Home ND News Mobile Forum Contact Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, January 23, 2008


Study Concludes That Bush Lied, People Died

This study released by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism reviews statements made by President Bush and his administration members prior to the war in Iraq and concludes that, since many of those statements turned out to be wrong, we were led into war under “false pretenses.”  Or, basically, that we were lied into war.

The media, as you might expect, is jumping behind this story with the sort of enthusiasm they’re not showing on the story about their willingness to be propaganda ministers for the Clintons.

Study: False statements preceded war

  A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

[...]

  The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

  “It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

With the war in Iraq going relatively well, I guess the media is going to go back and re-fight the battle over the decision to go to war.  As though that weren’t already so much water under the bridge.

Anyway, the title of the report in question is “False Pretenses: Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”  The problem, of course, is that there’s a difference between lying about something and just being wrong.

Case-in-point from the study itself:

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

Conclusions of reports issued after the invasion of Iraq can prove that the Bush administration was wrong about aspects of its case for war, but they can’t prove that the Bush administration lied.  But this is the problem we’ve had with the anti-war left since the invasion was over.  They claim that Bush “lied us into war,” but the truth was that some of the intelligence Bush used to make his decision for war was flawed.  It was inaccurate.

That reality a) doesn’t mean that Bush’s use of it was a lie (who else but our intelligence agencies is the President to use to make war decisions?) and b) isn’t exactly Bush’s fault given the gutting of our intelligence agencies under the Clinton administration. 

But at this point the argument is probably moot.  Most people have already made up their minds about Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.  Those who believe the President “lied us into war” are likely to champion this report as incontrovertible proof that they were right all along.  Those who believe the President was merely mistaken in some aspects of his case for war are likely to dismiss this report as yet another bit of anti-war hyperbole this time in the form of an objective “study.”

Does this tick you off? Click here to email your elected representatives right here on Say Anything, or comment below.

Comments

You’ve pretty much nailed it.  These “researchers” apparently need more than a grade school level education, so they can distinguish between intelligence errors and lies.

Carrick on January 23, 2008 at 08:19 am

Who is the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism? What are their credentials?
Where do they get their funding? What news outlets do they work for?

Mickey on January 23, 2008 at 08:28 am

Funny, I notice they only listed Republicans. No mention of all the Democrats who said the same things. You know, like Hillary and Bill Clinton. Teddie Kennedy. Jonnie F-ing Kerry. Or the governments of England, Spain, Germany, Russia, Italy, etc etc.

Rather oddly selective for people who call themselves Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. Makes one wonder how much of Saddam Hussien’s and George Soros’ money these folks are sitting on.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 23, 2008 at 08:42 am

2H9, odd you should mention that.  They are indeed partly funded by George Soros.

Carrick on January 23, 2008 at 08:51 am

Center for Public Integrity has conveniently had a server crash. And here is the about page for Fund for Independence in Journalism. I’m surprised they don’t mention Project HARP and the Bildeburghers in the opening paragraph.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 23, 2008 at 08:55 am

Ed Morrissey had this nailed first thing this morning:

(T)he Center for Public Integrity hardly qualifies as “independent”. It gets much of its funding from George Soros, who has thrown millions of dollars behind Democratic political candidates, and explicitly campaigned to defeat George Bush in 2004…

Nowhere in these articles do either news organization bother to inform their reader of the partisan nature of the CPI. Besides Soros, it gets financing from the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation. The FIJ shares most of its board members with the CPI, which hardly makes it a separate entity in terms of its political direction.

Let’s boil this down. An organization funded by known political activists puts up a website with shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented—and this somehow qualifies as news?


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 23, 2008 at 08:58 am

Most people who made that big of a mistake would lose their jobs.

ews48 on January 23, 2008 at 10:16 am

EWS48:

Most people who made that big of a mistake would lose their jobs.

Some of them did.  The ones who made the analysis errors that is.

Carrick on January 23, 2008 at 10:18 am
Avatar for Mr. Dough

Every time I see that “Bush lied, people died” bumper sticker I think about the fact that these same people always complain about how stupid Bush is. But in this case they propose that he knew everything but lied about it! Nice consistency…

PS. I’d always trust the Streisand Foundation, even without Soros.

Mr. Dough on January 23, 2008 at 10:27 am

(1) It is undeniable fact that Saddam used chemical weapons (WMD’s) on the Kurds and the Iranians.
(2) It is fact that the U.N. had a list of WMD’s in Saddam’s possession.
(3) It is a fact that Iraq Air Force Colonel Sada reported WMD’s were flown to Syria before the war.
(4) It is a fact that small amounts of WMD’s were found by our military after the invasion.
(5) It is a fact that virtually all the world’s intelligence agencies reported Saddam had stockpiles of WMD’s.
(6) It is a fact that liberal Tony Blair and British intelligence were convinced on their own that Saddam had WMD’s and was a threat to peace.
(7) It is a fact that most world leaders by virtue of their own intelligence felt Saddam had stockpiles of WMD’s, even though they wanted to wait longer for U.N. Inspections, because many or most of them were making money in Iraq.
(8) Our intelligence agencies, with a few minor players expressing exceptions, believed Saddam had WMD’s.
(9) Had Bush not acted and Saddam used those WMD’s on Israel and/or Americans in the Middle East, he would have been and should have been impeached considering all the evidence presented to him.
(10) As mentioned by others, many leading elected Democrats having reviewed the same intelligence data, even during Clinton’s term, made even more alarming statements about WMD’s and Iraq.
(11) While it seems that much of the stockpiles were more myth than reality, Saddam deliberately perpetuated that myth by his treatment of U.N. inspectors and hindering inspections. He acted like a guilty man and he and he alone bears the responsibility for the war.
(12) I do not believe these organizations are anything more or less than propaganda ministries for the Democrat Party.

In short, Bush was faced with overwhelming intelligence reports here and from abroad and made his decision in real time, not having the benefit of hindsight. He made as he must, a case to the American people and the world that we must stop Saddam and get those WMD’s. The fact they were not found and may have been more myth than reality does not change the facts Bush faced then, he was right and the Middle East has one less madman in power and a Muslim Democratic state.


In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman on January 23, 2008 at 10:58 am
Avatar for Tuna

—it is now beyond dispute that Iraq, yada, yada—-five years after the fact.  Well it wasn’t beyond dispute in November of 2002, and that is all we need to know.  This is not old news—it’s not news at all—it’s political chirping from Lefty wingnuts, passed along to us by their brethren at the AP.

If things work out over there—and we pray that they will—this same pack of mutts will credit the 1998 Clinton/Gore Iraqi Liberation (in)Act for the result.

Tuna on January 23, 2008 at 11:05 am

Neiman, I agree with most of your list.  Here’s a couple of nits that I’m picking:

(3) It is a fact that Iraq Air Force Colonel Sada reported WMD’s were flown to Syria before the war.

Not a credible source without some type of independent confirmation.

(9) Had Bush not acted and Saddam used those WMD’s on Israel and/or Americans in the Middle East, he would have been and should have been impeached considering all the evidence presented to him.

Based on what we know now (and some of us suspected then), Saddam didn’t have large stockpiles of WMD, but was planning on restarting his WMD program after UN sanctions were removed.

This has two implications: 1) the inspections were working better than people have given them credit for and 2) the threat was long term (say 2008) rather than short term.

Historically, we know there wasn’t an immediacy to the threat.  The best intelligence, even if we choose to discount it at the time, and I was among those few, said that Saddam had significant stockpiles and was an immediate threat to his neighbors.  There is no disputing that fact.

Carrick on January 23, 2008 at 11:15 am

Garrick:

3) It is a fact that Iraq Air Force Colonel Sada reported WMD’s were flown to Syria before the war.

Not a credible source without some type of independent confirmation.

I don’t disagree with you except, along with other information, it can cast some doubt on the message of those that insist no WMD’s were ever there, it provides another possible answer.


#9: My only point here Garrick was that IF Saddam had the WMD stockpiles in reality and had he used them to kill Americans or Israel, for Bush to have ignored all the American and foreign intelligence information and thus allowed these deaths to happen, it could easily be considered malfeasance or nonfeasance of his office. No?


In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman on January 23, 2008 at 01:29 pm
Avatar for Anh

I don’t really care if Bush “lied” or not to get us into war with Iraq. Whatever he did, or however he did it to justified to overthrow Hussien it work.  I just washed we have kill a lot more Baath members and sympathizers.

Anh on January 23, 2008 at 02:05 pm

“Center for Public Integrity” Remember Rev. Ted Hessberg, the cleric who threw red paint on defense workers? He’s on their board along with many other leftists.  Check it out at
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=center_for_public_integrity

No wonder the MSM media loves it!!


“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

pparets on January 23, 2008 at 03:09 pm
Avatar for Ray Robison

this is why I continue my work investigating al Qaeda/Saddam ties. Because this will become a big deal in the general election. You should all read my book and get ready to fight back with facts, even if Bush won’t.

‘Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents’

http://www.bothinonetrench.com

Ray Robison on January 23, 2008 at 04:15 pm

No matter how the left leaning think tanks and media try to spin the reasoning of GW taking us to war in Iraq, he has (as well as the military) already earned the respect of the Iraqis for liberating them from Saddams dictatorship. read here & follow the links.

As far as this war is concerned, except for a few of the smaller minds on the left side, I think the worst GW will be remembered for is doing the right thing for the wrong reason(s).


At least when George Bush was reading My Pet Goat, he genuinely had no idea Manhattan was being terrorized. And it wasn’t by his own plane.

Spartacus on January 23, 2008 at 04:20 pm
Avatar for Trail-Mix AKA The Disgruntled Truck Driver

If you really want to know the truth about WMD’s everyone should read, “Saddam’s Secrets” by General Georges Sada.  He was the Vice Air Marshall of the Iraqi Air Force under Saddam.  I spent three days with this man and I can tell you he is one of the most honorable and honest men I have ever met. 

  In addition to that I would like everyone to recall that EVERY intelligence agency in the world all believed Saddam had WMD’s and that even the UN Security Council passed a resolution.  Liberals simply cannot have it both ways…either Bush is a evil mastermind that somehow manipulated every intelligence agency in the world or he is “Stupid”, he simply cannot be a “Stupid” “Evil Genius”.

Avatar for Will

... all believed Saddam had WMD’s and that even the UN Security Council passed a resolution

Resolution 1441, which demanded, not a war, but that Saddam let the weapons inspectors back in.  Saddam DID let the inspectors back in, in November, 2002.  He gave them prompt access to whatever sites they wanted to inspect.  The chief inspector reported, just weeks before Bush started his war:

...at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures and we would expect soon to be able to add night vision capability through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation.  We also expect to add low-level, close area surveillance through drones provided by Germany.

The inpectors found no WMDs and no active WMD programs.  Bush had to act fast to prevent a peaceful resolution of the Iraq WMD issue, so he started his war, forcing the inspectors to leave Iraq and preventing them from finishing their work.

Nearly five years later, after the loss of nearly 4000 US soldiers and expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars, Iraq remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world, with terrorist attacks on a daily basis.  Baghdad’s neighborhoods have been subjected to ethnic cleansing, millions of Iraqs have been displaced or have fled the country, and the fragile national government still hunkered down in the heavily fortified green zone.

Will on January 24, 2008 at 07:54 am

In addition to that I would like everyone to recall that EVERY intelligence agency in the world all believed Saddam had WMD’s

The inspectors on the ground right before bushco invaded a country lead by a mother fucker (that did not attack us) warned that there were no WMD.

Scott Ritter
David Kay
Mohamed ElBaradei

Where is Osama?


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 08:14 am

This just gets better and better.  Not only is the Center funded by Soros but its Board of Directors are hardly a politically diverse group.

iAMbs on January 24, 2008 at 08:14 am

Will:

Resolution 1441, which demanded, not a war, but that Saddam let the weapons inspectors back in.

This is inaccurate.  Resolution 1441 goes beyond just demanding that the weapons inspectors be allowed in.  However, the US government uses Resolution 678 as the basis for their determination of the legality of the war, not 1441.

  Bush had to act fast to prevent a peaceful resolution of the Iraq WMD issue, so he started his war, forcing the inspectors to leave Iraq and preventing them from finishing their work.

That’s your narrative of course.  The reality is far more complex.

Have you ever noticed, and doesn’t it bother you a little, that you always favor the argument of the US’s enemies?

I find that personally rather distasteful.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 08:28 am

This is inaccurate.  Resolution 1441 goes beyond just demanding that the weapons inspectors be allowed in.

 

This is inaccurate. The weapons inspectors were already there.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 08:34 am

will has stated several times that the downfall of America is a cherished dream of his.

will, Saddam did not give full cooperation and unrestricted access to UN inspectors. And they reported that seals their previous teams had placed on equipment and materials had been broken, and equipment and materials had been removed in at least 124 instances. That is what the UN report states, and yet you ignore that. Why?

Oh, and yellow cake? How did it get to Iraq and subsequently to an equipment breakers facility in Holland? Thought Saddam didn’t have access to any. How did that happen again?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 24, 2008 at 08:35 am

RBB:

This is inaccurate. The weapons inspectors were already there.

True.  I took Will to mean given full access.  I wasn’t trying to pick nits here…

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 08:39 am

And were denied full access to sites and facilities which were listed for inspection, realitydenyingboob. Perhaps you should actually read the Duelfer Report and the pre-war Intel Assessment. You know? The one demanded by the Democrats, the one they immediately buried/ignored because it shot them in the ass.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 24, 2008 at 08:39 am

Oh man, I love that report. It gave us gems like: “WMD-related program activities”.

Duelfer to the committee: “We were almost all wrong”


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 09:02 am

ISG:

“The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam”


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 09:05 am

RBB:

“The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam”

LMAO.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 10:11 am

Here is a more accurate summary, not cherry picked, of the Duefler Report:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 10:17 am

So let me get this straight C, I   quote the report saying he had nothing, no written plan, no plan for post sanctions WMD build up, no group of asshole ready to devise or implement a plan…

And you find a quote saying – but he really really wished he had one.

WMD-related program activities GMAFB


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 10:51 am

RBB,

Just out of curiosity, since you are clearly more familiar with the Duefler Report, what did that report have to say about the joint Libyan/Egyptian/Iraqi nuclear weapons program that was ongoing in the northern Sahara mountains of southern Libya… the one that Col. Ghadafi surrendered to the US just after both of Saddam’s sons were killed in a gunfight?

As I recall, the Libyan also had North Korean No-Dong intermediate range missiles as well capable of hitting as far as Spain, Marseilles, Athens, Rome, and perhaps as far north as Switzerland and Vienna, Austria.


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 24, 2008 at 11:09 am

Oh, I’m sorry I though we were talking about Saddam and his WMD-related program activities, my bad.

I’ll have to get back to you about bush’s new We don’t negotiate with terrorists buddy Ghadafi had.

As I recall, the Libyan also had North Korean No-Dong intermediate range missiles as well capable of hitting as far as Spain, Marseilles, Athens, Rome, and perhaps as far north as Switzerland and Vienna, Austria.

And yet, bush invaded Iraq. Funny, huh?


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 11:19 am

And yet, bush invaded Iraq. Funny, huh?

Yeah, it’s all one big joke to you.

likwidshoe on January 24, 2008 at 11:24 am

RBB:

Oh, I’m sorry I though we were talking about Saddam and his WMD-related program activities

We were.  You lied about what the report said.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 11:26 am

Really, please tell me what the lie was.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 11:33 am

Oh, I’m sorry I though we were talking about Saddam and his WMD-related program activities, my bad.

RBB,

Sorry, indeed!  I hear Sylvan has a great reading comprehension program for “challenged” middle-aged adolescents.  Perhaps you should look into it in your spare time.  There’s probably a leftwing sponsored taxpayer-funded program to cover your tuition, too.

Read more carefully next time.  The nuke weapons program surrendered by Ghaddafi was a joint program.  Most of the money and technicians were from Saddam.  As a leftwinger, you ought to be familiar with the concept of using a surrogate to do the dirty work.  The Soviets did it all the time, and come to think of it, Hillary is using a former (cough! cough!) president to do exactly the same thing.  Or had you noticed?  Must be that comprehension thing again, huh?


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 24, 2008 at 11:51 am

Libyan/Egyptian/Iraqi nuclear weapons program that was ongoing in the northern Sahara mountains of southern Libya

Tell me again, where did bush invade and who is his buddy now?

And if you can, please tell me what lie I told about the ISG

As a nutter, please tell us all about Iran/Contra or why Raygun/Rummy were so buddy buddy and shaking hands with Saddam back in the day? Oh and please use the phrase “surrogate to do the dirty work” it would mean so much to me if you did.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 12:21 pm

RBB:

Really, please tell me what the lie was.

The WMD program was “ad hoc” because Saddam ran it personally.  There is no doubt about his intent on restarting the program after the end of sanctions.  I gave the summary statement to the report in its entirety along with a link so others could verify for themselves.

You cherry picked a phrase from the report (which you had to work hard at, my admiration for your efforts) with the intent to give a false impression of its conclusions.

I find this particularly ironical, because you are yourself spreading falsehoods in your rank partisan interests in discrediting the president.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Cherry picked you say?

The quote I used was good enough to be included here along with the quote you used.

[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi_key-findings.htm]Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Regime Strategic Intent
Key Findings [/url]

So I guess we both have picked the cherry picked.

It’s silly to call an actual quote from the actual ISG a lie now isn’t it C?


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm

[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi_key-findings.htm]Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Regime Strategic Intent
Key Findings [/url]


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Tell me again, where did bush invade and who is his buddy now?

Well… let’s see now.  One invasion.  Take out Saddam.  Take out his murderous psycho spawn, which not only stops the flow of money (Oil-for-Food, anyone?) to finance that Libyan/Egyptian/Iraqi nuke program, but scares the shit out of Ghaddafi enough to make him turn it all over to the US (not the pitiful UN/IAEA which knew nothing about the program) with no need to invade Libya at all.  Seems to me that Mr. Bush accomplished one helluva lot more than his less than honorable predecessor ever imagined.

Which reminds me… tell me again what Clinton actually DID about Islamist terrorism… other than cry about it afterwards?  For that matter, what did he actually DO about the A.Q. Khan network?

Ooops, my bad!  He didn’t even know about Khan, did he?  Probably distracted.


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Take out Saddam

We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.

President Bush
September 17, 2003

Oil-for-Food

Tell us again, how many Texas Oil corps were guilty in this scandal.

scares the shit out of Ghaddafi

By invading a country that didn’t attack us instead of attacking Ghaddafi himself who as you note actually had a WMD program.


I could go ahead and tell you all the things that the former president actually did, but you would get worked up into a nutter lather and start foaming about silver platters and Vince Foster and travel gate and it would lead nowhere.

Shouldn’t you nutters be out looking for someone to vote for instead of defending the nation from Democratic internet bloggers?


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 01:24 pm

RBB, I used the summary statement.  You can’t get to a more direct representation of the author’s intentions than that.

You took a selected comment out of context, with the intent to imply a different conclusion than was obviously intended by the authors.  You obviously didn’t do that in error.  It was a completely transparent attempt to deceive.

You aren’t half as bright as you think you are, and we aren’t half as stupid as you think we are.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 02:02 pm

I could go ahead and tell you all the things that the former president actually did, but…

Oh, come now, Bob.  There really isn’t that much to tell and you know it.  Stop trying to change the subject.

If you don’t want to talk about the eight years that Clinton wasted doing nothing but burbling and quivering his lower lip after each terrorist attack, I’ll certainly understand.  If its bothersome and embarrassing for you to acknowledge that the joint Libyan/Egyptian/Iraqi nuclear weapons program was going oon the entire time Clinton was in office, and he not only did nothing about it, but didn’t even know of its existence. or that the Pakistanis developed their nuclear weapons capability and had their first test in 1998 while Clinton was “otherwise occupied, or that Dr. Khan had an illicit nuclear weapons development network that stretched from Indonesia and the Malay peninsula to Europe, Libya, Iraq, and Niger and Congo, and Bill Clinton was clueless the entire time, I quite understand your reluctance to acknowledge your guy’s oblivious incompetence and dereliction.

As for looking for a candidate, to be honest I have no great attachment to any of the GOP frontrunners, but as long as whoever the party selects beats out that megalomaniacal shrew and her smarmy, blow-hard husband I’ll be quite content.


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 24, 2008 at 02:11 pm

RBB, I used the summary statement.  You can’t get to a more direct representation of the author’s intentions than that.

You can if you use, as I did, one of the key findings:

“The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam”


Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone.
He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Let me summarize that summary:

While Saddam Hussein was Iraq’s big boss madman motherfucker and one time pal to Ronald Raygun, he was hoping that maybe someday he could possibly get out from under the sanctions and perhaps do it without giving up the chance of restarting a WMD program that was effectively shut down in 1991.

We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.

President Bush
September 17, 2003

“Money trumps….ahhhh peace, sometimes”

GWB


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 03:18 pm

RBB:

While Saddam Hussein was Iraq’s big boss madman motherfucker and one time pal to Ronald Raygun,

You are lying again.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 04:09 pm

How could I not revisit this shining Raygun/Rummy moment


This from our NSA Archive:

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country’s official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country’s official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21].

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time.

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…

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].

…the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government’s repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 04:31 pm

Fair enough… though again you are somewhat clumsily avoiding the question of what in heaven’s name Bill Clinton was doing about all this Islamism and terrorism and nuclear proliferation for 8 years.

And of course if Jimmy Carter had been a bit more concerned with the duties of the office to which he was unfortunately elected and a bit less concerned with his own sanctimonious moralizing, the Shah of Iran, Carter’s “best friend” would not have been forced out of office and the Mullahs invited in… which in turn precipitated the Iran/Iraq war in the first place.

Besides, as I pointed out earlier, as a leftwing Democrat, you should be familiar with the notion of using a proxy to do the dirty work.  Mr. Reagan was only doing what Hillary and Bill are doing now.  The difference is Reagan’s use of a surrogate was in the interest of the US.  The Clintons’ are merely concerned with their own self-serving aggrandizement.


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 24, 2008 at 04:55 pm

I shoulda ‘d this section too

The Iraqi government’s repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

Raygun; Saddam’s wink wink nod nod, good buddy.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 05:03 pm

uh oh


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 05:04 pm

You are lying again.
Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 04:09 pm

Carrick do not so be quick (ala Robert108) to accuse people of lying.
It is you that has masturbated the truth here.
Hell even the dumbest right winger knows about Reagan’s and Rumsfeld’s affection for Saddam.
Have you ever seen the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld in a warm loving embrace? Google it and you will be pleasantly surprised.
But first (if you are man enough) apologise to realitybasedbob for your baseless, utterly false, senseless,and completely out of line accusation.

ellinas on January 24, 2008 at 05:07 pm

And of course if Jimmy Carter had been a bit more concerned with the duties of the office to which he was unfortunately elected and a bit less concerned with his own sanctimonious moralizing, the Shah of Iran, Carter’s “best friend” would not have been forced out of office and the Mullahs invited in… which in turn precipitated the Iran/Iraq war in the first place.

WHAT???? You’re kidding right? Come on now, tell me you’re joking.

What the American people failed to realize is that the deep anger and hatred that the Iranian people had in 1979 against the U.S. government was rooted in a horrible, anti-democratic act that the U.S. government committed in 1953. That was the year the CIA secretly and surreptitiously ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, from power, followed by the U.S. government’s ardent support of the shah of Iran’s dictatorship for the next 25 years.


Yeah, they hate us because of our freedumb.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 05:17 pm

uh oh


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 05:21 pm

RBB, when you say that Reagan and Saddam were buddies, I am assuming you are smarter than a mouse and know better than this.  So I guess that makes you a troll, huh?

Enjoy.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 05:26 pm

RBB:

Have you ever seen the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld in a warm loving embrace?

Damned troll food.  It’d addictive.

If you think about it, if Reagan was buddy with everybody that one of his employees hugged, he would have to had a lot of friends.

Of course you know better.

Carrick on January 24, 2008 at 05:28 pm

RBB:
Have you ever seen the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld in a warm loving embrace?

Now wait a minute Mr. That is my line.

ellinas on January 24, 2008 at 05:39 pm

c,

Didja even bother to read any of the NSA stuff I lovingly posted for your delicate disposition?

Didja read the part were our NSA said Raygun didn’t give a fuck what Saddam was doing to his people as long as he got the oil?


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 05:43 pm

Carrick if you are man enough apologise to realitybasedbob for your baseless, utterly false, senseless,and completely out of line accusation.

Last chance to manhood!
After this you will be nothing but a pussy cat.

ellinas on January 24, 2008 at 05:43 pm

Perhaps you should post the direct quote in which Raygun said that?

Notice how quickly realitydenyingboob ducked away from the Duelfer Report and the Summary Findings of the ISG. Want the full text, references, and addendum of each? I’ll mail you copies of all 12 discs if you want.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 24, 2008 at 05:47 pm

NSA Archive


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 05:51 pm

Carrick unfortunately time has ran out.
You are a pussy cat.

ellinas on January 24, 2008 at 05:55 pm

Hey batman did you google TPAJAX yet?

Do you now know why they hate us or are you sticking to the freedumb meme?


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 06:01 pm

realitybasedbob I think they will stick to the freedumb meme.

Carrick is unable to apologise for falsely accusing you of lying. Therefore he is a big pussy cat.

ellinas on January 24, 2008 at 06:19 pm

He could just be out watching fox noise channel.
I wouldn’t make a big deal about it.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 06:25 pm

He could just be out watching fox noise channel.
I wouldn’t make a big deal about it.
realitybasedbob on January 24, 2008 at 06:25 pm

Well I will. Since Carrick has not appologised to RBB for intentionally and falsely aqccusing him of lying Carrick is a pussy cat.

ellinas on January 24, 2008 at 06:34 pm

I could go ahead and tell you all the things that the former president actually did, but…

RBB,

So when exactly ARE you going to detail all those many things that Bill Clinton is supposed to have done to fight Islamist terrorism and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology?

We know the Islamists were busy.  The first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, two different US embassies blown up, the USS Cole blown up.  And Clinton?  Oh, yeah… he was busy getting blown too!

And Dr. A. Q. Khan and his Islamist nuclear network… what did ol’ Slick Willy do about that, exactly, Bob?  Or the Pakistani nuclear program?  As I recall, that first Pakistani nuclear test in 1998 came as quite a surprise, didn’t it?

So, got anything to back up your claim about all those things Clinton did?

I didn’t think so!


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 24, 2008 at 07:14 pm

Funny, neither of you have actually read the documents in question, and you get pissy when called on your bullshit. Where is that quote from Raygun? Don’t bother sending it to e, she is incapable of reading ingredient labels on food packaging, no point in wasting time trying her tiny mind with anything longer than 3 syllables.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 24, 2008 at 07:17 pm

“that first Pakistani nuclear test in 1998 came as quite a surprise”

Only to people that were otherwise occupied.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 24, 2008 at 07:46 pm

When 2Hotel9 has nothing of substance to say, he bables and gibes.

ellinas on January 24, 2008 at 07:51 pm

Wow, over 30 minutes to think up that snappy retort? The estrogen loss is really hitting you hard, sweety.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 24, 2008 at 07:54 pm

The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for bables:

    1. babbles           2. babels
    3. baubles           4. babuls
    5. bibles           6. bobbles
    7. bibless           8. Bow bells
    9. bubbles           10. blabs
  11. babies           12. babes
  13. balboas           14. baby’s
  15. bails           16. bellboys
  17. bels             18. BALs
  19. blebs           20. bales

What were you trying to say, e?


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on January 24, 2008 at 08:06 pm

RealityBasedBob

You must be some kind of leftwing nutjob, a commie or an Islamofascist inventing all those lies about the Bush administration. You should be tuning in on O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone more frequently for the truth, instead of being misled by official inspection reports, the media, U.S. government studies, or the rest of the chickenshit world who didn’t have the cojones to join the Coalition of the Willing.

Oswaldo on January 24, 2008 at 10:06 pm

What were you trying to say, e?
robert108 on January 24, 2008 at 08:06 pm
babbles

Sorry I missed a b

ellinas on January 25, 2008 at 03:04 am

You can’t read food package labels, why would anyone expect you to be able to spell or type?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 25, 2008 at 05:24 am

e: It’s just comical when someone is trying to deliver an insult, and misspells one of the key words in that insult.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on January 25, 2008 at 08:41 am

e: It’s just comical when someone is trying to deliver an insult, and misspells one of the key words in that insult.
robert108 on January 25, 2008 at 08:41 am

Go ahead and laugh if it is comical.
I was not trying to deliver an insult.
I was pointing out a behaviour 2Motel9 exibits when flustered.

ellinas on January 25, 2008 at 09:12 am

I was not trying to deliver an insult.

So, it was a compliment?  Very funny.


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on January 25, 2008 at 09:19 am

RBB,

So, Bobby, got that list of Bill Clinton’s accomplishments in fighting Islamist terrorism and halting the spread of nuclear weapons proliferation yet?

I’m beginning to see a pattern here among those of you on the Left.  Clinton had two terms in office… eight years… and did nothing.  You’ve had all night to come up with something positive that he accomplished in either area, and you can only manage the same lack of anything substantive that Clinton did.  All fluff and no substance.


“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat One on January 25, 2008 at 10:50 am

Ellinas:

Carrick is unable to apologise for falsely accusing you of lying

Ellinas is RBBs lapdog.  Who knew?

Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that RBB lied and was caught on it.

Carrick on January 25, 2008 at 11:09 am

RBB:

Didja read the part were our NSA said Raygun didn’t give a fuck what Saddam was doing to his people as long as he got the oil?

Another lie.  Once the US administration became aware of WMD use by Iraq, we discontinued our limited aid.

if you wonder why Robert108 accuses you of being a liar, it’s because you obviously are one.  If you want to be viewed in any other way, I suggest start with intellectually honest discourse.

Carrick on January 25, 2008 at 11:21 am

e is pouting now. BooHoo. And still nothing of actual substance. I was waiting for all the conspiracy crap about how America sold Saddam nerve agent and biotoxin weapons, or perhaps how Osama was an employee of the CIA. Those are always funny.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 25, 2008 at 01:51 pm

e is pouting now.

I blame Bush.  /humor


If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108 on January 25, 2008 at 01:58 pm

Another lie.  Once the US administration became aware of WMD use by Iraq, we discontinued our limited aid.

Nope

Take it up with our NSA.

…the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government’s repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 25, 2008 at 04:06 pm

Oh gee RBB, are you posting that as a critique of realism in international politics?

Don’t tell me that you are maybe one of those pollyannas who actually think democracy in the middle east would solves most problems there.

Ken McCracken on January 25, 2008 at 04:23 pm

Thats pretty funny. Notice he don’t access the actual dates of any of this. Tell us, realityalteringboob, what was the year and date of the last shipment of YOW missiles delivered to Iraq, and the reason stated for stopping said shipments?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 25, 2008 at 04:25 pm

And don’t forget to tell us how America built up Saddam’s petrochem and pesticide/pharmaceutical industries. That one is always good for a fucking laugh, too.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 25, 2008 at 04:29 pm

Dear Mr. CarrickTer,

RBB said:

Didja read the part were our NSA said Raygun didn’t give a fuck what Saddam was doing to his people as long as he got the oil?

And you responded:

Another lie.  Once the US administration became aware of WMD use by Iraq, we discontinued our limited aid.

May I point out that RBB was talking about what Saddam was doing to his people, and you respond that we discontinued our aid when we found out he had WMD.  You’re not addressing the statement that we looked the other way when he was mistreating his people because we wanted his oil.

RBB. You can expect more of this circumventing here because they are continuing the tradition of those who argue “logically” that we invaded Iraq because the guys who attacked us, that is al Qaeda, was in Afghanistan.

Oswaldo on January 25, 2008 at 05:00 pm

Oswaldo:

  You’re not addressing the statement that we looked the other way when he was mistreating his people because we wanted his oil.

How am I not addressing that?  When we became aware that he was using WMD on his people, we discontinued the miniscule aid that he had been receiving.

That quite obviously contradicts RBBs claim.

RBB. You can expect more of this circumventing here because they are continuing the tradition of those who argue “logically” that we invaded Iraq because the guys who attacked us, that is al Qaeda, was in Afghanistan.

OK, Mr. Genius.  Pop quiz.

It is a) war on terror, or b) war on terrorist factions in Afghanistan.

Hint:  Iraq was a terrorist state.  Take your time to respond, dumbass.

Carrick on January 25, 2008 at 07:59 pm

2Hotel9

And don’t forget to tell us how America built up Saddam’s petrochem and pesticide/pharmaceutical industries. That one is always good for a fucking laugh, too.

You forgot how we, um, armed Iraq.  That’s always worth an ROFL.

You know sold them all of those T-72 tanks and AK-47s and trained them on how to use them wearing our nice USSR US uniforms.

I’ve decided along time ago that “reality based” was code for “arrogant and ignorant”.

Carrick on January 25, 2008 at 08:03 pm

That quite obviously contradicts RBBs claim.

The claims are not mine. I am cutting pasting from our NSA Archive.

Nice try though, really.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on January 25, 2008 at 08:12 pm

RBB:

The claims are not mine. I am cutting pasting from our NSA Archive.

What I commented on was a paraphrase, not a cut and paste. 

And your later link wasn’t to an NSA document, rather something written by the Joyce Battle.

Carrick on January 25, 2008 at 08:25 pm

Whose NSA archive?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 25, 2008 at 08:27 pm

2Hotel9, Bobbie is confusing the “national security archive” at George Washington University with the “National Security Agency archive”.  If there’s one of those, you’d have to have a Secret clearance and need to know to get assess to it.

Carrick on January 25, 2008 at 08:31 pm

Carrick you say:

OK, Mr. Genius.  Pop quiz.

It is a) war on terror, or b) war on terrorist factions in Afghanistan.

Hint:  Iraq was a terrorist state.  Take your time to respond, dumbass.

Hmmm… I’m thinking ... Let’s see ... That’s a tough quiz ... How much time do I have?

Oswaldo on January 25, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Your stated desire to surrender to Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists clearly indicates you already got the answer wrong.

C, I believe what realityalteringboob is posting is snippets from a very selective, tiny piece of a very small and highly redacted set of papers obtained from a Congressional leaker in the ‘90s. The involvement of NSA in operations related to Iran/Iraq War was the supplying of photrecon images and monitoring of com traffic. No Such Agency is not, in any direct input manner, involved in policy. At least not till ‘96-‘97, after the Clinton Admin had loaded its upper level command structure with political hacks. Like the ones that leaked a great deal of classified information in ‘98-2000.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on January 26, 2008 at 04:41 am

Clinton: They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in ‘Black Hawk down,’ and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations…There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

True: Clinton is correct that there was a Republican effort to bring U.S. forces home immediately after a US helicopter was shot down in Mogadishu. His view prevailed, with the withdrawal date set for March 31, 1994. 

According to the 9/11 Report, the intelligence community didn’t learn that bin Laden’s organization was linked to the Black Hawk shoot-down until 1996-97 (p. 341).

Clinton: [The Bush Administration] downgraded [Richard Clarke] and the terrorist operation. . . . He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies.

Mostly true. Clarke served every president beginning with Reagan and in Clinton’s final years had the title of National Counterterrorism Coordinator. He had run the cabinet-level principals committee meetings on counterterrorism, briefing cabinet secretaries on the subject. When Condoleezza Rice became Bush’s National Security Advisor, she kept him and his title but downgraded the position, taking away his right to run or even participate in principals meetings. Clarke saw it as a personal slight and also as an indication of where counterterrorism stood in the new Administration’s list of priorities, although the latter is a judgment call and is strongly denied by the Bush team.
Comprehensive anti-terror operation

Clinton: The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

True. It is also true that a broad-scale terrorist threat wasn’t perceived until the mid-to-late1990s. Until then, the government wasn’t set up to address it. (pps. 94-95)
After the Cole Attack

Clinton:  After the [attack on the USS] Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible. . . . So that meant I would’ve had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night.

True:  Clinton did draw up plans as he described, and was indeed frustrated by the reluctance of the CIA and FBI to pin blame for the attack squarely on bin Laden. 

“A Vigorous Attempt”

Clinton: My Republican Secretary of Defense [and] Richard Clarke and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get bin Laden and came closer, apparently, than anybody has since.

Correct. Who came closer is, as we’ve said, a matter we can’t resolve. But it is certainly true that Clinton’s Republican Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, described Clinton as vigorously trying to get bin Laden. Cohen told the 9/11 Commission that “President Clinton and his entire national security team devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to coping with the threat.”

Clarke also described Clinton’s anti-terrorist actions as strong, as we’ve already noted.


Rice Responds

The day after Clinton’s interview on Fox, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a meeting with writers and editors at The New York Post , said the idea that the Bush Administration took no action on terrorism pre-9/11 was “flatly false,” calling the Bush efforts “at least as aggressive” as what Clinton had done, and denied Clinton’s claim that the Bush team had been left a plan by the previous Administration.

Rice: We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.

False: Rice’s statement is not supported by the 9/11 Report, which describes the plans Clarke drew up and says they were conveyed to Bush’s aides, as we noted earlier. The 9/11 Report says that as the Clinton Administration drew to a close in December 2000, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper on eliminating the al Qaeda threat, “the first such comprehensive effort” since a 1998 plan known as Delenda (p. 197). The Report also says (p. 201): “After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper.”


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on February 12, 2008 at 04:59 pm

I believe the title was ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’ “

Thanks W, thanks a lot.

My Pet Goat indeed.


Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on February 12, 2008 at 05:06 pm
Avatar for HG

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(edited)... service.

Thanks Clinton, thanks a lot.

You know, if Clinton hadn’t attacked OBL’s base and created all those terrorists we would have never had 9/11.

/sarcasm.

HG on February 12, 2008 at 05:30 pm

And from where does all this Clinton aggrandizement materialize? Why did it not become immediately available when people said Clinton did nothing? Perchance was it a bit ephemeral at that time?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on February 12, 2008 at 05:56 pm
Page 1 of 2         1 2 >

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

If you want to ignore a fellow commenter, download this.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.