November 16, 2005
You Trusted Me. That's Your Fault.
The Bush administration would like us to believe that because some Americans believed the intelligence they were given by his administration, the imminenet threat of Saddams WMD and nuclear capabilities, that they are equally at fault for the war in Iraq and should not question the use of intelligence by this administration to justify the war in Iraq.
This is Bush/ Cheney logic in regards to Democratic policy makers and the War in Iraq.
We manipulated the information that was given to the House and Senate(See any G.W., Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney pre-war speech). We allowed the House and Senate a very short period of time to vote on the issue of attacking Iraq. We forced the issue during an election year in which everyone who questioned the war was looked upon as a terrorist sympathizer due to the 9/11 patriotic ferver that swept across America(See Dixie Chicks). We went after anyone who questioned the march to war(See V. Plame and Joe Wilson).
Because members of the House and Senate went along with them, they believed them, they are equally at fault?
With a Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll finding 57 percent of Americans agreeing that George W. Bush "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq,"
Are the Democrats and Republicans who joined the President in his call for war with Iraq based on his intelligence at fault along with the Bush administration for believing him and his administration? Are they off base in calling for an investigation into intelligence failures and manipulations because it's un-American?
We've heard both from the President.
" He said that anyone accusing his administration of having "manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people" was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush declared last week. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."
Why is it that when we question his policies we "put our troops in harms way?"
Must Americans who support our troops desist from any criticism of the use of intelligence by the administration?
There were some Democrats who spoke up about the rush to war, but not all of them, so the Democrats are just as guilty.
That makes sense.........right?
According to the President it does.
Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat , warned of rushing "pell-mell" into an endorsement of broad war powers for the president. The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, protested in September: "We're being asked to go to war, and vote on it in a matter of days. We need an intelligence estimate before we can seriously vote." And Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, put it plainly: "This will be one of the most important decisions Congress makes in a number of years; I do not believe it should be made in the frenzy of an election year." But it was.
From E.J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post:
"Neither side wants to talk about the context in which Bush won a blank check from Congress to invade Iraq. He doesn't want us to remember that he injected the war debate into the 2002 midterm election campaign for partisan purposes, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that he used the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised."
"Grand talk about liberating Iraq gave way to cheap partisan attacks. In New Mexico, Republican Steve Pearce ran an advertisement against Democrat John Arthur Smith declaring: "While Smith 'reflects' on the situation, the possibility of a mushroom cloud hovering over a U.S. city still remains." Note that Smith wasn't being attacked for opposing the war, only for reflecting on it. God forbid that any Democrat dare even think before going to war."
"Marc Racicot, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, said about the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's opposition to the war resolution: "He has set about to diminish the capacity of this nation to defend itself. That is a legitimate issue." Wellstone, who died in a plane crash a few days before the election, was not intimidated. But other Democrats were."
" Bush wants to say that the "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate" who "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power" thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein."
"By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started."
Are those who question the use of intelligence wrong or are the ones who believed the Presidents use of intelligence and are now questioning it wrong?
Is there the possibility that those who used the intelligence to manipulate others into going to war could be wrong?
I'm confused.
Andre,
What is there to be confused about?
How hard is it to believe that big brother Bush is always right, that war is peace, that ignorance is strength, that freedom is slavery? After all, we’re about to be arguing with people who think the universe is 5000 years old.
Andre
Terrific piece.Bravo.
Rationial people can disagree though.
Personally(and I am in the monority now evidently)I believe the president made the right call.
I don’t think he is a liar or that he manipulated evidence in any way.
I think that he acted with his gut and went with it.
That is his perrogative as president,and if he screwed up…well,that’s why we have elections ,I guess.
Most,if not all liberal writers have become one trick ponies since Libby got bagged.
Most of them can do a link to a past piece that they wrote and be an “I told you so”,and they look great.
Trouble is,they are wrong and the president is right.
Loyalty.
It’s all about loyalty.
Especially to your country,right or wrong.
The second half of that statement is where we part…it has never been right or wrong with the left.
AFTER the fighting is over…THAT’S when you even the score with someone who you think lied….not during the shooting war.
You can kick ass later if you want,but first you must win the shooting war.
Simple.
Finally,the answer is:Solve Palestine,you solve Iraq.That is where the thought must go.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 16, 2005 12:16 PMI’m in awe, thank you for such a wonderful article. I have been waiting for someone to outline everything, the reasons why Democrats are so bent on an investigation. I thank you whole heartedly.
-Einghf
Posted by: Einghf at November 16, 2005 12:24 PMAndre, you rock.
When I saw the president’s speech the only thing that seemed to be missing was him announcing “I am not a crook”.
What is there to be confused about?
After all, we’re about to be arguing with people who think the universe is 5000 years old.
==========
Dave i laughed at that, but deep down inside, I am weeping…
Posted by: tree hugger at November 16, 2005 12:34 PMVery thoughtful commentary…and framed in a way that shows how one’s behavior and statements of question or support can and are used against them by unprincipled politicians!
Posted by: Bill Macdonald at November 16, 2005 12:36 PMAdrienne,
Be careful of those Nixon analogies. That opens the gate to “Oh yeah, Clinton let Osama get away too!”
Tree hugger,
Don’t weep. Unless of course you’ve been to room 101; then, the gin is on me.
Posted by: Dave at November 16, 2005 12:45 PMDave:
“Be careful of those Nixon analogies. That opens the gate to “Oh yeah, Clinton let Osama get away too!—
Dave, I think that gate has had it’s door ripped off by the righties long ago — they use it like Grand Central Station, no?
SicEagle,
Have you ever tried writing a paragraph? S’fun. You should give it whirl and try squeezing those same old hackneyed sentences into one short block of text, instead of constantly trying to take up as much room as possible.
Adrienne,
Yes. So I became hackneyed(?)
SE,
Maybe do like d.a.n. and just cut/paste?
Posted by: Dave at November 16, 2005 01:03 PMDave:
“So I became hackneyed(?)”
Well, no more than I was with my Nixon analogy! ;^)
Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 01:17 PMIt’s so much fun to watch the Right try to squirm out from under the fact that the invasion of Iraq is theirs and theirs alone. When they thought they had public opinion in their favor, they crowed about it, but now that support for the invasion and occupation is less than 40% and declining rapidly, they’re DESPERATELY trying to re-write history and spread the blame to the Dems. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see an emerging far Right talking point that the invasion was a Dem plan all along.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 16, 2005 01:41 PMThe decision to invade Iraq was sound based on the intelligence of the time. No one, not Dems or the Prsident needs feel guilty. This is not about shifting anyone’s share of the blame. In a couple of years people will be running around trying to take credit, BTW. Sort of like the Cold War.
It is about history and consistency. Dems who came out in support of the war (even going farther than the president) have no right now to claim otherwise or to call the President a liar.
The Dem defense is interesting. We are talking about very well informed Senators here. The best and the brightest of the party. They were tricked. Okay, let’s be logical. Many Dems call the President a “chimp” or worse. So the syllogism:
The President is a chimp
The President outsmarted the brightest Democrats
Therefore what does that make them (and you)?
More likely nobody was outsmarted. The Dems based their decisions on the same intelligence the President used. They just forgot. Or maybe now that politics have changed they are trying to rewrite history. But we have them on tape. No matter, the chimp made them do it.
Posted by: Jack at November 16, 2005 02:00 PM
The President is a chimp… The Dems just forgot…history
Posted by Jack at November 16, 2005 02:00 PM
Couldn’t say it better myself, thanks Jack.
(and thanks to K Rove for that technique)
Posted by: Dave at November 16, 2005 02:26 PMGreat piece Andre!
Times being what they are, the press is finally questioning the Bush. I wish they had the conviction to do so sooner, but they were also cowed into obedience (does everyone remember how the White House press corps was so afraid retribution from the West Wing)?
Does anyone else here have the sense that this is a bit like a TV mystery? It feels like the show is winding down and the questions that were raised at the beginning are finally being answered.
The next piece of evidence - Cheney’s Energy Task Force is finally revealed to be who the environmentalists claimed all along - the top executives of the top oil companies.
More evidence for those who believe that Cheney and company came to power with Iraq in mind from the very beginning and more motive for Bush to force the war on Iraq.
Posted by: CPAdams at November 16, 2005 02:27 PMAndre, great post!
Yes, Bush set the stage by scaring all of us to death. Still, I just read that the vote to authorize force in the Senate was 79 to 23. So at least about 1/4 of the senators were against using force. And according to a CBS poll 2 weeks before the vote, only 47% of the public was for going to war.
It’s really amazing how Bush does not accept responsibility for anything. Yes, he says, things are terrible. But it’s not my fault. Clinton was wrong too. The Democrats were wrong too. Our allied leaders were wrong too. Everybody was wrong. What do you want from me?
It seems to escape Bush that he is in charge, and if things go wrong he gets the blame, just as he would take the credit if things went well.
It amazes me even more how Republicans parrot Bush’s excuses. You can’t blame Democrats. This is a thoroughly Republican government. Things are rotten in Iraq. Admit it.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 16, 2005 02:27 PMJack:
“The President outsmarted the brightest Democrats”
Don’t you just love how lying is considered “outsmarting” to the GOP? Sorry Jack, but any Chimp, Dick or Scooter can lie through there teeth, and still be an idiot.
“Or maybe now that politics have changed they are trying to rewrite history.”
Oooh, nice use of the new ‘n’ trendy catch-phase, there!
Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 02:33 PMSo I don’t look like one myself, that should have been “can lie through THEIR teeth and still be an idiot”.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 02:36 PMI think this is a very good piece.
Does anyone remember the “Downing Street Memos” that just seemed to disappear in the wake of the Katrina dissaster.
Oh yeah, Mr. Bush seems to just say that he messed up, so did you. Oh well.
I sure don’t see enough people getting upset with this since his mess up has cost the lives of over two-thousand american soldiers, let alone the reports of many-many innocent Iraqi citizens. “I messed up,” doesn’t cover it in my book. What about those families that had their son, daughter, brother, sister, etc… taken from them forever for something we shouldn’t have been involved with anyways.
Or maybe I don’t know what I am talking about, but my brother is Special Forces Army Infantry on his second tour of Iraq, and the things that he has told me are alot different than the things the govt. and media are telling everyone else.
At least one Republican doesn’t approve of Bush trying to use Democrats as a scapegoat:
GOP senator hits Bush for attacking war critics; Hints Congress endorsing another Vietnam by staying silent
Full text of the speech is located at the bottom of the page.
“Does anyone remember the “Downing Street Memos†that just seemed to disappear in the wake of the Katrina dissaster”
Just to keep the flow going in the same direction: Bush created Katrina to make those “memos” disappear and to kill black people, sheesh.
He also “forced” 3/4 of the Dems to support his rush into war. There is no way they could have used their own judgment and only vote when they KNEW they had the facts. Bush made them vote! Probably was holding their family hostage or something in some super secret Republican bunker.
And quit bringing up clinton all the time, just because he committed the same crimes doesnt make him guilty, he was a fellow liberal and we’re not hypocrites.
You righties just listen to us and let us rule the world for you.
Praise Mother Earth and all her countries, well, except the US, we’re evil.
Geech,
Another broken record.
Cann’t any of yaall think of any thing else?
Or hasn’t Billiary given yaall new marching orders yet?
I kinda hope that a Democrat gets in office in 2008. Then I’ll sign up to post and talk all the time about how he/she lied.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 16, 2005 03:26 PMCPAdams:
“The next piece of evidence - Cheney’s Energy Task Force is finally revealed to be who the environmentalists claimed all along - the top executives of the top oil companies.
More evidence for those who believe that Cheney and company came to power with Iraq in mind from the very beginning and more motive for Bush to force the war on Iraq.”
CP, were you talking about this?:
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
sicilianeagle,
Trouble is,they are wrong and the president is right.Loyalty.
It’s all about loyalty.
Especially to your country,right or wrong.
WHAT??? Once again, someone else who was totally caught up in the aftermath of 911 who is willing to succumb to GW’s rhetoric: I will employ underhanded tactics and even LIE (yes, lie) to manipulate you into a fear so great you will jump to do whatever my will dictates. You will turn on those you previously considered honorable and if they dare to point out the dangers of my hypocracy, you will call them traitors and question their very loyalty to their country.
How Ridiculuous is this kind of thinking?
Loyalty sic-eag? How about loyalty to your fellow man? How about some loyalty to all those troops who VOLUNTEERED to protect and defend this nation and its citizens without questioning? How about some loyalty to the families of all those who have fallen because of the “great lie?”
If you want to question loyalty, how about starting in the white house? Then, perhaps you should check out a mirror or two…question the loyalty you see there.
I for one AM Loyal…to my country and to my fellow man.
sassyliberal
from the september 14, 2001 speech at the National Cathedral
president Bush: “But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and to rid the world of evil.”
from an essay by Wendell Berry: “A government, committing it’s nation to to rid the world of evil, is assuming necessarily that it and its nation are good.”
The Iraq war is to rid the world of evil right? stop them before they attack us on U.S. soil? how can a liar and manipulator who squahses dissent(differing opinions) and attacks those who disagree with him rid the world of evil?
somewhere in my mind this all reminds me of a saying, and i may not get it exactly right, but you probably know it as well “who will guard the guards?”
While i hope this will all soon pass and the Dem’s will share an agenda that isnt simply saying the Republicans are wrong. they and we alike have a right to question what made the war what it is now. congress has every right to question what made them vote “yes”. it isnt aiding terrorists, it is simpy questioning why 2,000 soldiers have died? I support the troops and pray for them everyday, but they did not have to die, we did not have to go to Iraq, at least not under false pretenses.
when did the idea of truth become so uncool?
“who will guard the guards?”
Posted by: Lucas at November 16, 2005 03:30 PMAdrienne
Do you really believe the President could have tricked all those Senators? They have access to intelligence. Some (like Kerry) were on the intelligence committee ten years before Bush became president. Would they not have notice trends? Others (Like Clinton) had experience with presidential deceptions. Would they not ask a few questions?
No - the Dems are not to blame. There is no blame here except on the flawed intelligence that both the Dems and the president used. This intelligence had been gathered and sourced over many years. It looked like a slam dunk (as the Clinton appointee CIA director called it).
Now is the winter of our discontent, but soon people will be standing in line to take credit for the transformation set in motion by our Iraq policy.
It will be like President Reagan said, “Now that it is working, they don’t call it Reaganonics anymore.” Just like now many say Afganistan was so easy a chimp could have done it.
Posted by: Jack at November 16, 2005 03:37 PMJack, to give you an answer, all I have to do is repeat two paragraphs from Andre’s excellent article:
Andre:
This is Bush/ Cheney logic in regards to Democratic policy makers and the War in Iraq. We manipulated the information that was given to the House and Senate(See any G.W., Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney pre-war speech). We allowed the House and Senate a very short period of time to vote on the issue of attacking Iraq. We forced the issue during an election year in which everyone who questioned the war was looked upon as a terrorist sympathizer due to the 9/11 patriotic ferver that swept across America(See Dixie Chicks). We went after anyone who questioned the march to war(See V. Plame and Joe Wilson). Because members of the House and Senate went along with them, they believed them, they are equally at fault?
E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post:
” Bush wants to say that the “more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate” who “voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power” thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.”Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 04:10 PM
“By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.”
Andre, Dave, Sicilianeagle, Adrienne, treehugger, elliotbay, cp Adams, Paul Siegal, Anonamous, and Lucus:
All of you have expressed support for the view basically that this is a Republican war. I have couple of questions for each of you.
1. If the 2008 Democratic Primary were held today, who would you support for the Democratic nominee?
2. In your opinion, how does the current trend in the war effect Hillary’s chances in 2008?
3. How does the current trend with the war effect any democrat who voted to authorize the war in 2008?
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 04:11 PM
Yes, this is another in a long line of Bush Bash topics that conservatives are plenty tired of.
But it’s necessary. The scrutiny helps keep this administration in check. Who knows how much more damage they could do with even a glimmer of public affirmation.
These guys dont need to be walking around with political capital. The bashing serves a purpose.
Posted by: Schwamp at November 16, 2005 04:20 PMkctim,
‘He also “forced†3/4 of the Dems to support his rush into war.’
?? Why don’t we inject a little reality into your claim.
The Senate Democrats were the hawks, voting 19 in favor and 21 against the resolution authorizing force (that’s 53% of against the use of force in Iraq).
The House Democrats were a little less hawkish. Of the 207, 126 voted against using force in Iraq - that’s 61% against. Not what I’d call the deomcrats banding together in favor of the war
So who exactly supported the rush to war?
Senate Republicans 58-1
House Republicans 215-6
Not a whole lot of republicans who’ll be able to say they stood up to Bush in 2002. No wonder they want to say Dems and the GOP were in this together - particularly with 2006 around the corner.
Adrienne,
It was a different article, but yes, I am talking about that issue.
Posted by: CPAdams at November 16, 2005 04:22 PMAdrienne
Glad you like my style.
I don’t like yours.
Way too dour and bitter.
Way too partisian.
You can’t see reason through all that hatred and resentment.
sassyliberal
I don’t think you (or Adrienne) are loyal Americans at all.
Sorry.
You are partisian.
At the risk of pissing everyone on the left off,I pretty much feel the same way about them too.
Here is my favotite statistic: ZERO
You can quote me.
ZERO is exactly how many attacks have happened on American soil since September 11,2001.
Zero
Brought to you by that “asshole” president.
Who “lied” to you.
Who picked up this country and energized it after the attack.
That asshole.
You folks need to wake up before it’s too late.
If you criticize the president during times of war (as you are doing)for purely politicial reasons(as you are doing) is a sickenly partisian manner( as you are doing)….in my view,you are not a loyal American.
As I said,my country,right or wrong.
Craig Holmes,
Have you noticed that the only people who want Sen. Clinton to run are Republicans? Well, Sen. Clinton herself probably wants to run, but if she’s smart, she won’t…
…because the only people who want her to run are Republicans.
Speaking personally, I’d like to see a Mark Warner / Wes Clark ticket. I’d really like to see Clark win more than anyone else, but I figure that 8 years’ seasoning as VP would make him a shoo-in for 2016…and I like to think long-term.
Posted by: Arr-squared at November 16, 2005 04:29 PMse,
my country too. and it was MY backyard that went down on 9/11.
how about criticizing the president when you think he is wrong? if you think he is wrong, is that partisan?
if so, under what circumstances are the citizens of a supposedly free society permitted to voice an opinion contrary to the government?
Posted by: CPAdams at November 16, 2005 04:30 PMJack,
NO, NO. You are wrong in your writing when you say the Dems had the same information as the President.
Two things here on just this issue. There are even Republicans now who no longer support the war. They also say that they may have voted differently if they had known all of the information that Bush knew. Remember, Wilson and Clark, (Republican men)advised the President and his staff that much of the information they were using to justify the war, was one; either not reliable, or two; found not to be accurate ie: the yellow cake. Much of the info the President used was old intel from 1997&1998. Many things had changed in Iraq since then. Remember most of the pictures of mobile trucks with the ability to make WMD’s were shown to the UN. (Colin Powell) We now know those pictures were from 1991 and the first Gulf War. If that isn’t manipulation, what is?
Number two: When the president made his case to the congress, he didn’t include any of the negative voices (Clark/Wilson) and he didn’t include the dates of the intel. (Before you say where is the proff, both Dems and Repubs have stated publiclly that they didn’t get much of the info we now have until after the vote).
I will agree that the Dems have to take much of the blame here. After all, they did vote on this issue without doing the proper reshearch. But when you look at who is to blame for the most part it is the Republican’s. At least half of the Dems voted against the war. Not one Republican voted against the president.
Jack,
I am wrong on the one point of my post. After going the the congress archives, there were 7 republicans who didn’t support the war.
I am sorry for spouting off without checking the facts first. Sometimes I do get ahead of myself.
Sicilian,
Zero attacks with the 50 states since 9/11. I agree, Bush should take credit. How do you square that fact with the fact our borders are so porous? Literally thousands of illegal immigrants enter the country every day.
What if we threw a war, and no one came? Where are the terrorists?
Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2005 04:37 PMThe idea that Bush manipulated evidence to justify the war is simply ridiculous. You forget that his claims were based on information he received from the CIA and our other intelligence agencies. These claims were then substantiated by the intelligence agencies of Russia, France, Britain, and Israel. When the debate about whether to go to war was going on in Washington it was not a debate about whether they had the WMD, but whether that justified attacking. You can have different views on that issue, but it is irresponsible and simply fallacious to claim that Bush made us all think something contrary to what he (and President Clinton, I might add, and Hillary Clinton and Sen. Rockefeller and John Kerry and John Edwards and just about everyone except Saddam Hussein) actually though was true. Shame.
Posted by: wowsers at November 16, 2005 04:42 PMCraig,
1. Feingold
2. The trends will benefit any Dem running in 2008, including Hillary.
3. Voting for the Iraq resolution hurts somewhat. Several relatively moderate Dems, such as Kerry & Edwards, look slightly foolish. Under the pressure of an impending election, Kerry & Hillary made the ‘safe’ vote. Truth is, I’ve never had much respect for Kerry, & the same applies to Hillary. I voted for Kerry, but if he’d won, I would certainly have felt free to criticize. Same will apply with Hillary.
With any luck at all, Iraq won’t be much of an issue in 2008. The domestic economy will almost certainly dominate the national debate in ‘08.
Woah, odd comments.
A)
Remember, Wilson and Clark, (Republican men)advised the President and his staff that
Um, when did Wilson speak to the president or his staff in any regard?
B)
he didn’t include any of the negative voices (Clark/Wilson)
Much of it he either didn’t have or was discounted as being innacurate because it didn’t match the intel they believed. That’s not trying to ‘hide something’, that’s presenting the intel you believe is accuate. There is a difference, one implies misunderstanding or getting wrong intel, the other implies knowing the intel is bad and presenting it anyway. If you can prove the latter, please do, I think you would be heralded as a god in the liberal ranks. Until it is PROVEN though, we must let Occam’s Razor prevail and stop presenting opinion as fact
C) Last year those voting for the war, including the democrats like Clinton and Kerry, were asked if they would have voted differently had then known then what they know now. They overwhelmingly said that they would not have voted differently. Even Lieberman stated TODAY that he believes that going to war was the right thing to do and is glad we did so.
So you can believe and theorize and do your best to convince the ‘masses’ that Bush lied and got us into an illegal war, etc, etc…
But, as I’ve always said, the truth lies between the far right and far left on this one because being blinded by partisanism is one of the worst diseases in the policital world that I can think of…
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2005 04:47 PMCraig,
“1. If the 2008 Democratic Primary were held today, who would you support for the Democratic nominee?
2. In your opinion, how does the current trend in the war effect Hillary’s chances in 2008?
3. How does the current trend with the war effect any democrat who voted to authorize the war in 2008?”
1) You assume I would vote Democrat or support the nominee. I would hope a moderate like John McCain would run. I at this point am looking to vote 3rd party or like in 04, the lesser of two evils.
2) I do not know of one Democrat who would vote for H. Clinton. Even if she single handedly captured Osama Bin Laden and found the cure for cancer.
3)I think that since half the country were for the war at the start and Only half of those who still support the war are going to vote Republican, I don’t think it will negatively effect the Dems or Green party candidates.
Wowsers,
Do you know who Ahmad Chalabi is? You should.
Ahmad Chalabi just finished visiting with Cheney, Rice, Hadley, & Rumsfeld. No photographs allowed though, it’s too embarrassing.
Ahmad Chalabi is the Neocon darling who has been publicly accused of spying for Iran by the head of our CIA.
Nope. No photographs. Uh-uh.
Ahmad Chalabi has been convicted by Jordan in absentia for embezzlement. According to the Jordanians, Chalabi stole over $300 million from a bank.
Please. No press. Turn out those lights. Don’t look.
Ahmad Chalabi has been a major source of intelligence- well, disinformation, actually- that the Bush administration has used to justify invading Iraq.
No photographs. Closed doors. Keep it off the front page, away from the attention of the Wowsers of the world.
Must I go on? These people- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley, Chalabi- they are are beneath contempt.
Why are representatives of our government meeting with a convicted embezzler & Iranian spy behind closed doors?
Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2005 04:55 PMExcellent article Andre. Of course you will have those who use the brilliant defense of telling us that so and so lied so that makes it OK or by giving members of Congress different pieces of intelligence they were therefore tricked and outsmarted and that makes it OK. I knew this president would go to war with Iraq the day he took the oath of office. The question was how was he going to pull it off? After watching the President and his minions foam at the mouth over and over on television trying to convince Americans that it was in our interests, due to the immediate danger that Iraq posed, it was clear to me that if the administration had to fabricate or use scare tactics they would.
Posted by: Marko at November 16, 2005 04:55 PMCraig
I have criticized the president a lot.I said last week that Rove should have resigned.I also hammered him on New Orleans.
However,I draw the line when outsiders are involved.By outsiders I mean by those who are trying to kill us.
I swear by reading some of these posts,someone from the left will say that OSB is a Bush creation too.
Criticizing a president during a time of war when people are trying to kill Americans is not loyal.
Sugar coat it any way you want.
Bitch and moan about all you want,but in the final analysis you are not a loyal American in my view.
ph8
The border did not collapse on 9/11.Even with a pourous border,the statistic of ZERO is still correct.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 16, 2005 04:59 PMAndre:
2) I do not know of one Democrat who would vote for H. Clinton. Even if she single handedly captured Osama Bin Laden and found the cure for cancer.
Election 2008
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 4-7, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide.
.
Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote: [see below]?” If unsure: “Well, which way do you lean?” Asked of registered voters who are Democrats/leaners, or are independents who would vote in a Democratic presidential primary.
%
Hillary Clinton 41
John Edwards 14
Al Gore 12
John Kerry 10
Joe Biden 5
Wesley Clark 4
Bill Richardson 3
Other (vol.) 1
None (vol.) 4
Unsure 6
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 05:03 PMJack,
You said
The Dems based their decisions on the same intelligence the President used.
They have access to intelligence.Prove it. Prove that the Dems saw the SAME intelligence that the President saw, and no less. You and others in here have made this claim several times, but NONE of you has EVER backed it up.
Sicilian Eagle,
ZERO is exactly how many attacks have happened on American soil since September 11,2001.Interesting. here are some other ZEROES for you:
Elliot:
The amount of proof offered by ANYONE on the right to back up their accusation that the Dems saw the same information as Bush.
YOu just hung yourself in this debate. The left has been attacking a sitting war president by claiming that he lied and misled the country. You demand is proof that you do not have proof to back up the left’s assertion. If the left had proof in their hands, there would be impeachment proceedings. The left is simply making accusations against a war president without proof.
Craig
The Dems based their decisions on the same intelligence the President used.
And the world is 5000 years old!
Similar marketing scams, ugh?
Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at November 16, 2005 05:21 PMCraig,
If I had to choose Clark/Edwards or most likely 3rd Party
Sicilianeagle,
If not them then my next obvious choice is to vote for Sicilian Eagle.
Here’s your slogan:
Wrong at every turn, and committed to the cause;)
Rhinehold,
Your correct in your writing if the intellegence that Wilson/Richard Clark etc. was included in the evidence to the congress for reasons to go to war. However, in this case congress never heard anyone from the White House, or its people of any decent. Every thing Bush sent to congress supported his side. We do know that the pictures Powell used to show mobile WMD trucks were taken pre Gulf War. However, we showed them to the UN as if they were pictures we took in 2002. That is MANIPULATION! Richard Clark, who knew more about Osama, Hussan, Iraq and everything else about intel, stated he personally spoke to the president in a morning briefing and was totally blown off. They didn’t listen to anything he said. (Read his book)
Now to be fair, Richard Clark never said at that time he didn’t support overthrowing Hussan. He only said that the justification for the war the president was using was not totally accurate. When all of us on this blog write about any topic, a person who didn’t know anything we were talking about could take what you write and I write and everyone else and come up with an opinion about something. They would most likely get to hear both sides. Then make an informed decision
This is why Bush is considered a lier or at least misleading. He didn’t present anything to congress that was against his desire to go to war. Congress didn’t know that Richard Clark said some of the intel was out dated or flat out wrong. They didn’t hear Joe Wilson and his findings that the intel Bush was using to make the claim Hussain was trying to by uranium form S. Africa was from 1992. Wilson knew that was no longer the case and that Hussain had not tried to purchase anything from S. Africa since early 1990’s.
I’m not saying that after ALL of the facts were in that the majority would have been against the war. But no one, not even you can make an informed decision with out first havning ALL the facts…
Posted by: Rusty at November 16, 2005 05:32 PMSicEagle talks about loyalty. When I joined the Service in WWII I took an oath of loyalty, but it was an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States - not to the President or the government. Bush took the same oath and in my opinion he has violated that oath several times.
Posted by: Warren Dace at November 16, 2005 05:36 PMElliott
The Senate intelligence committee has access to similar intelligence that the president has and can request what it wants. Even when you hear the fevered responses of the Dems, do you ever actually hear them say that they did not have access to the intelligence?
It is also important to recall that some (like Kerry) had access to intelligence BEFORE Bush became president. So he had intelligence that Bush didn’t back in until 2001. He must have believed in WMD at least until that time based ONLY on information from the Clinton team.
How stupid would the Dems in Congress have to be (these are guys with a lot of experience, power and they are not shy) just to take whatever the president says as the truth IF they think there is something amiss? They have various sources. Otherwise how could they do their constiutional duty? And if they were misled, how come none of them bring any serious evidence to bear?
Either they all lied, or none of them did. OR the Dems are so dumb that the cave man fooled them. YOu can’t come out of this looking good.
jack,
the intelligence was not the same.the president had far more intelligence than what was presented to the senate. most particular, the dissenting opinions were for the most part ommitted.
along aother line of thought:
where is the irrefutable proof that cheney spoke of?
what happened to the wmd that colin powell said we knew saddam had and knew exactly where they where?
My country, right or wrong…
You know, I’m sure that most of the Iraqi Sunnis involved in the insurrection believe the same thing.
GWB says:As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.
I wonder how many of those Iraqis just want the foreign invaders to get out of their country. I think if somebody invaded your country, you’d become an insurgent too. After all, we destroyed their way of life, didn’t we? I don’t think very many of them see a great democracy on the way.
IMO most of the Dems that voted to authorize force are either idiots or were worried about their political lives. If in the climate following 9/11 they had actually opposed GW, they would now be on the outside looking in.
But I don’t think it really matters, because GW had the votes without the Dems anyway. And whether or not he misled congress, I believe he lied to ME!
Posted by: Loren at November 16, 2005 06:02 PMjack,
the senate was given the intelligence two days before they were to vote authorizing the president to use force. do you think a request for further information would have been released by the white house in that time span. given their propensity not releasing information, what is the rational to think they that would in a timely manner or even at all?
“As a Republican:
I disagree with the tactic the left is using. This tactic of “bush lied” is an accusation without proof. Show the proof that the Senate was shown different intelligence? Find the proof first and then file articles of impeachment. The current tactic looks simply like cheap politics trying to weaken Bush in order to get more power for themselves.
I do think a price needs to be paid. Our elected leader led us to war on false information. Instead of looking for the person to blame, we should be looking for the person reponsible. This intelligence failure is one of the biggest blunders in American history. Where is the price that has been paid? Where is the list of officials that Bush fired?
George Tenant should have been replaced just like Brown and Meier were. Compare the three
events. Which one had the most significance? So we go to war on bad information and no heads are on a platter.
I don’t think Bush “lied” as you on the left are saying. However, what is irrefutable is Bush held no one publically accountable. In wartime people are routinely fired especially Generals and admirals.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Elected officials who are claiming Bush lied (impeachable offence), without offering up proof are wrong. On the otherhand, Bush not “cleaning house” because of a major intelligence goof (not just a major intelligence goof, but maybe the biggest in history), is a reflection on Bush’s leadership ability, and is totally fair game for the left’s criticism. It tells us something very negative about Bush’s leadership character.
Craig
Jack,
You didn’t answer the question. I asked you to back up your claim that the Senate saw the SAME intelligence. Not “similar” intelligence. You said the Dems saw “the same intelligence”. Now you need to back it up.
Craig,
I’m not the one who’s trying to spread the blame by claiming that the Dems saw “the same intelligence”. All I’m asking for is something to back that up, which (IMO) is an entirely reasonable request.
You guys can spin and twist and squirm all you want, but the fact remains that the responsibility for the invasion and occupation of Iraq lies on the Republicans. The party that advocates taking responsibility for one’s own actions will have to own up for its lack of justification, lack of planning, and lack of funding the invasion.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 16, 2005 06:26 PMElliot:
Craig, I’m not the one who’s trying to spread the blame by claiming that the Dems saw “the same intelligence”. All I’m asking for is something to back that up, which (IMO) is an entirely reasonable request.
The left is doing the same thing they accused Bush of doing. They are convinced Bush has “WMD” in that he lied about going to war. They believe it is a “Slam Dunk” that he lied. They want to go to Impeachment War based on there undertanding of the facts, just like Bush did.
The burden of proof is on the left to cough up the evidence that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate was misled with poor intelligence. The left is proving themselves to be of no better character than what they claim about Bush. Look at the rush to judgment going on!!
Two wrongs don’t add up to right.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 06:37 PMCraig,
Impeachment is highly unlikely to occur unless the Dems take control of Congress in the midterms- difficult, but not impossible. Even if the Dems achieve control, they may elect not to impeach. The same decision was made by the Dems concerning Reagan & Iran-Contra. The Dem leadership felt that, with only two years left in the term, impeaching Reagan would have done the country more harm than good.
The Repubs replaced many of the crooks responsible for Iran-Contra with good people.
Sicilian,
Perhaps you’re missing my point; understandable, since I’m agreeing with you! There have been zero terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. That’s good. Bush deserves credit.
But where are the terrorists? Al Qaida? Dead? Captured? With the exception of OBL & Zawahiri, did the War on Terror end in 2003?
Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2005 06:41 PMAll,
The title of the column’s article is “You Trusted Me. That’s Your Fault.” So why are Cheney, Rice, Hadley, & Rumsfeld meeting with Chalabi? Talk about ‘you trusted me…” It’s simply incredible. It’s criminal. And we wonder why people don’t trust this administration, or believe what it’s people say?
Their judgment is so bad, it beggars description.
Tar and feathers. Let do it.
Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2005 06:54 PMSicEagle:
“Adrienne
Glad you like my style.”
Oh, so really annoying formating is a “style” now? I didn’t realize.
“I don’t like yours.”
M
aybe
I
S
hould
C
hange
S
tyles?
“Way too dour and bitter.”
Said the man who goes around calling people unpatriotic and disloyal because they don’t agree with him.
“Way too partisian.”
Yeah, just like a lot of people in WB, but for some reason you’re always making a point to tell this only to those on the Left.
“You can’t see reason through all that hatred and resentment.”
If by hatred you mean outrage, yes. Resentment, you betcha. But I thank my lucky stars that at least I am not a Mindless Sheep bleating plaintively because his Shepard (W), who has no sense of direction keeps driving the flock (America) right over a cliff.
“I don’t think you (or Adrienne) are loyal Americans at all.”
You can stick that vicious and arrogant sentence where the sun don’t shine, mister. I am just as loyal and patriotic an American as you are.
If I may be so bold as to quote Chuck Hagel from his recent speech:
“The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.”
How’s that for non-partisan?
“Here is my favotite statistic: ZERO”
Hmm, let me guess…
The number of times you’ve ever questioned Bushco’s actions in Iraq?
Craig,
And the Bush administration is deparately trying to spread the blame for their war on Iraq. It just isn’t working.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. I don’t know for sure that Bush lied. I *do* know that senior members of his administration lied. Cheney and Rumsfeld have both said things that are demonstrably false. And I hold Bush, as the head of the executive branch, responsible for their actions. I think the preponderance of the evidence points to Bush at least stretching the truth, and I know a lot of peole who are now convinced that he lied. But I am personally not ready to say that yet.
I think what’s more worrisome than whether he lied or not is that (IMO) he really didn’t care whether what he was claiming was true or not. I think he had decided to invade Iraq from the day he was elected, and just needed a reason - ANY reason, whether it was true or not - to pull the trigger (pardon the pun). I think he invaded Iraq mainly for political gain. He wanted the aura that came from being a wartime commander in chief because a wartime commander-in-chief has NEVER been voted out of office. He also wanted to use the clout that came from being seen as a wartime commander-in-chief to acieve his other goals. And I think he wanted to get back at Saddam for the assassination attempt on his father.
I think that 9/11 gave him the opportunity to pull the trigger. That’s why there was so much conflation of Iraq and 9/11 in the days following the attack. But when it started to dawn on everyone that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then the Bush administration started claiming that Iraq was such a HUGE threat that we had to invade, and a link between Saddam and al Qaeda, and when THOSE fell though, they told us that the REAL reason for the invasion was to “spread freedom.”
So Bush got his invasion, but he and his team botched it. And now he’s desperately trying to spread the blame to the Dems.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 16, 2005 07:15 PMCraig:
“1. If the 2008 Democratic Primary were held today, who would you support for the Democratic nominee?”
I like Gen. Wes Clark (though I don’t know whether he’ll be running).
The reason being, I think we need someone right now who is really smart, and honest and knows more than a little about to get the military back on a stable footing — both with the wars, and with all these issues like the use of torture and using WP on civilians during war.
“2. In your opinion, how does the current trend in the war effect Hillary’s chances in 2008?”
Personally I don’t think that Hillary can win. As I’ve said before, she can be too easily swiftboated. But if she does become the Dem candidate, she’d be better off changing her tune on the war, because the majority of people don’t think it’s going at all well and that it was a mistake.
And I think that’s probably something the Republican’s might also want to keep in mind, too.
“3. How does the current trend with the war effect any democrat who voted to authorize the war in 2008?”
I’m really not sure, Craig. I think most people realize that Congress didn’t see the same intelligence as the administration, so it might not effect them much. On the other hand, people are pretty fed up with the way things have been going in general, so both sides of the isle may be in for a very unpleasant surprise in November of ‘06 and ‘08.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 07:35 PMElliotBay
I will take my zero over all your zeros.
All your zeros are “partisian” zeros.
My single zero says it all….The president has done his job since September 11,2001 with not a single attack on our shores.
Better there than here,my friend.
Warren Dace
First,you are my hero and I thank you.
I deeply respect and admire all WWII veterans….the greatest generation in American history.Thank you for your service to your country.
I know you took an oath of loyalty to the constitution.
So did the president.
We look at it differently,that’s all.
Adrienne….my dear Adrianne
You know,if this had been a few hours earlier,I would have ripped your comment up.
But right now I am a happy man.
Bob Woodward just blew the Libby case right out of the water and guess what?
Up go the polls for Bush and down go the polls for the left as America begins to realize the scope of yet another Democratic scam gone bust.
By Justice Department rules,if reasonable doubt is established,the prosecutor MUST dismiss the case.
Woodward’s testimony today established reasonible doubt.
Presto…case over.
Finally Adrienne,if the high-heel fits,wear it,or (if you wear snaekers)if the sneaker fits,wear it,or (if its a nice republican shoe that you want),if it fits,wear it too.
In my view,your writings (as are the writings of just about every poster on this side) are,in my view,unloyal.
Never try to stab a brother in the back during a gang war.
Rule number one in the street.
We are in a gang war.
You are stabbing the president in the back.
You are unloyal.
With nurturing,however,I see hope.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 16, 2005 07:59 PMAdrienne,
Hillary Clinton controls a lot of organizational strength, and there’s a common perception that she could be the nominee, and even win.
But does anyone back her with any enthusiasm? I suppose if it were her, or a lying sack of shit like Cheney, I’d vote for Hillary.
Funny- when a liberal says, “Cheney lies,” the silence from conservatives is deafening- you can actually hear the crickets. Amazing. You’d think people would rise to defend the honor of the Vice-President of the United States of America.
But no.
Because Cheney really is a lying sack of shit. It’s just awful. And you can hear the winces; somewhere in the shadows, a timid sound of hand-wringing and cringing.
Tar and feathers, Adrienne.
Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2005 08:01 PMphx8
“The title of the column’s article is “You Trusted Me. That’s Your Fault.†So why are Cheney, Rice, Hadley, & Rumsfeld meeting with Chalabi? Talk about ‘you trusted me…†It’s simply incredible. It’s criminal. And we wonder why people don’t trust this administration, or believe what it’s people say?”
I am so with you here! It simply KILLS me that Chalabi is back in their good graces. It IS Incredible. It IS Criminal. And it shows absolutely no bloody respect for We the People — most especially our troops.
“Their judgment is so bad, it beggars description.”
I’m convinced they have no judgment. NONE.
“Tar and feathers. Let do it.”
If only we could. But in lieu of that, we just need to keep focusing on ‘06. Then we can impeach the whole feckin’ lot of them.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 08:02 PMSicilian,
The Woodward testimony makes it worse, not better. Libby is accused of perjury and obstruction of justice. Woodward’s testimony changes nothing for Libby. It’s worse, because now another Bush official may be dragged down.
Why do those vultures keep circling above Cheney’s head?
Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2005 08:11 PMphx8:
It does make it worse, much worse. Because Woodward’s source was Stephen Hadley — National Security Advisor.
National Security Adviser was Woodward’s source, attorneys say
Great security we’ve got there, eh?
Libby still gets perjury and obstruction.
Now Hadley is named.
And Rove and Cheney still aren’t out of the woods.
As for Woodward, what a shame. Oh how the mighty digger of truth has fallen into chummy political hackery…
Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 08:27 PM“We think that Mr. Woodward was going to write a story about it, but discussed it with some other people within the Bush Administration and was told that it wasn’t anything big,†one attorney told RAW STORY.
Hmm, that seems to bolster my claim that Libby was trying to get even with the CIA for what he felt was their attempt to shift the focus of the blame for pre-war intelligence to the administration instead of the CIA.
But, how does that impact the ‘FACT’ that the administration was ‘out to get Wilson’. Wouldn’t they have made it a big deal to Woodward and got him to write the story?
I guess I just haven’t gotten the hang the ‘political conspiracy theory to push my agenda’ game like some others… :(
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2005 08:53 PMSici,
How old is the universe?
Adrienne,
I don’t see (from that article) any hackery. If anything, it seems a Rice try at respectability by getting a Woodward byline.
Posted by: Dave at November 16, 2005 08:55 PM“Adrienne….my dear Adrianne”
First spelling was right. And believe me sir, I am not your dear.
“Bob Woodward just blew the Libby case right out of the water and guess what?”
Yeah, Hadley. Libby doesn’t get off though. He perjured himself and obstructed justice before a prosecutor.
“Up go the polls for Bush and down go the polls for the left as America begins to realize the scope of yet another Democratic scam gone bust.”
Protecting CIA operatives from loose Republican tongues isn’t a scam. But it is very telling indeed that you would view it that way.
“By Justice Department rules,if reasonable doubt is established,the prosecutor MUST dismiss the case.”
This just proves that Fitzgerald is still digging for the truth, bless his heart.
“Woodward’s testimony today established reasonible doubt.”
Woodward just proved that there were more reporters contacted. And since his source was Hadley, it seems like the word conspiracy is sounding more and more apt…
“Presto…case over.”
No, I don’t think so.
“Finally Adrienne,if the high-heel fits,wear it,or (if you wear snaekers)if the sneaker fits,wear it,or (if its a nice republican shoe that you want),if it fits,wear it too.”
You can stick that shoe where you already shoved that sentence earlier.
“In my view,your writings (as are the writings of just about every poster on this side) are,in my view,unloyal.”
In my view, your writings are nothing but blow-hard opinions. No facts. No links. Nothing but more and more opinions — yet all formatted as annoyingly as possible. And because I think so little of those rambling and disjointedly-composed opinions, I really don’t give a rat’s ass how you view me.
Now, it would be nice if I could tell you exactly what I have gleaned about you on a personal level from your postings, but I’m not going to get myself thrown off this blog just to satisfy that rather juvenile urge.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 16, 2005 09:15 PMAdrienne
Bravo!That’s telling him!
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 16, 2005 09:22 PMDave:
“I don’t see (from that article) any hackery. If anything, it seems a Rice try at respectability by getting a Woodward byline.”
:^)
You might begin to see why I think he’s a hack if you read this article:
Woodward Had Recently Denied He Had ‘Bombshell’ and Downplayed Plame Probe
Unlike the old Washington Post/Watergate days, it seems obvious that Woodward has become too close to his political sources in this administration to be considered an objective reporter in any way, shape, or form.
Adrienne
Where would you like me to link to prove to you the ZERO attacks have taken place on Americian soil since September 11?
I knew that lefties needed to be led around,but that’s a little riducoulous.You need a link for that?
As to not get you further annoyed off as I can’t seem to fit anything else up my arse tonite,I am writing this post in paragraph form.
Boring,leftist paragraph form.
Oops..that was a short graf,wasn’t it?Anyway,mull over the number zero.Google it if you want.That zero is the most powerful of them all..and you won’t even acknowledge that.Sad.Unloyal too.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 16, 2005 09:29 PMRhinehold,
Woodward hid the information because he needs access to the Bush administration people for his second book. He’s not the same man you might remember from the Watergate years. He’s become a pathetic caricature, kissing up to the powers he once defied in a desparate, failing effort to stay at the top of his trade.
Personally, I think we’ve been witnessing a bureaucratic war between the lower levels of the CIA and the Bush administration…
But I’m not done on Chalabi! I’ll make an effort to contribute something original.
Chalabi is a modern Alcibiades. He is a con man without peer, a charismatic criminal at the top of his game.
He has been convicted by a Jordanian court in absentia for embezzlement, for cleaning out a bank to the tune of $300 million. The Director of the CIA has publicly accused him of working for the Iranians.
Incredibly, Cheney and others are meeting with Chalabi. Unbelievable.
Chalabi has no loyalties to anyone but himself, and his own aggrandization of power. He makes it clear he would like to be the Prime Minister of Iraq. He’s extremely clever, and very charismatic. Could it happen?
With his enormous wealth, position as interim Oil Minister (how insane is that?) as well as Deputy Prime Minister, Chalabi carries a lot of clout, exerts a lot of control.
However, it’s not enough to trump the Shia or Kurdish parties in an election, not even close. He is a secular Shia, with lots of money, but no troops.
Will Chalabi position himself as the only logical compromise candidate for Prime Minister, precisely because he is a known quantity, a con man, out only for himself, loyal to no faction?
A charismatic con as Prime Minister of Iraq? Just when you thought it couldn’t get any stranger…
Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2005 09:38 PMSicEagle,
Your zero proves zero. The London bombings showed that despite an enormous number of cautionary measures, terrorism can happen at anytime, anywhere.
Thanks to Bushco’s negligence and lack of planning and foresight in favor of sending all our taxdollars to Iraq (where they are able to dissappear like magic), our borders have been left wide open, therefore, most people with half a brain in their heads realize that it could happen to us at any time.
phx8,
Did you happen to catch this article by Arianna yesterday?:
Chillin’ with Chalabi: My Journey into the Surreal
Adrienne,
Yes. Good article for providing some insight into Chalabi’s character. He’s a con. Everyone knows it. And everyone keeps falling for it.
Woodward hid the information because he needs access to the Bush administration people for his second book. He’s not the same man you might remember from the Watergate years. He’s become a pathetic caricature, kissing up to the powers he once defied in a desparate, failing effort to stay at the top of his trade.
Who was it just yesterday holding up Woodward’s book as the proof that Bush invented the WMD issues with Iraq out of whole cloth to go to war with the peaceful Regime? I was SURE it was someone on this site…
No matter, from what you say we can safely ignore the ‘proof’ that his book presents now, can’t we?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2005 10:03 PMYou know there is so much wrong with this administration. I just can’t believe no one is talking about impeachment. Clinton gets his freak-on in the oval office, and they try to boot him out of office. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” yeah, yeah. But did that little session with that cigar cost lives of American soldiers or innocent Iraqi citizens. NO, it sure didn’t. Oh by the way if you think questioning the policies and judgements of this administration is unloyal and un-American. You are the one that is un-American. Questioning the actions of our government is what this country is all about among alot of other things this administration is trying to take away from us. You must be blind to all the lies and trickery that is going on. You don’t find it strange that after we got done blowing the hell out of Afghanistan we moved right over to Iraq (for no reason, I might add) to set up Cheney’s oil rigs. Waisting no time. So if you agree with Bush’s decision’s go ahead but you have to be pretty narrow minded to not see all these things going on right under the American publics nose.
Posted by: Josh at November 16, 2005 10:05 PMJosh,
But what kind of mind do you have to have to believe the nonsense you just posted?
Cheney’s oil rigs? Got that one off of Daily KOS or from your recent Worker’s Party rag?
One of the worst things about freeform comments on a site like this, those on both sides of the arguement try to have a reasoned debate about issues and facts even though we strongly disagree. Then people like Josh and clb come along and muck it all up. :(
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2005 10:11 PMAdrienne:
I don’t think that Hillary can win. As I’ve said before, she can be too easily swiftboated.
I think all the dems need to do is pick a moderate from a red state who can win their own state. I agree with your accessment of Hillary but for a different reason. I think it would be hard for any northeastern liberal. Hillary would look even more stupid in hunting gear walking through Ohio. Although she isn’t as stupid as Dukakis and the tank thing!!
Gore had all of the above pretty much except he couldn’t carry his home state.
This may be a year with a third party candidate. I can see Hillary being challenged on the left, and I can see a McCain being challenged on the right. That would be four candidates.
Craig
Elliot:
So Bush got his invasion, but he and his team botched it. And now he’s desperately trying to spread the blame to the Dems.
As is the Democratic party. “he misled us!!” What a cop out.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 10:44 PMCraig,
I love Hillary. She is one tough woman. Smart, engaging, hard core social realist, hard core fiscal pragmatist. A believer in and proponent of the freedoms that the repugs have managed to claim, but who have instead in reality buggered.
I hope she runs, I hope the Dems pull their act together and destroy the slime machine once and for all with a shock-and-awe campaign.
Unfortunately, I don’t think she can win this time around. I just hope she can get the issues out, get into real debate with her competitor Dems, and show what some brains and education can do. Who runs, I don’t really care, it all comes down to electability at this juncture.
Adrienne,
I still don’t see a preponderence of evidence that Woodward sold out. He’s not the gung ho twenty something but, IMHO, he hasn’t earned the title “presstitute’ just yet. Mostly it seems he views the Bush holes as a bunch of amateurs compared to CREEP.
Posted by: Dave at November 16, 2005 11:08 PMRhinehold,
Woodward? Eric S referred to him in ‘The Fitz who Stole Christmas,’ first article in the October 2005 archive. Whoopsy-doodle! How sad for Woodward. We now know his motivation. I posted the following:
Eric,
Intereesting link on the Woodward interview with Larry King. Here is a portion of it:
“Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually — when the story comes out I’m quite confident we’re going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson’s wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal.
And, there’s a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the “Washington Post” the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.
KING: And doesn’t leak.
WOODWARD: And it doesn’t leak and I think it’s quite possible that though probably unlikely that he will say, you know, there was no malice or criminal intent at the start of this. Some people kind of had convenient memories before the grand jury. Technically they might be able to be charged with perjury.
But I don’t see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with.”
Poor Bob Woodward. You know, once he was a great investigative reporter. Now look at him. It’s sad. He’s been Judy Millered.
Such a pathetic way to end of career, sinking to so low a depth. The poor guy needs access to the Bush administration in order to finish his second book, and now finds himself repeating the administration line.
The man who once helped break open Watergate is reduced to the role of toady, a mouthpiece, a weak kneed sycophant repeating the official line.
“No smear.” It started out as just “gossip.” The Prosecutor is a “junkyard dog.” A perjury charge is just a technicality.
So much for a liberal media bias, eh? Poor Bob Woodward. Thanks for the link, Eric, and reminding us how horribly far the pitiable Bob Woodward has fallen.
phx8,
Read his quotes from a different perspective. Read it as if it came from a dispassionate observer who is taking the lawyer approach. I.e.
“convenient memories” and “didn’t leak” meaning “can’t prove a crime” or prove “malice” but maybe can charge “perjury” so “maybe this is not one to go to the court with.”
Not what I, and clearly you, would want to hear from him. But, we’re still not talking Fox.
Craig,
You can spin and twist it however you want, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans think that their commander in chief is a liar. They think this is Bush’s war, and they blame him and his administration for botching it. I suspect that if Bush is allowed to campaign at all in 2008, the Republican party will return to semi-permanent minority status.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 16, 2005 11:23 PMDAve:
Unfortunately, I don’t think she can win this time around.
I don’t think a northeastern liberal can win period. I think she would make a great vp candidate!!
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 11:40 PMBy 2008 we will have a whole new set of problems.
The pundits counted the Republican Party out in 1976. Four years later we got the Reagan Revolution. In 1988-9 everyone said that the Republicans had a electoral lock. Four years later Bill Clinton won. Oh yeah - the reason Clinton ran at all was that all the pundits thought Bush was unbeatable and none of the big Dems ran.
By 2008 pundits will acknowlege that Iraq was a success (and they will have figured out a way that George Bush deserves none of the credit.)
Posted by: Jack at November 16, 2005 11:43 PMElliott:
Craig,You can spin and twist it however you want, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans think that their commander in chief is a liar. They think this is Bush’s war, and they blame him and his administration for botching it. I suspect that if Bush is allowed to campaign at all in 2008, the Republican party will return to semi-permanent minority status.
You are the one spinning out of control. Your WMD is that Bush lied. You are using polling data the way you accuse Bush of looking at Intelligence. Remember a few years ago the American public believed Iraq had WMD just as now the left is saying Bush lied. Just as you are complaining that Bush campaigned to convince congress to vote for war, so you are campaigning to convince the public that Bush lied.
You are becoming what you hate.
Bush is innocent until proven guilty. Lying about war is an impeachable offense. There is no articles of impeachment, not criminal charges against the president, just your campaigning.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 11:50 PMSicilian Eagle,
You seem very comfortable in that number Zero. Did it ever occur to you, that that is exactly how they want you to feel? Terrorist may be the lowest life form, but they are not stupid. It took years of planning to pull off the 9/11 attacks.
The longer time passes without a major terror attack the longer the terrorist have to plan, and the longer the country has to become complacent. The longer time passes the more financing the terrorists can raise. The longer time passes the more time the terror cells have to grow. With America’s world image in the toilet right now, those cells may grow to unprecedented numbers.
The longer we remain focused on Iraq the longer we are vulnerable from other dangers around the world. The terror cells are closer to home today, than they were in 2001. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are active right across our southern border, recruiting legions of new operatives, and using our border vulnerabilities to infiltrate into the United States.
The amount we have heard anything from OBL in the last 11 months: Zero. Does that mean he is dead?
U.S. counterterrorism officials don’t think so, “there is no evidence to suggest bin Laden is dead.”
”It is likely that these changes in messaging by al-Qaeda are the result of planning and a PR strategy, as opposed to their computer broke.” Ben Venzke, chief executive at the IntelCenter, “Bin Laden also could be plotting an attack on the United States and has made a strategic messaging decision to keep quiet in the lead-up to the attack.” Terrorism analysts are paying attention.
So, that Zero you makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but it actually scares me.
In my view,your writings (as are the writings of just about every poster on this side) are,in my view,unloyal.
You can find a list of other Americans who were “unloyal” to their governance here :Decleration of Independence
sicilianeagle,
I think that he (Bush) acted with his gut and went with it.
I think a president should rather use his brain than his guts to make decisions. Except for the now famous bathroom break.
Loyalty. It’s all about loyalty. Especially to your country,right or wrong.
So, as Bush is nor my president nor my country, could I be critical about him then? Does it make me an unloyal american? Which I’m not. American, that is.
JayJay
I bet a lot feel the same on this side as you.
A whole bunch trying to distinguish away and down-playing the fact that ZERO attacks here have occured since Settember 11,2001.
Every response here “yes,but…”
Every response kinda pathetic.
Phillippe
I feel more warm and fuzzy than you right now,non?
Chirac has kissed the arses of all of the radidicials in France and he is now getting what he sowed.Had the riots happened here,in one week it would have been suppressed and the hoodlums jailed.
While we still have big big problems with border control and container security,as I said ZERO attacks have taken place,and we are moving to address the other deficiencies.
Adrienne
If the link that you provided on the Woodward thing is what you use for referance,I now understand you politicial philosophy.You have been brainwashed by the radicial left.That site and article was a complete joke.If you want,I can send you some pills right away.I kinda feel sorry for you now,knowing the source of you thought.Hope you feel better.In tribute to you too,I wrote a complete paragraph.
How partisian.How unbelievable.How unloyal.
Jay Jay again
I am glad you referenced the Declaration of Independence.They created a new country from tyranny…but most were slaveholders..including Thomas Jefferson .
Two hundred and thirty years ago I wouldn’t think to say my country right or wrong.Why?because during the first hundred and twenty years of its existence it enslaved one race and obliterated another.Then,America was immature.Democratic principles applied only to the rich white man.In my view,it hasn’t been since post WWI,when women were given the right to vote that Democracy here started to mature,started to be like what true democratic principles should be,and it wasn’t until the Civil Rights movement that further maturation took place.I don’t see the connection then and now.
sicilianeagle,
“Bob Woodward just blew the Libby case right out of the water and guess what?”
Please tell me you really don’t buy that.
I rarely,probably never agree with your take on current events but you give me perspective. I can see things from your point of view and it helps me to keep my point of view in check. For that I thank you.
I would never have guessed that you would buy into Libby’s lawyer spinning events for his client, which he is supposed to do, as gospel.
I think you’re smarter than that.
The prosecuter never said he was the 1st official to put Plames name out there, he was the 1st known official. Secondly he is not being prosecuted for outing her , he is being prosecuted for lying.
You’re grasping at straws.
It’s sad to watch;)
Sici,
You actually surprised me!
“during the first hundred and twenty years of its existence it enslaved one race and obliterated another. Then,America was immature.Democratic principles applied only to the rich white man.In my view,it hasn’t been since post WWI,when women were given the right to vote that Democracy here started to mature,started to be like what true democratic principles should be,and it wasn’t until the Civil Rights movement that further maturation took place.”
But, I would like to know why you believe that “maturation” means an end to growth? Why is it that you believe being an “adult” means to be followed “right or wrong”? the citizen - state relationship is more of a peer format than parent - child. Each must listen to the other rather than being told what to do. Can you agree with that? (man I need a coffee…)
Posted by: Dave at November 17, 2005 08:14 AMSince we’re reaching back to the early history of the USA, anyone remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? It seems that those in power have wanted to suppress dissent and label opponents as traitors for a long time. Too bad we as a nation haven’t progressed in roughly 200 years.
Posted by: J. R. Milks at November 17, 2005 08:22 AMI think there’s something very disingenous for Bush to blame flawed intelligence for his reasons for invading Iraq and then not only not hold those accountable who provided him with such intelligence, but award them (former CIA chief Tenet) the Presidential Freedom Medal. Why would the President award the Freedom Medal to Tenet under these circumstances? It just doesn’t make sense unless, of course, the medal is Tenet’s reward for being willing to serve as the scapegoat/fall guy for administration atrocities. Does anyone else have a better rationale for Bush awarding the most distinguished governmental award a civilian can receive to someone without a record of service commensurate with the award?
Posted by: Dean at November 17, 2005 08:45 AMDean,
“In an insane world, the sane man would surely seem insane” — Mr. Spock.
Basically, Bush did too many lines in college and is a very wierd argument against drugs.
From Dean:
“Bush to blame flawed intelligence for his reasons for invading Iraq and then not only not hold those accountable who provided him with such intelligence, but award them (former CIA chief Tenet) the Presidential Freedom Medal.
“Why would the President award the Freedom Medal to Tenet under these circumstances?”
I challenge any Bush supporters to answer this.
Why reward a person who supposedly screwed up royally?
From phx8:
“Ahmad Chalabi just finished visiting with Cheney, Rice, Hadley, & Rumsfeld. No photographs allowed though, it’s too embarrassing.
Ahmad Chalabi is the Neocon darling who has been publicly accused of spying for Iran by the head of our CIA.”
He is also responsible for supplying false intelligence to Bush before the war.
I challenge any Bush supporters to explain this.
Why are they meeting with a crook who lied to them?
Right or wrong, I believe in this country and the soldiers who volunteered to protect us and other countries, no questions asked. I too have family and friends fighting the war in Iraq, it is awful funny that they too question why we are there instead of the countries that actually had something to do with the attacks in this great country of ours. Lets talk about facts, not one of the hijackers were from Iraq, Osama, isn’t from Iraq, but are we fighting the countries where they were from? Yes we are in Afganastan, but we went there after the fact. The next fact is we have lost over 2000 soldiers, the most coming after Pres. Bush declared Iraq a success. They are saying that we should expect some casulities in a war, that we lost more people in Vietnam, yes we did. But when you consider the military is better trained and has better equipment now than we had then, one would hope there would be less loss of life. Bottom line is a decision to go to war should have had more than 2 days to talk over and to make sure the reports were totally accurate. Another fact that has been proven from memos that came from meetings with our Allies stated that Bush had it in his head to attack Iraq even before it was known who all was involved in the 911 attack, and even after it was known who was involved, the wrong country had war declared on it.
Posted by: Sherri Michaels at November 17, 2005 09:36 AMDave
Don’t feel bad. American Pundit agreed with me three weeks ago but he hasn’t been the same since.Watch out for my logic..it may be catchy..especially here..where leftist vipers are known to roam.Only the brave like the feared Sicilian Eagle and Rhinehold venture within these walls,but 2 neo-cons against 1000 lefties is about right to strike a balance.Have no fear.I will send you the same pill I sent Adrienne last night.She took it and last I heard she was seen at a Jerry Falwell prayer meeting early this morning.
On a more serious note,I have spoken extensively about the emerging democracy principles over the years.Certainly America isn’t perfect…lord knows the discrimination that is rampant,the underclass dropping off the radar screne,and many many more social issues that make me vomit.
However,in the 20’s we had debtor’s prisons.We had reform schools for the kids in the 50’s and 60’s(I know,I did 5 years in one from the third thru eight grade because the nuns said I was too hard to handle),we had millions unhoused during the Depressiom.The list goes on and on.Frankly,I struggle with the term “Democracy”.This is especially so because 8 years ago I obtained a European passport making me “European” as well.
What I do know is this (again the rules of the street..as these rules have served me well for 5 decades now)..you don’t stab a brother in the back during a gang war with the enemy.That’s flat out unloyal.
Andre
We may disagree,but I respect your point of view.
I enjoy reading your perspective.
SicEagle:
“If the link that you provided on the Woodward thing is what you “use for referance,I now understand you politicial philosophy.You have been brainwashed by the radicial left.That site and article was a complete joke.”
Don’t be fooled by the cheesy red backdrop and all the pop-up’s, lefties. Raw Story is a site run by a guy who got fed up while working at the Boston Globe. so he started his own site in order to be able to investigate whatever he wants, and where people like us would be able to catch any news we might miss otherwise. Also, the guy obviously knows a lawyer or two close to Fitzgerald’s investigation, since he’s been scooping everyone else on the internet, in the newspapers and in TV media during the Traitorgate saga.
“If you want,I can send you some pills right away.”
Oxicontin, right? You’re Rush Limbaugh. Why didn’t you tell us before!
“How partisian.How unbelievable.How unloyal.”
So, now it’s partisan, unbelievable, and unloyal to put up a link to a leftwing website in the Blue Column of this blog?
How ridiculous. How non-sensical. How idiotic.
I think all those pills you’ve been taking for your “back pain” must have made you forget where you are. Perhaps it’d be a good idea for you to go lay down until your sense returns.
Adrienne
Glad to see that prayer meeting got out early.Say hello to Rush for me,although I personally have no use for the guy.You have to be careful and not go too far to the right either,Adrienne.I have another,milder pill I will send.
Ya.nice web-site.Keep saything that to yourself.
Try reading the Washington Post or WSJ for a change…never know…you may actually learn something truthful.
Anyway,as I said last night,the Libby thing will implode as the Woodward thing takes its bounce.
However,as a neo-con wannabe,I think Rove should have done the right thing and resigned.He cost the president a lost of politicial capital.
Wait until the stuff about Yellowcake Wilson comes out though.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 17, 2005 10:40 AMCraig,
You need to separate fact from opinion. Maybe this will help:
1. The FACT is that I never said that Bush lied. Quit saying that I did.
2. The FACT is that Bush’s popularity is at an all time low and appears to be still dropping.
3. The FACT is that the majority of Americans think their President is a liar.
4. My OPINION is that the desperate Republican leadership realized that they are a sinking ship, and issued a talking point (“Don’t blame us! The Dems thought so too!”) to try to drag the Dems down with them. My OPINION is that it won’t work.
5. The FACT is that this talking point, “The Dems saw the same intel”, has yet to be backed up with ANY factual evidence.
6. The FACT is that Cheney lied when he said that he knew that Saddam had nuclear weapons.
7. The FACT is that Rumsfeld lied when he said that he knew where the WMD were.
8. My OPINION is that there is some evidence that the President lied at least once (when he said “we do not torture”). My OPINION is that I don’t know for sure whether he lied about anything else. I think that’s a matter of interpretation.
9. My OPINION is that every Bush justification (link to 9/11, link to al Qaeda, WMD) for invading Iraq has been proven to be wrong.
10. My OPINION is that when someone is wrong that often, they are probably so focused on what they WANT, that they ignore unfovorable intelligence.
11. My OPINION is that an ignorant Bush administration got the invasion that they WANTED but in the process has driven this country trillions of dollars into debt, and cost us something even more valuable - the lives of over 2,000 brave American servicepeople. All because they ignored any and all unfavorable intelligence.
Andre:
Re; Chalabi:
“He is also responsible for supplying false intelligence to Bush before the war.”
Absolutely. This is why I said that it shows no respect for we the people, and most especially our troops, that they are once more chummy enough with this lying crook to start having official meetings with him again.
“I challenge any Bush supporters to explain this.
Why are they meeting with a crook who lied to them?”
They can’t explain it, though I’m waiting for one of them to try to spin it somehow. Personally I think the answer is: “birds of a feather, flock together”.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 17, 2005 10:54 AMAdrienne
Here,I will explain it to you.
The crook (You are correct for once) Chalabi weilds enourmous power.
The politicially corrupt Chalabi also has the ears of bigger scum bags,most noteably the Iranians and Sadrists.
Plus,he is pumping oil.
We need to be in bed with him and a 1000 others just like him.
This is a bare knuckle,stilleto thrusting,take no prisioners fight to the death war we are in and rule number two of the street is this:any weapon in a war.
This scum bag is a weapon,that’s all.
I suppose you want him to pass an ethics test and be a member of the ACLU though..sorry,I forgot
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 17, 2005 11:03 AMYou see Andre, I knew it wouldn’t take very long for the spin to start.
Thought you and others might be interested in a few things I’ve been reading this morning:
MSNBC:
Massive bid-rigging scam alleged in Iraq
U.S. says businessman bribed coalition officials to land rebuilding contracts
Raw Story:
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and 37 year veteran calls for immediate Iraq pullout
quote:
“Iraq, he said “cannot be won militarily.”Also a bit of background info on who Murtha is here.
“The war in Iraq is not going as advertised,” Murtha said. “It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”
Blog entry: Talk Left
Hadley Was Woodward’s Source - Bad News For Bush
To any Bush supporter,
I restate the challenge:
From Dean:
“Bush to blame flawed intelligence for his reasons for invading Iraq and then not only not hold those accountable who provided him with such intelligence, but award them (former CIA chief Tenet) the Presidential Freedom Medal.
“Why would the President award the Freedom Medal to Tenet under these circumstances?â€
I challenge any Bush supporters to answer this.
Why reward a person who supposedly screwed up royally?
From phx8:
“Ahmad Chalabi just finished visiting with Cheney, Rice, Hadley, & Rumsfeld. No photographs allowed though, it⦣x20AC;™s too embarrassing.
Ahmad Chalabi is the Neocon darling who has been publicly accused of spying for Iran by the head of our CIA.â€
He is also responsible for supplying false intelligence to Bush before the war.
I challenge any Bush supporters to explain this.
Why are they meeting with a crook who lied to them?
I’m waiting for any rational, fact based answer to both Deans and phx8s questions.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 17, 2005 11:53 AMThe Republican strategy seems to be to contradict themselves, thus proving that Democrats are hypocrites. ClearChannel & The Fox News Channel twist the facts enough to claim that Democrats are the only ones contradicting themselves and the mainstream media either repeats these talking points or is labeled left-wing. It took 41 years to come up with this, but I think that they’ve perfected it.
Posted by: Mike at November 17, 2005 12:12 PM