are now 'facts that matter.' "

The article I cited is from WP. It's simply being hosted at CD. CD didn't write it. I'm using the CD link because the WP link doesn't work. I guess you must find all these internets sort of confusing, since it seems you weren't able to figure that out on your own.

If your claim is that you categorically mock and ignore everything written by WP, then I should probably refer you to several thousand examples of righty bloggers citing WP. But I think what you're really trying to tell us is that you're such an ignoramus that you don't undertand that what matters about an article is the original source, not the web site that happens to be hosting a copy of it at the moment.

By the way, I've also linked to the court documents that underlie some of the claims made in the article. Next up, ace will argue that the court documents should be ignored because he once heard a story about Al Franken walking down the street past the courthouse. That's about as logical as your silly remark making a fuss about where the article happens to be hosted.

"You 'demonstrated' nothing."

Actually, I've demonstrated quite a bit. What you've demonstrated is that you look like this.

"What changed? Oh, you can't say."

I didn't have to say, because Powell, Rice and Cheney said it for me: Saddam was "in a box."

"And then what?"

When you show us facts that actually support your claims, I'll thank you for helping me learn something new. So far, you haven't done so. But there's no time like the present, so maybe you'll rise to the occasion and surprise us. We'll be waiting patiently.

"You're simply chaging words to suit your silly agenda."

No. I'm simply paying attention to the words people actually said, instead of my fantasy of what they said.

"So it wasn’t just the Bush administration"

Is there an echo in here? You already cited that text. Let us know if you have something new to say.
1.7.2008 7:11pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "I didn't provide 'one example' there are dozens"

Are you so dumb that you don't grasp what I said, or are you so dishonest that you are pretending not to grasp what I said?

Bush expressed "absolute certainty." With the possible exception of Rockefeller, no one else did.

Bush said Saddam had this:

500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax


We're still waiting for you to tell us about the Democrat who said that.

"The essence of lies here are the ones you're telling."

We'll be waiting patiently for you to show proof that I've told a lie. And speaking of lies, you said this: "The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons." I've proven that you're wrong. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this tends to create the impression that you were lying, and not just making a mistake.

"George 'slam dunk' Tenent disagrees with you."

It would help if you were more specific. What Tenet said varied depending on which way the wind was blowing. I guess that's why Bush gave him a medal.
1.7.2008 7:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons."

I can't find the context for the passage you cited. Do you have a link to the entire speech? I don't pay much attention to quotes if I can't see the context.

"Proof that the US gave Iraq weapons? None."

Have you been drinking? You said those words immediately after citing proof that the US gave Iraq weapons.
1.7.2008 7:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
steve: "The British government had intelligence from several different sources"

The Butler report proves only that Bush has a friend in Blair and Blair has a friend in Butler. The "several different sources" in Butler all trace back to the forged documents. It's quite entertaining to note how the Butler report gets quoted constantly and the Silberman-Robb report is ignored. S-R said this:

the NIE ... did note that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. This statement was based largely on reporting from a foreign government intelligence service that Niger planned to send up to 500 tons of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. ... For reasons discussed at length below, several months after the NIE, the reporting that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger was judged to be based on forged documents and was recalled ... In addition to recalling the reporting, CIA briefed the congressional intelligence committees in June 2003 that, given the recall of the earlier reporting, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa.


In other words, according to S-R, the idea of yellowcake from Africa was "based largely" on the forged documents. And without those documents, "there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa." In other words, S-R didn't take Butler very seriously, and neither should anyone else.

We had verbatim text of those documents in 2/02. The verbatim text was enough to reveal that they were forgeries. Nevertheless, we spent more than a year pretending they were genuine. This has never been properly investigated or explained.
1.7.2008 7:12pm
MarkField (mail):
jukeboxgrad, I know it sometimes feels very isolated when you're the only one posting on a thread like this. You're doing so well, there's no need for anyone else to jump in.
1.7.2008 7:34pm
The Ace (mail):
More:

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.


Al Gore, September 23, 2002
1.7.2008 7:39pm
The Ace (mail):

I didn't have to say, because Powell, Rice and Cheney said it for me: Saddam was "in a box."


Which is irrelevant as to whether or not he had WMD or Bush "lied."

Those statements are also challenged here:


POWELL: This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives.

I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, ``Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it,'' unquote.

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, ``did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.''

POWELL: My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.


When you show us facts that actually support your claims, I'll thank you for helping me learn something new. So far, you haven't done so.

Did Democrats, prior to Bush being elected, say Iraq had WMD?
Yes

Did Democrats say Iraq had WMD after Bush was elected?
Yes

Does this disprove Bush "lied"?
Conclusively.

Those are facts.
1.7.2008 7:47pm
The Ace (mail):
ukeboxgrad, I know it sometimes feels very isolated when you're the only one posting on a thread like this. You're doing so well, there's no need for anyone else to jump in.

Another illiterate monkey joins the fray.
1.7.2008 7:48pm
The Ace (mail):
I can't find the context for the passage you cited.

You mean so you can pretend the words don't mean what they say?


No. I'm simply paying attention to the words people actually said, instead of my fantasy of what they said.

You mean like:

We know that he has chemical and biological weapons


Then you go on to say:
Bush expressed "absolute certainty." With the possible exception of Rockefeller, no one else did

Rockefeller, Edwards, Kerry, Reid, Gore, Clinton (both), Daschle, and Byrd all did.

Every Single one of them.

All of them.

Now you can sit there and pretend they didn't by laughably talking about "context" but that just demonstrates that you're a moron.
1.7.2008 7:53pm
The Ace (mail):
Have you been drinking? You said those words immediately after citing proof that the US gave Iraq weapons

Again, you can't read.

1) a singular claim doesn't constitute fact

2) Even accepting the claim as true, nothing, not one word demonstrates that America gave Iraq weapons. "Leading efforts" is not giving. Or can't you read?
1.7.2008 7:56pm
The Ace (mail):
Another Democrat


Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."
1.7.2008 8:00pm
The Ace (mail):
And speaking of lies, you said this: "The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons." I've proven that you're wrong.

No, you posted links to documents where in a single instance someone claimed that the DCIA "led efforts" to get Iraq weapons.

That is hardly "proof" of anything.
1.7.2008 8:05pm
Crimso:
"It's silly if you think that credibility doesn't matter. It's not good for our credibility that we helped Saddam while he was gassing people, and then years later whined about how evil he was for gassing people."

So do you think we were wrong for helping the USSR? Did the fact they were our ally during WWII hurt our credibility during the Cold War? I'll also note that the wording of your comment can be very esily construed as asserting the US helped Saddam gas the Kurds and the Iranians. Now before you start in on "reading comprehension," remember that Bush never said "imminent," but supposedly intended for people to think he did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1.7.2008 8:05pm
The Ace (mail):
Finally

No. I'm simply paying attention to the words people actually said,

Mind you, from the author of:
I can't find the context for the passage you cited.

Parody.

And, no, you're not "paying attention to the words people actually said." You're trying to spin and obfuscate them (pathetically).
1.7.2008 8:07pm
MatthewM (mail):
After being hit with the indubitable fact that many, many Democrats said they believed Saddam had WMDs, jukebox has been forced into the position that these statements don't make them liars because they didn't express "absolute certainty," when one or two quotes by Bush administration spokespeople could be interpreted as stating that. This is weak. The quotes are enough to prove that there was a broad consensus that Saddam had WMDs of some type; asserting that the administration's statements were "lies" because some assertions were made that were made that were a tad bit stronger than other statements (but not really stronger what was said by other senior ranking Democrats) is really a stretch, and presupposes bad faith with no evidence.
1.7.2008 8:16pm
The Ace (mail):
Is there an echo in here? You already cited that text. Let us know if you have something new to say.

Yes, I reposted it because you simply can't respond. Saying Edwards is "an idiot" isn't a response and doesn't deal with the facts.

Oh and this,

It's simply a claim that we don't know. That's what "unaccounted for" means.

Is a lie. Clinton said "unaccounted for stocks" of weapons. Meaning: unaccounted for by UNSCOM and the US. Meaning: not accounted for. Meaning missing: missing or absent, for unknown reasons.

Nowhere is "we don't know" a part of that. Clinton said we know they are not accounted for.
1.7.2008 8:37pm
Smokey:
LM:
"Assuming you [Ace] actually believe there's a place for that sort of remark in civil debate, whom are you trying to convince with it, and what do you expect to convince them of?"
That's the kind of comment that someone falls back on when they have no facts to argue. [And watch it with the 'whom.' The grammar nazis might getcha! And that's something up with which you should never put. w/apologies to WC.]
1.7.2008 9:18pm
M. Watkins (mail):
I'm calling for the prosecution of George McGovern for his war crimes: Murdering innocent civilians during WW2. And prosecution for his failure as a parent in preventing his daughter from drinking herself to death.

Actually, I call for the prosecution of donnie graham and his butt-boy, Leonard Downie Jr., for taking advantage of a senile old man.
1.7.2008 10:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mark, thanks for your kind words.

I've been doing this for a long time, and I get quite a few expressions of support (like via email, for example). So I know there's support out there even if people aren't speaking up publicly.
1.7.2008 10:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "Al Gore, September 23, 2002"

It's a good speech. You should read it. Gore described exactly what was going to happen: "Iraq [coming] to resemble Afghanistan – with no central authority but instead local and regional warlords with porous borders and infiltrating members of Al Qaeda."

Gore wasn't the only one who correctly predicted the outcome. Various people knew Iraq would be a quagmire, and that once we got in we would never get out. Like this guy:

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.


And this guy (audio):

The notion that we oughta now go into Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we would have to do once we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place, it's not clear what kind of government what would be, how long you'd have to stay. For the US to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq strike me as a classic definition of a quagmire.


(Emphasis added.) Whole lot of quagmire talk going on back then. His evident knowledge of the situation tends to create the impression that our current mess was created intentionally.
1.7.2008 10:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "Which is irrelevant as to whether or not he had WMD"

Powell, Rice and Cheney all indicated that Saddam was weak. This is relevant to the constant practice of telling us all about 1998, and pretending that nothing changed between then and the time that Powell, Rice and Cheney spoke, several years later.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it"

Gosh, that's awfully cute. There should be a special name for this technique. Blix issued a long report, and Powell cherry-picked from it, and you, in turn, are cherry-picking from what Powell said.

The full context of Blix's statement is here. On the same day that he said what you and Powell quote, he also said this:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.


The point of Blix's complaint ("Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance") was to indicate that there were still certain issues, and Blix wanted to keep the heat on Saddam. But inspections were working. In the end, Saddam opened the door to inspections. They found nothing. Bush invaded anyway, and then lied about the inspections ("he wouldn't let them in"). That's a very big problem.
1.7.2008 10:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "Did Democrats, prior to Bush being elected, say Iraq had WMD"

Lots of people said "Iraq had WMD." But Bush was virtually alone in claiming that we knew this with "absolute certainty." Nice job continuing to pretend that this simple concept is beyond you.

By the way, lots of Dems said what they said because they assumed Bush was an honest man. Live and learn. Fool me once etc (video).

Also, I don't need you to tell me that some Dems are idiots. We already knew. As I have said, it would be better if we had a two-party system.

"Does this disprove Bush 'lied'? Conclusively."

Since we're talking about Bush's life as a liar, here are a few more examples you might like to chew on:

- we have found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in
- a wiretap requires a court order

"Every Single one of them."

Please consider the following statements:

A) I know something

B) I know something with absolute certainty

I suppose you'll continue to pretend that you don't understand the difference.

And please consider the following statements:

C) Saddam has WMD

D) Saddam has 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax

I suppose those also look exactly the same to you. Bush said D. Find me a Dem who said the same thing.
1.7.2008 10:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: " 'Leading efforts' is not giving."

Next up, ace will tell us about the meaning of "is."

You're trying to claim that we didn't arm Saddam. Let's review a few basic facts.

Howard Teicher was a member of Reagan's National Security Council. Teicher made the following statement in a sworn affidavit (pdf, text):

… In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. …

CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war.  …

… the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.

…I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks.  When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect "force multiplier" that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the "human waves" of Iranian attackers.

… The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq.

… Under CIA DIrector Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq.  I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point.  The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq.

… The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

… The mere request to a third party to carry out an action did not constitute a "covert action," and, accordingly, required no Presidential Finding or reporting to Congress.  The supply of Cardoen cluster bombs, which were fitted for use on Soviet, French and NATO aircraft, was a mere extension fo the United States policy of assisting Iraq through all legal means in order to avoid an Iranian victory.

… My files will contain my notes and memoranda from meetings I attended with CIA director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates which included discussions of Cardoen's manufacture and sale of cluster bombs to Iraq.  My NSC files will also contain cable traffic among various United States agencies, embassies and other parties relating to Cardoen and his sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq and other Middle Eastern states.

… Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq.  My NSC files will contain documents that show or tend to show the CIA's authorization, approval and assistance of Cardoen's manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other muntions to Iraq.

… My files will contain notes, memoranda and other documents that will show that the highest levels fo the United States government, including the NSC Staff and the CIA, were well aware of Cardoen's arrest in 1983 in Miami in a sting operation relating to the smuggling of night vision goggles to Cuba and Libya.  My files will also show that the highest levels of the government were aware of the arrest and conviction of two of Cardoen's employees and his company Industrias Cardoen.

… CIA Director William Casey, aware of Cardoen's arrest and the conviction of his employees and his company, intervened in order to make sure that Cardoen was able to supply cluster bombs to Iraq. Specifically, CIA Director Casey directed the Secretaries of the State and Commerce Departments that the necessary licenses required by Cardoen were not to be denied.  My files will contain notes, memoranda and other documents showing or tending to show that CIA Director William Casey's intervention was in order to maintain Cardoen's ability to supply cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq.


OK, that's what Teicher said. Let's compare that to what ace said:

The United States never, ever, gave Saddam any weapons.


And this:

not one word demonstrates that America gave Iraq weapons


And this:

None of which supports the contention that the US gave Saddam "cluster bombs."


Gosh, tough choice. Should we believe a sworn affadavit from a member of Reagan's NSC, or should we believe a statement by some guy on a blog? I'll have to think about that one for a while. Then again, maybe you're expecting us to adopt an exceedingly Clintonesque interpretation of the word "gave."

Your selective skepticism is quite adorable. When it comes connecting Reagan with Saddam, this sort of testimony means nothing to you. But if you hear a rumor that OBL's brother-in-law's cousin's wife's hair-dresser once shared a taxi with Saddam's nephew's soccer coach's dentist, you probably treat that as conclusive evidence that Saddam and OBL are bosom buddies. Interesting how that works.
1.7.2008 10:53pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
crimso: "do you think we were wrong for helping the USSR?"

This discussion is broad enough without also taking on a complete recapitulation of WWII. There are too many profound differences for me to think that it's a helpful tangent.

"the wording of your comment can be very esily construed as asserting the US helped Saddam gas the Kurds and the Iranians"

Let me be more direct: the US helped Saddam gas the Kurds and the Iranians. By patting him on the back, almost literally, while he was doing those things, we were providing moral support, which is definitely a form of 'help.'

As I have pointed out, it's quite interesting to notice the gyrations that are performed when the shoe is on the other foot. The evidence linking Saddam and OBL has always been very weak, at best, but this didn't stop Bush from claiming that they worked "in concert." Cheney said Saddam and AQ had an "established relationship." Feith called it "an operational relationship."

If the weak (at best) ties that OBL had with Saddam can fairly be called working "in concert," then it's obviously more than reasonable to treat the help Reagan gave Saddam as tantamount to "[helping] Saddam gas the Kurds and the Iranians."

"Bush never said 'imminent,' but supposedly intended for people to think he did"

There's nothing "supposedly" about it. Review the statements I cited. Unless you want to claim that "immediate" and "imminent" don't mean the same thing. Clintonesque parsings are suddenly very popular among the Clinton-haters.
1.7.2008 10:53pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
matthew: "they didn't express 'absolute certainty,' when one or two quotes by Bush administration spokespeople could be interpreted as stating that"

It's not that what Bush et al said "could be interpreted as stating that." "Absolute certainty" is the exact phrase that Cheney used. The phrase "no doubt" was also used many times.

What's your point? That it was OK for them to tell this lie because they only used those words on multiple occasions, rather than scores of occasions? One lie, of that magnitude, is one lie too many.

And it was far more than one. You have an odd concept of what "one or two" means. Count these:

intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons; Bush, 3/18/03

there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; Cheney, 8/26/02

we know for a fact that there are weapons there; Fleischer, 1/9/03

intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised; Bush, 3/17/03

there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Fleischer, 3/21/03

there is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction; Franks, 3/22/03

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction; Adelman, 3/23/03

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat; Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found; Fleischer, 4/10/03

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there; Powell, 5/4/03

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; Gen. Michael Hagee, 5/21/03

I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction; Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, 5/26/03

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on; Wolfowitz, 5/28/03

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them; Buhs, 5/30/03

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two; Bush, 5/30/03


"The quotes are enough to prove that there was a broad consensus that Saddam had WMDs of some type"

There was no "broad concensus" with regard to the level of certainty expressed in the statements I just cited. And, most importantly, that level of certainty was profoundly at odds wih the level of certainty even within the most hawkish elements of our IC. That's the problem, in a nutshell. Bush et al pretended to have information they didn't have.

"some assertions were made that were made that were a tad bit stronger than other statements"

Saying "no doubt" over and over again is not fairly characterized as just "a tad bit stronger than other statements." If you go looking for Dems expressing this level of certainty, you're lucky if you can find one or two. And the Dems who sang this tune were just making the mistake of trusting Bush. And despite all that, most Dems in the House voted no.

"not really stronger what was said by other senior ranking Democrats"

Show me the "senior ranking Democrats" who used the phrase "no doubt" over and over again.

"presupposes bad faith with no evidence"

I am somewhat inclined to supposed "bad faith" on your part, because the "evidence" shows that you have an odd concept of "one or two," along with some other odd concepts. Like your claim that they only said things that "could be interpreted as stating that [no doubt]," when in fact they expressly said it. Over and over again. In major addresses, in front of large audiences. And their statements were spread far and wide, by the usual suspects.
1.7.2008 10:53pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace: "Clinton said we know they are not accounted for."

Let's review. You are claiming that the Dems said the same thing that Bush et al said. You are pointing out that Clinton said "we know they are not accounted for."

Indeed. Which is the same thing as saying this: we don't know where they are. I guess I need to remind you what Rumsfeld said:

We know where they are


Please consider the following two statements:

A) We don't know where they are.

B) We know where they are.

You seem to have some trouble understanding that A and B are not the same. Yikes.
1.7.2008 10:53pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
smokey: "That's the kind of comment that someone falls back on when they have no facts to argue."

Then I wonder how you would classify comments like these:

I love watching you simpletons play this game.

This is like watching a monkey spittle all over itself.

Another illiterate monkey joins the fray.

that just demonstrates that you're a moron.
1.7.2008 10:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I want to provide a specific example of how Bush et al made statements that were unsupported by the underlying intel. Consider this statement by Cheney (9/8/02):

we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.


This was a reference to aluminum tubes. Trouble is, top nuclear experts at Oak Ridge had already determined that the tubes were not "well suited" for centrifuge applications:

Energy Department experts ... concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges "is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes." Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.


That all happened a year before Cheney spoke. "Absolute certainty" was a lie, in other words.

The exact same day that Cheney spoke, Rice told the exact same lie: that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." When it comes to rolling out a marketing campaign for a war, these folks are well-coordinated.

A little more detail about this. Note what Baradei said (3/7/03):

Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81-millimeter tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets. ...

Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuge, and moreover that it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program.


This is exactly the same finding that top US nuclear scientists had reached in 2001. SSCI (2004) says this:

On August 17, 2001, DOE published ... an extensive eight page analysis of whether the aluminum tubes were intended for a rocket or a centrifuge program. The assessment ... noted that the Iraqis had ... used large numbers of high strength aluminum tubes to manufacture 81-mm rockets dating back to at least 1989. The tubes were declared to be made of 7075-T6 aluminum with an 81 mm outer diameter, 74.4 mm inner diameter, and 900 mm length - the same specifications of the tubes Iraq was trying to acquire in 2001.

Regarding the tubes' utility in a gas centrifuge program, the DOE assessed that the tubes could have been used to manufacture centrifuge rotors, but were not well suited for that purpose. ...

DOE concluded that "... a gas centrifuge application is credible but unlikely and a rocket production application is the more likely end use for these tubes."


Not only did Bush conceal this DOE finding, he sent someone to lie about it, and turn it into the exact opposite of the truth (SSCI again):

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." ... 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.


That darn liberal media. And guess who wrote that NYT article: Libby's favorite reporter, Judith Miller. And it's a safe bet that the "administration official" was Scooter. (The article is behind the NYT firewall, but the full text is here, along with other related articles.) An article I cite below includes an account of a phone conversation Miller had shortly before she published the article.

The 2001 DOE finding is also documented in Silberman-Robb:

The Oak Ridge laboratory concluded that, while it was technically possible to enrich uranium using tubes of the diameter the Iraqis were seeking, it would be suboptimal to do so....

the intercepted tubes were not only well-suited, but were in fact a precise fit, for Iraq's conventional rockets, and the Intelligence Community should have recognized as much at the time. ... certain agencies were more wedded to the analytical position that the tubes were destined for a nuclear program than was justified by the technical evidence. ... That CIA and DIA reached this conclusion was a product of, in our view, an effort to fit the evidence to the prevailing assumptions. ...


The key player in the CIA who pushed the bogus centrifuge story was someone named Joe. S-R goes into detail about his mistakes. A very interesting timeline of Joe's activities is here. It turns out that Joe isn't even a nuclear physicist:

[Joe] worked in the gas centrifuge program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1980s. He is not, associates said, a nuclear physicist, but an engineer whose work involved the platform upon which centrifuges were mounted.


That article has a thorough review of how Bush et al took the words of Joe and used them to bury the truth about the tubes. Perhaps the most thorough account, by nuclear scientist David Albright, is here (pdf). Albright is a former UN weapons inspector and has often testified before Congress on nuclear issues.

Finally, please note this important point from S-R:

the CIA and DIA acknowledged that the tubes could be used for rockets


Nevertheless, Cheney told us Joe's story as a matter of "absolute certainty." Rice told us the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." In other words, the fact that our top nuclear physicists had identified Joe's work as trash in 2001 was completely swept under the rug. This is called lying.

Cheney and Rice even went beyond what Joe said. Even Joe admitted the rocket use was possible. The statements by Cheney and Rice denied that.
1.7.2008 11:21pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
Ace wrote:

Another Democrat


Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

A full transcript of this session is available at Clark's Wikipedia page. A complete reading offers a somewhat different picture than what Ace wants to convey. The basic gist of his testimony is that time is on our side, going to war would be a mistake, there is no substantiated connection between Hussein and AQ, that the nuclear threat posed by Hussein is greatly exaggerated, that a strike against Iraq would be a diversion from the immediate threat posed by AQ. He doesn't deny that Hussein is a *potential* threat, but he is quite clear that this threat does not justify a preemptive war. To imply that Clark considered Hussein an "imminent" or "immediate" threat would be to grossly mischaracterize his testimony.
1.8.2008 1:07am
Baxter (www):
Jukeboxgrad,

How is that impeachment going??

Watching you flail about and play word games like you have
done on this thread is exactly why there will be no impeachment.

The charge that "Bush lied" and manipulated intelligence has been struck down by the 9/11 commission,the 2004 intelligence report,and the Butler report.

Ace has shown more than enough evidence that anybody with
an IQ above Ted Kennedy's alcohol blood level content, that
Democrats and Republicans,our intelligence agencies(of which
they are never in 100% agreement on anything,but the overwhelming majority of assessments supported what the President and members of congress said about Saddam)France,Germany,and Britain's intelligence agencies,and the majority of this country thought that Saddam had WMD's.
The fact that you have tried to drown this thread with selected quotes and change the subject does not hide the
fact that you have not shown in any way that Bush had any different take on the situation in Iraq than the Democrats that voted for this war.
The fact that Saddam never fulfilled his obligations of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War does not
seem to bother you.
The fact that the President stated genocide of the Iraqi
people,failure to abide by the 17 UN resolutions over a 10 year period(later ones that also approved of force to take out Saddam if he did not comply)firing on our air craft,as other reasons for going to war with Iraq that were justified
does not seem to bother you.
The fact that the Weapons inspectors,Dulfer report,and some of your Democratic friends in Congress stated that the inspection process was a shame and being subverted by Saddam
while he took millions of dollars in bribes from France and
Russia with Oil for food program,was smuggling in weapons from other countries and had a workable WMD program that he
was going to start up when inspections were done does not
seem to bother you.
The fact that Saddam had killed more than 600,000 thousand
of his own people with rape,torture,murder,and WMD's does
not seem to bother you.
The fact that Saddam had started two wars and was determined to hold the west hostage by controlling middle east oil does not seem to bother you.
Allowing some of the terrorist who committed the first trade center bombing(two were from Iraq),the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking,and Al-Qaeda leader Al Zarqawi
safe haven in Iraq and paid suicide bomber families $25,000 does not seem to bother you.
No you liberals want to convince the world that even though the overwhelming evidence shows that the majority of the United States Congress agreed with President Bush that after 9/11,we had to change how we dealt with terrorism and saw that Saddam was a threat that could no longer be allowed to wage war and possibly hand off WMD's to America's enemies to use against us,that Bush tricked all you super intelligent liberals and most of the world's intelligence agencies into believing a big lie.

Just remember liberals,it was not the Republicans that blocked your hero Kucinich's impeachment resolution,it was the Democrats who sent it down the rabbit hole.

We want nothing more than to remind everyone how much you
Democrats cried and yelled about Saddam and his WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda.
We want nothing more than to see you Democrats explain why
you approved of the NSA wiretapping program that you were fully briefed on.Approved it over and over and over again.
We want nothing more than to bring to light the base of the Democratic party that believes
Bush lied about pre-war intel
Bush did 9/11
Bush blew up the levee's in New Orleans
Bush is conducting "domestic"wiretapping
Bush stole the 2000 election
Bush stole the 2004 election
Bush outed super secret Plame
Bush is a dictator
Bush is Hitler

and all the other super intelligent stands that liberal have made over the past 7 years.

Please liberal,jump on your impeachment wagon with Cindy Sheehan,Micheal Moore,McGovern,Jane Fonda,Hollywood,Kucinich
and the rest of your friends that have done so much to spread freedom throughout the world, oh wait a minute,my fault, they have not freed one damn person from murderous,terrorist dictators.

That would be President Bush and the American Soldier.
1.8.2008 3:55am
donaldk2 (mail):
garrulous

Synonym: Garrulous, Talkative, Loquacious.

A garrulous person indulges in long, prosy talk, with frequent repetitions and lengthened details; talkative implies simply a great desire to talk; and loquacious a great flow of words at command. A child is talkative; a lively woman is loquacious; an old man in his dotage is garrulous.

Source: Websters Dictionary

(01 Mar 1998)

Anyone we know?
1.8.2008 4:47am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Anyone we know?"

Baxter?
1.8.2008 4:52am
TokyoTom (mail):
Jon, can we take this rather weak attack on McGovern as your brief against Bruce Fein, Tim Lynch and others who see serious impeachable offenses by Bush and Cheney?
1.8.2008 6:07am
Crimso:
"Powell, Rice and Cheney all indicated that Saddam was weak. This is relevant to the constant practice of telling us all about 1998, and pretending that nothing changed between then and the time that Powell, Rice and Cheney spoke, several years later."

Godwin forgive me, but several years prior to 1939, Hitler was weak and contained. Look it up. Hitler himself noted that had France opposed his reoccupation of the Rhineland, he would have been finished.
1.8.2008 7:56am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
baxter: "How is that impeachment going??"

It would be nice if we had a two-party system.

"Watching you flail about and play word games"

English translation: 'paying attention to what people have actually said, and holding them accountable for it.' If you can show that I have done something other than that, it would be helpful. But of course you won't, because making claims unsupported by facts and reason is exactly what the GOP is all about, these days.

"The charge that 'Bush lied' and manipulated intelligence has been struck down by the 9/11 commission,the 2004 intelligence report,and the Butler report."

Yet another tired old chestnut, just as divorced from reality as all the other ones. Of the reports you mentioned (and you really should also have thrown in Silberman-Robb; it's traditional to do so; how sloppy of you to deviate from the standard RNC talking point), this is how many had a mandate to investigate Bush's behavior: zero.

Here's what SSCI 2004 looked at:

the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community


Here's what was explicitly excluded from SSCI 2004:

[looking into] whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by US. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information


(See pages 1 and 2.) That was supposed to happen in a so-called Phase II. But that part of Phase II never happened. What a surprise.

By the way, it's also wortth noting that SSCI 2004 was produced by a GOP-controlled committee, acting a few months before a key election.

The cynical strategy behind SSCI 2004 can be summarized as follows: 'if we look ino the CIA's prewar behavior, and find lots of problems, no one will notice that we haven't lifted a finger to look into Bush's prewar behavior.' And for some folks, that strategy works, because righty blogs are packed what probably amounts to thousands of instances of Bushists making the exact same bogus claim that you made.

Silberman-Robb also had no mandate to investigate Bush. Here's how they put it:

Finally, we emphasize two points about the scope of this Commission's charter, particularly with respect to the Iraq question. First, we were not asked to determine whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That was the mandate of the Iraq Survey Group; our mission is to investigate the reasons why the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments were so different from what the Iraq Survey Group found after the war. Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.


Needless to say, the 9/11 commission and Butler were even further removed from any mandate to investigate "whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by US. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information." Or to investigate "how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community."

So your claim that any/all of these groups "struck down" the claim that Bush lied is simply, itself, a big fat lie. On the contrary. These reports are packed with proof that Bush lied. I described one example, in some detail, here. Of course, in usual wingnut style, you're not lifting a finger to address the substance of what I proved. Likewise for all your pals here. That's because you're empty-handed.

There are some other things you said that I'll deal with later. This is enough for now.
1.8.2008 9:51am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
crimso: "several years prior to 1939, Hitler was weak and contained"

You're pointing out correctly that corrupt, dangerous leaders shouldn't be ignored. That's exactly why Bush's crimes should not be swept under the rug. If we do so, we only encourage more of the same.
1.8.2008 10:37am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
baxter, thanks for posting that nice collection of boilerplate RNC talking points (for a minute I thought I had clicked on gop.com). They are very familiar and very bogus. It's awfully handy to have them all in one place, so they can be demolished at once. Because there are so many, and because I like to be thorough, it will probably take a day or two. But I intend to address them all, time-permitting.

"our intelligence agencies(of which they are never in 100% agreement on anything"

Indeed. Which makes it more obvious that statements like "no doubt" were not supported by the underlying intelligence. Those statements did indeed amount to claiming that the IC was "in 100% agreement" on the subject matter being discussed. When Rice said the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," she was asserting that there was "100% agreement" on this point, within the IC. Trouble is, that claim was very, very far from the truth. The reality is that there was "100% agreement" among our best nuclear scientists that the tubes were for rockets. On the other hand, there was a guy named Joe. And even Joe acknowledged that rockets were a possibility. So Rice's statement wasn't even an honest portrayal of Joe's position.

"the overwhelming majority of assessments supported what the President and members of congress said about Saddam"

What Rice and Cheney said about the tubes was most definitely not a reflection of "the overwhelming majority of assessments" in the IC. Unless you claim that one guy named Joe is an "overwhelming majority." And not even then, because even Joe did not claim what Cheney and Rice claimed.

"France,Germany,and Britain's intelligence agencies"

Thanks for bringing that up. Bush loved quoting UK, provided they agreed with him. Of course there's one very famous example of that. But I bet you don't know that UK didn't go along with Rice's claim, that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." It's in the Butler report. A part of the Butler report that never gets mentioned:

the purpose for which the tubes were sought was not established … It was clear from an early date that, on the basis of the specifications of the tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, they would have required substantial re-engineering to make them suitable for gas centrifuge use, including reducing them in length, and machining metal off the inside and outside. This was paradoxical, since Iraq had laid down very fine tolerances for the tubes. … we have no definitive intelligence that the aluminium was destined for a nuclear programme. … There was, from the outset, an alternative explanation available for the aluminium tubes. Their potential for use as rocket motor casings was mentioned in intelligence reporting as early as summer 2001. One of the earliest intelligence reports recorded that Iraq had been seeking tubes of the same precise specification from Switzerland “probably for the Iraqi Air Force”. Other reports also suggested possible conventional military uses for the tubes. Combined with the known engineering obstacles to the use of the tubes as centrifuge rotors, this uncertainty contributed to the JIC’s unwillingness to conclude that the tubes had a definite nuclear application.


Funny how Bush never told us this. Funny how this never gets mentioned. Funny how UK was considered smart about yellowcake and dumb about tubes. It's a terrific example of how Bush cherry-picked.

"the majority of this country thought that Saddam had WMD's"

Yes, because they saw it on tee-vee. Thanks for that incisive observation.
1.8.2008 10:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"The fact that you have tried to drown this thread with selected quotes"

You're implying that I've used quotes in a dishonest or misleading manner. So far, you and all your pals have managed to demonstrate this many examples of me doing such a thing: zero.

"The fact that you have tried to … change the subject"

If you actually pay attention, you'll notice that I started out by responding to several false claims that were made. I showed proof that the claims were false. This many people have refuted that proof: zero. And maybe you haven't noticed that all the people who made those claims immediately started making the sound that crickets make. So what you're really saying is this: 'the fact that you had the chutzpah to point out the truth, and chase away the liars.'

"you have not shown in any way that Bush had any different take on the situation in Iraq than the Democrats that voted for this war"

Actually, I have shown that they had a "different take." And to the extent they made the statements they made, they were bamboozled by Bush, just like many of the rest of us. And still, most Dems in the House did the right thing and voted no.

It's not a good sign for the quality of your argument if this is the best you can do. Because in the end, I say this: it would be nice if we had a two-party system. The same corporate elite that owns and operates the GOP also has a large ownership interest in the DNC.
1.8.2008 10:42am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"Saddam never fulfilled his obligations of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War"

Bush didn't sell the war just by claiming that "Saddam never fulfilled his obligations of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War." That claim alone would not have been enough to make the sale. That's why Bush had to make things up.

"was smuggling in weapons from other countries"

Bush didn't sell the war just by claiming that Saddam "was smuggling in weapons from other countries" That claim alone would not have been enough to make the sale. That's why Bush had to make things up.

"had a workable WMD program that he was going to start up when inspections were done"

Bush didn't sell the war just by claiming that Saddam "had a workable WMD program that he was going to start up when inspections were done." That claim alone would not have been enough to make the sale. That's why Bush had to make things up.

"Saddam had killed more than 600,000 thousand of his own people"

You probably don't realize we've actually found just this many bodies: about 5,000:

only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered


I'm sure Saddam killed more than that. But the issue is that what we actually found is far less than what was promised, just like WMD.

"The fact that Saddam had killed more than 600,000 thousand of his own people with rape,torture,murder,and WMD's does not seem to bother you"

The fact that Reagan and Rummy were giving Saddam lots of help at the exact moment he was doing that "does not seem to bother you."

"hold the west hostage by controlling middle east oil"

English translation: 'greatly expand production, which would drive down the price, which would be very bad for lots of Bush's close friends.' See here. Mission accomplished.

But you are correct that the war was about oil. Both Greenspan and Abizaid have admitted that.
1.8.2008 10:45am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"The fact that the President stated genocide of the Iraqi people, failure to abide by the 17 UN resolutions over a 10 year period(later ones that also approved of force to take out Saddam if he did not comply)firing on our air craft,as other reasons for going to war with Iraq that were justified does not seem to bother you"

Bush did occasionally mention "other reasons for going to war." But this particular boilerplate talking point of yours is intended to suggest that WMDs were not the primary means used to sell the war. But they were. WMD was overwhelmingly the central focus of virtually all Bush's major pre-war addresses.

I should mention that it's slightly inaccurate for me to state that the chief marketing message for the war was WMD. Not exactly. The chief marketing message for the war was WMD+terrorism, i.e., WMD in the hands of terrorists. These two elements went hand in hand. We were told the WMDs were dangerous because they were going to end up in the hands of terrorists, and we were told terrorists were dangerous because they were going to end up equipped with WMDs.

I realize one can find laundry lists of other rationales for war in various places, such as the AUMF. Trouble is, there's nothing like words that come from the mouth of the POTUS in the form of a major address that's carried nationally on live TV. Therefore it makes sense to focus on such words.

Roughly half the pre-war SOTU is about terrorism, WMD, and Iraq. There are at least 15 scary paragraphs (over 1000 words) describing how dangerous Saddam is, how he allegedly has accumulated large stockpiles of horrible weapons, and how essential it is that we move quickly to disarm him. The word "weapon" (or close variants of that word) appears in the speech almost 30 times.

It takes a very, very close look at the speech to find any rationale for war, aside from WMD. The idea of the war as a way to spread democracy in the region is not even mentioned (there is a comment about a "democratic Palestine," but there is no attempt in the speech to connect this idea with the idea of disarming Saddam).

The idea of bringing "freedom" or "liberation" to the Iraqi people is mentioned, but barely. This idea comes up in passing, no more than 2 or perhaps 3 times, and almost literally as a footnote, after the WMD case is hammered home. By word count, the "freedom/liberation" rationale is given roughly 1% the weight of the WMD rationale.

You cannot read the SOTU address fairly and conclude that there was any serious attempt to argue for the war on any basis other than WMD.

By the way, a very, very similar analysis applies regarding Bush's famous pre-war address. It also focused mostly on WMD, with barely a few words of lip-service regarding the "power of freedom."

By the way, all this started with PNAC, of course. And this seminal PNAC (neocon) document says exactly nothing about freedom or democracy, and simply talks about the threat of Iraqi WMD.

If you look at those very visible and widely-circulated statements (and many other similar statements, such as those documented in this pdf), you see virtually nothing aside from a whole lot of focus on WMD.
1.8.2008 10:47am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"The fact that the Weapons inspectors … stated that the inspection process was a shame and being subverted by Saddam"

This is what Blix actually said.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.


We're not surprised that you're trying so hard to rewrite history, because that's exactly what Bush did. He lied and said this: "he wouldn't let them in."

"he took millions of dollars in bribes from France and Russia with Oil for food program"

I guess you must be thinking of the Oil-for-Food scandal that Bush helped facilitate:

the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them ... the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together ... The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions ... On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
1.8.2008 10:48am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
donald: "A garrulous person indulges in long, prosy talk"

Bushists who can't put together an argument using facts and reason always fall back on mockery (either that, or they cut and run). It's like clockwork.

No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read any part of this thread, including what I've written. If you have anything substantive to contribute, we'll be waiting patiently while you figure out what that might be. In the meantime, I suggest you either change the channel or keep quiet.

Actually, you have contributed something substantive: you have helped to demonstrate that the presentation of facts and reason is anathema to the GOP. Thank you for that inadvertent public service.
1.8.2008 10:49am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"Allowing some of the terrorist who committed the first trade center bombing(two were from Iraq),the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking,and Al-Qaeda leader Al Zarqawi safe haven in Iraq"

Can't you find any new talking points? The one's you're using are past their expiration date. Please keep up. Let's talk about Zarqawi for a second. Here's what the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee said about Zarqawi (pdf):

In 2005, the CIA assessed that prior to the war, "the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." ... [p.92]

Conclusion 5: ... Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]


Also, if you were terribly concerned about "Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war" (in a Kurdish enclave outside of Saddam's control), I wonder how you feel about Bush letting him get away (link).

By the way, Rice helps us understand that Zarqawi was in a part of Iraq that Saddam did not control. Rice said this (7/29/01): “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country."

You're implying another standard talking point, that Iraq had been "a recruiting and training ground for terrorists" (as WSJ put it). Trouble is, even Bush himself suggested otherwise. On 3/13/02, Bush said "we haven't heard much from [bin Laden] ... I truly am not that concerned about him ... He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore." Thanks to Bush's war, now Iraq is exactly such a place (and likewise for both Pakistan and Afghanistan). So Bush's latest rationale for the war is that the war must continue in order to clean up the mess caused by the war. Nice. Mission accomplished. And it makes perfect sense that we should trust the people who made the mess in the first place to be able to do a good job of cleaning it up.

"the terrorist who committed the first trade center bombing(two were from Iraq),the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking"

You're claiming this since some bad people stepped foot in Iraq, that this is proof that Saddam was giving them "safe haven." Maybe you didn't notice that pre-9/11, the hijackers were inside the US. So this means that Bush was giving them "safe haven," right?

"two were from Iraq"

Since you think that's important, I suppose you will be very impressed by the following fact: most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

"paid suicide bomber families $25,000"

If this really concerns you, then you should pay some attention to the Saudi role in financing and encouraging terror. They've provided billions (link, link, pdf). And what they get from Dubya are hugs and kisses. Interesting how that works.

And then there's Musharraf. We've been arming and financing him while he provides OBL with a safe haven the size of New Jersey. So spare us the flaming hypocrisy embodied in a statement like this:

You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror
1.8.2008 11:18am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"the majority of the United States Congress agreed with President Bush"

Most Dems in the House voted no. Please continue to invent your own facts.

"Bush tricked all you super intelligent liberals and most of the world's intelligence agencies into believing a big lie"

Most Dems in the House weren't "tricked." That's why they voted no. And "most of the world's intelligence agencies" weren't "tricked" either. That's why we only had one major ally in the war.

"it was not the Republicans that blocked your hero Kucinich's impeachment resolution,it was the Democrats who sent it down the rabbit hole"

It would be nice if we had a two-party system.

"We want nothing more than to remind everyone how much you Democrats cried and yelled about Saddam and his WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda."

Indeed, and you intend to "remind everyone" by continuing your routine practice of making false claims.

I guess you didn't notice the posts here and here which made bogus claims regarding the Clinton administration's position regarding Saddam's alleged "ties to Al-Qaeda." I guess you didn't notice that I proved the claims were bogus. And I guess you didn't notice that the folks posting those bogus claims lacked the integrity to take responsibility for those claims, after they were shown to be false. Utterly typical GOP behavior.

That's everything you said that's worth noting. It didn't take as long as I thought. And thanks again for your nice list. It was fairly comprehensive. You've been reading all the right righty blogs.
1.8.2008 11:31am
donaldk2 (mail):
Yo, sport, I read a couple of your efforts, and then just had to scroll through the rest. As the great songwriter Larry Hart put it:

Johnny could only sing one note
And the note he sang was this:
Ahhhhhh!

Poor Johnny one-note
sang out with gusto
And just overloaded the place

Poor Johnny one-note
yelled willy nilly
Until he was blue in the face

For holding one note was his ace.

Couldn’t hear the brass
Couldn’t hear the drum
He was in a class
By himself, by gum!
1.8.2008 1:34pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"Poor Johnny one-note"

It's your side that has only one note left. That note is mockery. Your collective response to scrupulously documented facts is silence+mockery. That doesn't add up to much. But I appreciate the reverse endorsement, if you know what I mean. Every time this happens (and it has happened many times) tends to confirm that my facts are correct.

If you or anyone else can show otherwise, I hope you will speak up. Because I'm always interested in learning something new. What are you all waiting for? There's no time like the present.
1.8.2008 2:36pm
Robert R.:
I see that robert has already responded. Thanks, robert. ">I see that robert has already responded. Thanks, robert.

Since I'm one of those "GOP liars," my post about Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein must be false???

Other than that, what I have I missed in the past 100 posts or so?
1.8.2008 5:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
robert: "since I'm one of those 'GOP liars,' my post about Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein must be false???"

What you're referring to is the fact that you posted something that was correct and helpful, and you also posted something that was egregiously false and misleading.

I thanked you (here) for doing the former, and I condemned you (here) for doing the latter.

If your misleading post was an honest error, then I sincerely apologize. Anyone can make a mistake. Otherwise, I don't. So far you haven't said anything about it, one way or another. The normal practice is to say something like this: 'oops, sorry, I made a mistake; I didn't realize that I was posting crap.'

Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is.

"what I have I missed in the past 100 posts or so?"

If you really want to know, you can find out easily enough.
1.8.2008 6:35pm
Baxter (www):
Jukebox,

Phase 11 never was implemented because the Democrats only
wanted to use quotes about pre-war intel that Republicans said,not what they said about Saddam.
This is what liberals do,cut and paste.You can't tell the
whole truth because it does not support your "Bush lied"crap.
But since you like to post your cut and paste liberal talking points that have still in no way showed that Bush lied or manipulated intelligence,here are some quotes for you:

"The US intelligence community overstated the threat Saddam
Hussein posed to the United States and used less-than-100
percent credible information to justify the war in Iraq,The Senate intelligence Committee found."

"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the
President,as well as the Congress and the public,that Saddam
Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked,probably would have a nuclear weapon this decade,"Roberts said during the press conference."Well,
today we know these assessments were wrong."

well liberal,did Rockefeller and Roberts come out and say
"Bush lied us into war and we proved it."
NO they didn't did they.

They said the intelligence given to the President and Congress was wrong.

But hey jukebox,just dismiss this along with all of the other facts they have been given to you BDS sufferers over the last 3 years.

" The fact is ,the administration,at all levels and to some extent,us(Congress),used bad information to bolster it's case for war",Rockefeller said.


Damn!!,a leading Democrat,one who said Saddam was an "immediate" threat,said that they received "bad information"
from the intel community, not "Bush lied".
You better get him on the phone jukebox,he is not toting the liberal line there.

But the committee concluded that intelligence analysts
were not pressured to change or tailor their views to support arguments for the invasion of Iraq.

"I think it's important to know that the intelligence they
gave was under their judgment-the right perception,"
Sen. John Corzine,D-NJ.

Damn!! another Democrat saying the intelligence was wrong,
not that "Bush lied".
Get on the phone jukebox,your "Bush lied" is not connecting.But who should we believe,A commission put together to investigate pre-war intel that was used to go to
war,or a blogger putting together a bunch of cut and paste
quotes that his own Democratic led congress can't seem to use to impeach the war monger President Bush for lying.

"The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mis-characterization or mis-interpretation "was the result of politics or pressure,"Roberts said."In the end
what the President and the Congress used to send the country to war was info that was provided by the intelligence community and that information was flawed."

Outgoing CIA Director George Tenet has alway maintained that,"no one told us what to say or how to say it."

"In this case,we missed big time on 9/11 and we missed big time in Iraq and the CIA structurally,institutionally,has
to take a lot of blame for that,"former FBI special agent and Oklahoma Gov.Frank Keating.

But state Dept. spokesman Richard Boucher said"The basic case was a correct one.Iraq wanted weapons of mass destruction."

Spin it all you want jukebox,Democrats and Republicans signed off on this report that clearly states that the President and Congress received bad intel.
At no point in this report did anybody go on record showing that the President lied or manipulated pre-war
intelligence.(Outside the room to appease their useful idiots democrats made all kinds of remarks,but nothing they
could back up as usual.).

Once again liberal,if you are so right,why did your Democratic leaders who control Congress make one of their first statements to the effect: "Impeachment is off the table."
Either your liberal heroes in Congress are just as guilty as President Bush or President Bush is not guilty of all the
crimes that you and the rest of your flock profess.

If liberals were so serious about getting to the truth and
punishing those who have committed these crimes,than they should be demanding punishment for "ALL" of the people guilty of these crimes.
Just going after Bush/Cheney exposes liberals for the political hacks and hypercrites that they are.
1.8.2008 7:08pm
Baxter (www):
Jukebox,

your tired liberal line that "the US armed Saddam"so that
his crimes of genocide(if you don't like the 600,000 number,
tell it to the UN)and wars of aggression are our fault is on
the level of some 5 year old kid jumping up and down and
crying that he would not have stolen the cookies if mommy
didn't do such a good job at making them.
The Russians,French,Germans and other countries supplied Saddam with a lot more weapons than the US.But just like all these post you have don't once blame the terrorist and the leaders for their crimes,I don't expect you to place the
responsibility of Saddam's crimes where they should be,on
Saddam.
To go by your logic,nobody should ever help another country/ally against an invading nation or external threat,
Because 20 years later they may use it against us.
I guess every time someone is shot with a colt or smith&wesson,we should blame the gun maker and haul them off
to jail,real bright jukebox.
1.8.2008 7:31pm
Baxter (www):
Jukebox,

So some of the world's most lethal terrorist just happen to be in state run house's in Iraq and Saddam knows nothing about it.He also has no control over the kurdish region in the north that also happens to be where he killed tens of thousands of men,women and children(if you don't like these numbers tell it to the UN) with WMD's,and cutting off water and other supplies.
It appears Jukebox and Baghdad Bob are one and the same.

The CIA and many Democrats and Republicans saw the relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda a bit differently before the Iraq war became a political tool.

"Sir,let me just take a few minutes because you raised a number of important points.Let me put this poisons and gas
thing in some context because aren't-there are 116 people in jail in France,in Spain,in Italy,and in the Great Britian wh received training and guidance out of a network run by an individual(Zarqawi)who is sitting in Baghdad today and supported by two dozen of his associates.Now that is something for the American people to also understand. Iraq
has provided a safe haven in a permissive environment for these people to operate.And the other things that are very compelling to us are-just so I can close the loop on this issue is-we also know from very reliable information that there's been some transfers,training in chemical and biologicals from the Iraqis to Al-Qaeda.So we're already in this mix in a way that's very,very important for us to worry about how far it goes."
George Tenet speaking to Sen.Ted Kennedy

"Close Al-Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational
alliance with Iraqi officials.As of Oct.2002,Al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives,including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad."
"Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a US occupation of the city,suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months.Such cooperation could include IIS
provision of secure operating bases and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible US invasion"
Feb.21,2003 Feith memo
Now where would the president ever get the idea that Saddam
had ties to terrorist like Al-Qaeda?
Apparently the CIA and the FBI.

"He(Zarqawi) is a senior Al-Qaeda associate who has met with Bin Laden,who has received money from Al-Qaeda leadership,and on my list of top 30 individuals that are required to decapitate and denigrate this organization,Mr. Zarqawi's on that list.The fact is that he is a contract terrorist where he does things on his own-but he has an intimate relationship with him and we classify him as a senior Al-Qaeda associate well known to all of them."
George Tenet,testimony to Senate

"At the time,the intelligence community at the highest level
repeatedly assurd us that "it never gets better than this"
in terms of confidence in an intelligence conclusion regarding a hard target.There was good reason for this confidence,including multiple,reinforcing elements of information ranging form links that the organization that built the facility had BOTH WITH BIN LADEN AND WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE IRAQI CHEMICALS WEAPONS PROGRAM;extraordainary security when the facility was constructed;physical evidence form the site;and other information from HUMINT and technical sources.Given what we knew regarding terrorists interest in acquiring and using chemical weapons against Americans,and given the intelligence assessment provided us regarding the al-Shifa facility,I continue to believe that destroying it was the right decision."
Secretary of Defense Cohen testimony to the 9/11 commission.
I guess Bush tricked him too.

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects,specifically including weapons development,Al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Bill Clinton

Bush must have tricked him all the way from Texas.

"tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other-sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend-and that there were indications that within Sudan when al-Qaeda was there,which al-Qaeda left in the summer of 96,or the spring of 96,there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons"
Patrick fitzgerald testimony before the
9/11 commission(Mahmud Salim statement)

"Yeah,I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly.We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq.In fact,Al-shifa officials,early in the company's history,we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program."
Thomas Pickering,undersecretary of State
August 24,1998.

According to 9/11 commission co-chairman Thomas Kean,Clinton believed with "absolute certainty" that Iraq provided Al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise
and technology in the 1990s.He believed it as President when he ordered the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan,and he believes it now.And it's not just Mr.Clinton.According to Mr.Kean,"top officials-Bill Clinton,Sandy Berger and others-told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction at that factory and that's why we sent missiles"

jukebox,I guess Clinton lied and people died right.
Chicken hawk Clinton committed an act of war using
intelligence that stated Al-Qaeda and Iraq working
together on WMDs.
My fault,Clinton is a Democrat so this is all about
national security and protecting America.He gets a pass
from just like his illegal war in Bosnia.

"Iraq continues to be a safehaven,transit point,or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the US,Israel,and other allies.Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism.During the last four decades,it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals.It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel.Regarding the Iraq-Al-Qaeda relationship,reporting from sources of varying credibility points to a number of contacts,incidents of training,and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Osama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990's."

Senate report,2003 Iraqi support for terrorism

Still can't figure out why Bush will never be impeached
jukebox,there is plenty more evidence of Democrats and
our intelligence agencies carrying on about
Saddam/Al-Qaeda.
1.8.2008 9:39pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
I'm confused, Baxter. Clinton was absolutely right about Iraq but pursued an "illegal war" against Bosnia? Please clarify.
1.8.2008 10:55pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
And all along, I thought Clinton did *NOTHING* to fight terrorism! I'm glad to have that canard laid to rest.
1.8.2008 11:05pm
Baxter (www):
Saddam had no idea these terrorist were in his country right jukebox.

"Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Husseins's hospitality.Among them was Abu abbas,mastermind of the Oct.1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,a 69 yr.old man in a wheelchair.
Khala Khadr al-Salahat,accused of designing th bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie,Scotland in Dec.1988(259 killed on board,11 killed on the ground)also lived in Baathist Iraq.
Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16,2002, as Baghdad claimed,Palestinian terrorist abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999.As the APs Sameer n. Yacoub reported on August 21,2002, ;the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq"with the full
knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities."Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others."

"US intelligence officals have confirmed that abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,was being harbored in Iraq.documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home.According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding form Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack."
Opinionjournal,Mar.13,2005

Real covert operation there jukebox.

Richard Clarke told the Washington post on Jan.1999 that he
was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production fo the chemical weapons precursor at the Al-Shifa plant.
"Clarke said US intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it."
wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb,"but eh said that intelligence exists linking bin laden to Al-Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts,and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Where oh where could Bush have come to the conclusion that
Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda.Could it have been that our intelligence agencies and high ranking officials(Clarke,Berger,Albright,Cohen) in the Clinton administration had not only claimed this but had committed acts of war based on this intelligence.
No,Bush tricked them into thinking this all the way from
Texas.
Could it be that Democrats like Gore,Kerry,Clinton,
Rockofeller,Reid and the rest of Jukebox's liberal heroes
all said this in conjunction with our intelligence agencies
and pretty much the rest of the world.(that's only means
Britain to jukebox since Poland,Australia,Canada,Japan,
Denmark and many other countries that have supported us in the war on terror apparently don't count as witnessed by his
breathless post above).
No according to the super intelligent liberals,the fact that most of the 90's and up until we went to war in Iraq the vast majority of our elected officials in Government and
the CIA,State Dept.,DOD and many of the worlds intelligence
agencies stating the same things that Bush said has no bearing on the fact that Bush tricked the whole world into
believing Saddam had WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

Yes,by all means liberals,bring on your impeachment circus.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support,"Mr. Duelfer writes."Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."

Saddam believed weapons of mass destruction were essential to the preservation of his power,especially during the Iran-Iraq and 1991 Gulf Wars.

He engaged in strategic deception intended to suggest that
he retained WMD.

He fully intended to resume real WMD production after the expected lifting of UN sanctions,and he maintained weapons programs that put him in "material breach" of UN resolutions
including 1441.

And he instituted an epic bribery scheme aimed primarily at three of the five permanent members of the UN securtiy
council,with the intent of having them help lift those sanctions.(China,France,Russia).

The world is better off without Saddam in Iraq and the
Taliban in control in Afghanistan. 50,000,000 free.

Thank you President Bush,General Petraeus,and the American Soldier.
1.8.2008 11:08pm
Baxter (www):
Grover,

Never said Clinton was right,just showing along with Ace earlier that his administration came to the same conclusions about Saddam's WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda based on the intelligence that he received,that the Bush administration came to when they were confronted with taking action against
Saddam.Going to war with Iraq was made possible because the
President,Democrats,Republicans,and our intelligence agencies viewed Iraq as a threat that could no longer be ignored.
Bush is called a liar and war monger while Clinton is praised for his actions against the terrorist.

Simply showing the pathetic hypocrisy of liberals concerning Saddam and his terrorist regime.

I supported Clintons actions in Bosnia(was disgusted with the bogus "wag the dog" crap and did not support his impeachment),but this war was not approved by the UN.Liberals whine and cry about Bush's illegal war because it was not approved by the UN.I want to know why Clinton was called a liberator for Bosnia(did Bosnia attack the US?) but Bush is called a war criminal for Iraq.
1.8.2008 11:31pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Never said Clinton was right..."

Well, he must have been.

"I supported Clintons actions in Bosnia(was disgusted with the bogus 'wag the dog' crap and did not support his impeachment),but this war was not approved by the UN."

I sincerely appreciate your clarification. I misconstrued your ironic intent.

"I want to know why Clinton was called a liberator for Bosnia(did Bosnia attack the US?) but Bush is called a war criminal for Iraq."

While I personally would not characterize Bush as a "war criminal," I perceive a substantial difference between the two actions. You may disagree.

"Simply showing the pathetic hypocrisy of liberals concerning Saddam and his terrorist regime."

To do that, you would have to show that "liberals" would have supported a full-scale war on Irag during Clinton's term in office. I'm not sure that's supportable.
1.8.2008 11:51pm
Grover Gardner (mail):
"I want to know why Clinton was called a liberator for Bosnia(did Bosnia attack the US?) but Bush is called a war criminal for Iraq."

I might add that there might be questions of *scale* and *execution* here. And I would question Clinton's intervention in Bosnia as "illegal."
1.8.2008 11:59pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
baxter: "This is what liberals do,cut and paste."

That just about pegs the irony meter. Your latest heap of rubbish is nothing but an exceedingly sloppy and incoherent "cut and paste" job. Wading through it in detail would be a complete waste of time, but I'm just going to highlight a couple of passages, because they're very illustrative of your entire approach. Let's start here:

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects,specifically including weapons development,Al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Bill Clinton

Bush must have tricked him all the way from Texas.


In your typical style, you're pasting in text without giving us a clue where it came from. You're claiming Clinton said those words. Trouble is, he didn't. Those words are from this indictment.You're making the same bogus claim that was already made twice in this thread. You're completely ignoring what I demonstrated here: the indictment you're citing was superseded, and the claim you're quoting was dropped.

Anyway, it's interesting to consider where you copied that text from, and there's a very strong clue in your very next passage:

"tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other-sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend-and that there were indications that within Sudan when al-Qaeda was there,which al-Qaeda left in the summer of 96,or the spring of 96,there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons"
Patrick fitzgerald testimony before the
9/11 commission(Mahmud Salim statement)


This is the fun part. You're claiming that text came from "Patrick fitzgerald testimony before the 9/11 commission." That's true, sort of, except that someone decided to alter the text in various ways. The official transcript is here. There's a passage in the official transcript that is almost an exact match for what you cited (emphasis on almost):

tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there -- which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96 or spring '96 -- there were efforts to work on joint -- you know, acquiring weapons


The meaning is the same, but there are some gratuitous edits, in particular replacing "understanding" with "agreement." So the next fun part is to try to understand where you got the botched text from. I think you got it from a weeklystandard article (7/4/04).

What's worthwhile about this exercise is that it so vividly demonstrates the top-down nature of the GOP lie-circulation network. Earlier I pointed out two examples of NRO spreading the lie (here and here). But I wasn't aware of the weeklystandard version of the lie. But now I am, thanks to you.

So Hayes at weeklystandard can't even manage to quote the transcript accurately. And then, much more importantly, he completely hides the fact that the claim he's promoting was dropped from the actual indictment used at trial.

NRO and weeklystandard did a really nice job of seeding the lie. Almost four years later, three different people posted that lie on this thread. But you get a special prize for the most brazen lying. You posted the lie even after I had thoroughly documented that it was a lie.

Dishonesty is toxic to democracy, and the GOP has injected an enormous amount of poison into the system. As I have said, the GOP is packed with liars, from top to bottom. That has a lot do to with why it's imploding. Someday the remnant will eject the liars, and some kind of recovery will begin. That day seems far away. Fine with me.
1.9.2008 1:37am
donaldk2 (mail):
Hey Johnny - how do you know I'm talking about you?

But seriously folks -

Will someone please give me an explanation of WHY Bush would want to go to war. Keep it short please.

All the other blather on this long long thread has no meaning for me.
1.9.2008 3:11am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
donald: "Keep it short please."

Making it simple enough so that's it's comprehensible to even the likes of you is going to be tough. But I'll give it a shot. Just look here, here, here, and here. Don't worry. You'll be expected to read a grand total of only about fifty words.
1.9.2008 8:19am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Donald K.
To keep it short would be to miss the point(s), giving you an opportunity to pretend there are none.
Been there, done that, don't fall for it no more.
1.9.2008 8:38am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Aside from that explanation, which is both sufficient and screamingly obvious, we can also assume other factors. Like this one.
1.9.2008 8:41am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ruchard: "To keep it short would be to miss the point"

I did keep it short, and you're still going to pretend to "miss the point." So you're being totally incoherent, as usual.

If you do have some kind of a point, maybe you can find someone help you express it in a manner that's slightly less opaque.
1.9.2008 8:45am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
juke.
I was talking to Donald.
1.9.2008 10:04am
Grover Gardner (mail):
Baxter, I'd also take issue with your citations about AQ in Iraq. Abu Abbas was not associated with AQ, as far as I know. You seem ready to take Hussein's word that Nidal shot himself "four times in the head." Where Bagdhad's sudden credibility coms from, I don't know, but no less an authority than Jane's contends that Hussein had him murdered. As for Yasin, who sent him back to Iraq? We did. Finally, the Al Shifa link to AQ is far from a settled matter, and never has been--again, as far as I know. You might feel the proof is definitive, but I don't think it is.

But let's step back and look at the bigger picture. Was Saddam involved in the 9/11 attacks? No. As of 2001, was he so closely allied with AQ that it was worth abandoning pursuit of AQ in other sreas to seek them out in Iraq? Was Saddam poised to supply AQ with weapons and the means to continue attacking the US? You may answer yes to these things, but viewed in the larger context of the WOT, I think there's room for dispute as to what the best policy might have been.
1.9.2008 11:09am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
richard: "I was talking to Donald."

Everyone knows that, including me. I was making a comment about what you said to Donald. That sort of thing is customary on blogs.

If you have something to say to Donald, and you'd prefer that others not comment on your gibberish, you've got a way to do that. It's called email. Then Dubya will know what you said, but the rest of us won't.
1.9.2008 11:25am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
juke.
There's a way to indicate what, exactly, you're talking about. Learn it.

But to explain myself, and my comment:
Even a list of short sentences, one for each reason Bush wanted to go into Iraq would be long. Too long for Donald, whereupon he sneers what was said before the war, "make up your mind and pick one" which was the comment before WMD were picked as the primary reason. There were so many reasons that it looked, to the snarkers, like an opportunity for obfuscation, which they took.
Then it was "only" the WMD, as far as the snarkers were concerned, after the WMD couldn't be found, which was convenient if not exactly true.
And if each point is argued, or contested, the thing gets even longer.
And Donald, under no compunction to accept actual facts, is under no compunction to argue in good faith.
Thus, his request is in extremely bad faith.
I used to fall for this, but that was decades ago.
1.9.2008 4:05pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
richard: "Then it was 'only' the WMD, as far as the snarkers were concerned"

Now I'm more confused than ever about what you're trying to say. But that's OK. I just want to make one simple point.

The main argument used to sell the war was WMD. I proved that here.
1.9.2008 4:27pm
Smokey:
jukeboxgrad's incisive comment to one of the more common-sense posters here: "gibberish". Very persuasive [/s]. And jbg's response to my post way upthread:
"that just demonstrates that you're a moron."
If that's how jbg argues, then of course, I suppose I should reply something like this:

When I'm reading the always venomous anti-American comments spewed by the admitted Chickenhawk jukeboxgrad and his handful of America-hating ilk, I *snicker* out loud.

Why? Because George W. Bush is President of the United States - and there is nothing that the obviously impotent jbg or any other libtard can do about it. Nothing. As for GW Bush? He's still *smirking* at folks on the losing side like jbg. Because GW Bush is our [forever unimpeached] President. And all the libs' wet dreams about impeaching him are going absolutely nowhere [unlike the formally impeached - for lying under oath - WJ Clinton].


heh
1.9.2008 4:35pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
juke.
The main argument was WMD. Donald's question was why Bush wanted to go to war. Different question. Which, not suprisingly, generates a different answer.
1.9.2008 4:58pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
smokey: "And jbg's response to my post way upthread:
'that just demonstrates that you're a moron.' "

Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke? You seem to be claiming I wrote those words. I didn't. I quoted them.

"If that's how jbg argues, then of course, I suppose I should reply something like this"

What you're making clear is that the way smokey argues is via brazenly dishonest quoting. Then again, you might be making a mistake. Please let us know.

"As for GW Bush? He's still *smirking* at folks on the losing side like jbg"

It would be hard to find a more vivid demonstration of a core GOP attitude: being truthful or obeying the law is not what counts. All that counts is whether or not you can get away with it.
1.9.2008 5:44pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
richard: "Different question."

OK, fair enough. I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
1.9.2008 5:44pm