Democrats & Liberals Archives

Shame on you Mr. President; Bravo! Mr. Olbermann

On Monday, September 11th, as the country plopped themselves in front of their 42-inch plasmas and prepared to watch either Monday night football or ABC’s fictional “Path to 9.11”, a lone, brave television host gave a courageous and stirring commentary.

Keith Olbermann’s commentary entitled "This hole in the ground" (link ) was given as he stood in a barren area surrounding the cold, vacant site know as “Ground Zero”. His poignant diatribe denouncing the calculated attempts to politicize and exploit the 9.11 anniversary and the administration’s empty response to the attack was riveting and emotionally charged.

After hearing the commentary I experienced such an emotional response that I wanted anyone within arms length to hear Olbermann’s words. For me, Olbermann expressed in so many words, my feelings and experiences since 9.11. He expressed how myself, the country and the world granted unbiased and selfless support to the President shortly after the tragedy began. He described how we all overlooked our own prejudices to unify our support behind our country only to be branded un-American when we questioned military actions against a country that had nothing to do with 9.11. And he expressed rightful indignation at the very thought of exclaiming, as the Vice President said “validate the strategy of the terrorists” when we question the administration’s motives.

On Monday, I found Olbermann’s commentary online and sat my wife down to read it to her. As I read his commentary to my wife, his anger became my anger. His indignation became my indignation and his displaced indignity became mine. I became just as emotional reading his commentary as the night that I viewed it.

Here are some tidbits:

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this. Five years later this space is still empty. Five years later there is no memorial to the dead. Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals. Five years later this country's wound is still open. Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked. Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op. It is beyond shameful.
....
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists.
....
When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me: Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you.
Bravo! Mr. Olbermann. Bravo!

Bravo for having the courage to stand up and speak for the many that feel the same way. Bravo for putting your message above yourself; I’m certain that your sponsors aren’t to pleased about your opinion and have notified your producers. And Bravo for saying what needed to be said.

Bravo! Indeed.

Posted by john trevisani at September 13, 2006 8:26 AM
Comments
Comment #181004

I watched Keith that night, I’d heard his speech was going to be a barn burner.

The part that really got me, was for the first time, on national television, a minor network anchor used the “I” word.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ‘something to do’ with 9/11 is “lying by implication.” The impolite phrase is “impeachable offense.”
Posted by: Tim at September 13, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #181005

I think that Keith should get some kind of an award for the show that he did, putting out the facts as they should have been for at least before the start of the war in Iraq till now. I think that things would have been different and our world standing would have been much higher.
Carson

Posted by: Carson Donner at September 13, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #181011

Bravo, indeed. Mr. Olbermann is showing the courage, honesty, and intelligence this administartion lacks.

Posted by: Dr. Wu at September 13, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #181020

Mr. Olbermann is showing the courage the rest of the mainstream media lacks. I said from the onset of this immoral war, that the price the media paid for the administration’s permissio to allow them to be embedded with the troops would be to cover the war on the administratration’s terms. That is why we only see part of the story whenever the networks decide to report on Iraq.

Posted by: Barbara Brown at September 13, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #181022

What makes Iraq more immoral than any other war? OR are all wars immoral?

Please elaborate for me…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #181024

Because we were dupe into a war on a lie. A big FAT lie so bushs friemds could make money and they made alot.

Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #181025

And that lie was?

As you might guess, I’m looking for specifics here…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #181026

W.M.D

Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #181027

And the lie was? Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously you are going to have to do better than that…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #181028

Bravo Mr. Olbermann. Finally a voice in the mainstream. It’s about time.

Posted by: Kc at September 13, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #181029

Thats not enough. OK he scared everyone with false facts about wmd and Iraq was out to get us they were THE BOOGIEMAN they did 9/11 its all saddam fault. In the mean time osb got away

Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #181031

I cant exatly quote it word for word but a gentleman from Penn said that the democratic party is putting political beliefs in front of the national security of our country. Is this not the idea behind the war? My beleifs about the war, be it good or bad, are a part of who I vote for and what I beleive is right or wrong. Ground Zero not having a memorial or being rebuilt is a way to keep the wound of 9.11 open for the republican government to have a reason to keep the war on terrorism seem strong and successful. In order for us to show that we are not going to let them win is to rebuild as soon as possible. If we put our political beleifs in front of national security, the national security will follow.

Posted by: Joe at September 13, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #181032
Thats not enough. OK he scared everyone with false facts about wmd

Again, WHAT false facts? Remember, there was a lot more going on than one day Bush decided to attack Iraq because we thought they had WMD. IN fact, we knew and inventoried much of the WMD and were charged with assuring it was all destroyed (they agreed to accomplish this within 90 days). 12 years later, 3 different inspection teams and nothing but resistance from the Iraqi government we were still unable to account for all of the WMD that we knew they had, let alone if they were creating any more. It was a valid concern and the fact that Saddam was actively trying to block inspections gave most people the thought that he was hiding something (and he was). In fact, we still don’t know FOR SURE that there weren’t more WMD than we have already found that was buried or secreted out of Iraq, but you make the assumptions for political points, preventing any real discovery… *shrug*

And for the record, believing something wrongly and lieing are two different things. You might want to think upon this.

Now, if you have any PROOF that Bush lied about WMD, please provide it now, I’m sure a lot of people would be curious to see it.

and Iraq was out to get us

Well, on this he was correct. They still had a state of war against us, had attempted to assassinate a former president, was one of the top 5 state sponsors of terror (you know, terrorism, the thing we were fighting against), were using their intelligence agencies to harass and initimidate US citizens (former Iraqi citizens) and were actively planning to attack the US again.

I would say that that counts as being ‘out to get us’…

they did 9/11

Really, where has the president said this? There is a DIFFERENCE between 9/11 and terrorism, one that many on the left are ignorant about it appears, and for some reason we can’t seem to get it through the heads of some.

Yes, a lot of people in the US think that Iraq was involved in 9/11. In fact, many thought that the day after the attack, without any prompting from the administration. The notion that the administration is ‘pushing’ this thought is not needed, there was a lot of distrust of Saddam and many who know the deep ties that Saddam has with terrorism and terror groups don’t see it as a large leap. That doesn’t mean there is any proof, but it doesn’t mean there wasn’t any tie nor does it make those who believe it to be stupid. I don’t think that we should use it as a reason to do anything to Iraq, but there was a ton of reasons to invade Iraq without that or WMD so there is really little reason to fall back on it.

In the mean time osb got away

Yes, so far he has. THAT makes the war in Iraq immoral? Or does it just make the US incompetent. And what evidence do you have that if we weren’t in Iraq we would have caught him? That’s a leap of logic that I wouldn’t mind seeing some proof for…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #181034

rhinehold,

there were multiple lies on the path to this war in Iraq. Let’s recap a few:

Valery Plame:

She WAS undercover and her identity secret. Revealing her identity WAS a crime and was done for political purposes. Cheney and Rove DID know about it because it was traced to them and NOT to Libby, directly, but to Libby THROUGH them. That much is only recently public record now. Funny how that happened AFTER the whole issue simmered down and was out of the eye of most. The investigation was more an act of public appeasement than real.

WMD’s:

The only WMD evidence found at this point was old safe and utterly degraded stuff that was a part of a program that lost it’s dangerous material even before Gulf War I. As chaotic as things are in Iraq and the region, do you really think an in depth and effective cover-up and transfer of hundred’s of tons of dangerous materials COULD have taken place in the first days of our invasion? before? after? huh?

The connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden:

It was never there. Osama was such an excuse it almost seems he served a purpose on behalf of those in the administration who wanted to invade Iraq. It doesn’t make a good excuse to anybody who is capable of reading.

Swearing to find bin Laden and bring hin to justice whatever it takes:

Why, then, did Bush disband the CIA team charged with searching for bin Laden? he did this not long after we invaded Iraq. Is this something it “takes” to somehow find him? …are we waiting for him to come to us? I guess that will work. It worked before.

How serious does Lewinski seem to you, now? You know, there are some fools in New Mexico who are trying to lambast Richardson for making a statement that he once had been drafted into pro-baseball. He hadn’t. He published a letter from the team that he had kept to show how he or anybody might have thought that. I’m stunned that the republicans are so strong about honesty that they would nit-pick to such a rediculous and immaterial degree, but are willing to turn their heads from lies that constitute acts of treason and cost untold lives so long as it’s their own party committing these crimes.

When will the republicans pull their collective head out of their collective backside?

Posted by: RGF at September 13, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #181036

I can’t believe rhinehold is pushing this envelope that there were no Bush lies that brought us to war with Iraq. This war was justified on the premise of a false negative. The U.N. weapons inspectors could not find WMD in Iraq, so the US will overthrow the regime and find them. Well, the US did overthrow the regime, but it found exactly what the UN found: NOTHING.

In short, the inspectors were right and the US was WRONG! And Bush had all the intelligence that pointed to the facts, but instead chose to hype the uncertaintities and rely on dubious, politicized claims (e.g., Chalabi) to hype this war to the American public.

If we had simply been able to listen to the facts and follow the preponderance of evidence, Bush would never have been given the green light for the Iraq war.

I know what comes next from rhinehold: we all had the opportunity to do that and it’s our (the public’s) fault we didn’t press the issue. Well, we did. We protested and were accused of being unpatriotic. We talked about the UN’s efforts and were told they weren’t working. We asked for reports on the CIA’s data and were shown only what the administration wanted to show us.

Posted by: Bobo at September 13, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #181046

Bush Lied!
Halliburton!
Hates black people!
9/11 was an inside job!
Cheney dynamited the levees!
Nazis!
Chickenhawks!
Torture!
Global warming!
Hurricanes!—whoops, scratech that, this year.
Cannabalism!

Such a pleasant, civilised left wing we have today. No wonder people are leaving in droves.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 13, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #181048

——-rhinehold—- Our Sea Ports are still under the control by the United Arab Emirates an are
no safer then they were seven years ago. Our
Rail system is not secure at all.
Six Mo. ago security experts took sim. explosive devices threw most major Air Ports with
out being detected. Our Northern borders are no
different then they were 20 years ago, an containers from ships are checked about 3% .
I will say there were some mustard gas containers made in America, an sold to Iraq to
to fight the Iranians.

Having a passion with correctness does not
require a melee an emotional discord when discussing politics, nor does it necessitate employing
spin in order win political beliefs or personal doctrines. Trying to mislead others does
not show good character or values.

Posted by: DAVID at September 13, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #181049

Dick Cheney appeared on Face the Nation before the invasion of Iraq and told us that the CIA had intelligence information linking Suddam Hussein to terroist organizations and to weapons of mass destruction.

The CIA did not have such information and, to be sure they didn’t, reviewed thousands of pages of documents that they had on Suddam and found nothing. When they tried to inform the Bush administration of their finding, Cheney essentially told the CIA officials to shut up.

Cheney has ties to a private company that helps supply the military, which has made billions of dollars since the start of the war.

Lies, lies, and damn lies. Not to mention an impeachable offense. Need any more specifics?

Posted by: Snuffleufogous at September 13, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #181052
Again, WHAT false facts?

C’mon, Rhinehold.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

The Bush administration lied repeatedly about that and yellow cake and aluminum tubes and they presented single-source intelligence that they knew was probably bad — like WMD trailers — as fact.

They lied.

As for Olberman, he was brilliant.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 13, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #181053

john,

Thanks for pointing this out and the link. I missed this when it originally aired. This is classic Olbermann, and why I try to catch his show, Countdown on MSNBC, whenever I can. He is never afraid to tell the truth or confront those head on that are out there lying (He has caught Bill O’Reilly lying so many times he gets his own special segment.) More times than not he says exactly what I have been thinking.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at September 13, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #181054

Rhinehold is one of the base group continuing to support Bushco. It has dwindled, but I don’t believe it will drop in size any more. This group, whether from ignorance, stubborness, tunnel vision, thrill seeking, or just antagonistic , will not move. They will stay on the left no matter who may be in the oval office. Fortunately, there are some Republitives who have shown movement away from the pit this administration has dug for all of us. Some may be sincere, others just in a job-saving mode, but results are surely better than reason at this point. We just need to hang onto our collective butt and be prepared to counter Rove’s poisonous messages at every turn. He’s got his game hat on and is in his mode now….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 13, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #181057

Unfortunately, there’s nothing new in this speech. This is what Democrats and the left call bi-partisanship. This speech has been given thousands of times in some form or other since 9/11.

It’s reprehensible. It’s also illogical and idiotic. But not new. Well, doing it from ground zero on September 11th is a first.

Posted by: esimonson at September 13, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #181060

Sorry….got diverted from the subject of this….thanks John for bringing more attention to Olbermann’s piece. He was right-on in content and timing. If he doesn’t get any better acknowledgement than what is being said on these blogs, hope he can consider heart-felt thanks and appreciation worth something !!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 13, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #181061

Thanks for the Olbermann link. He put in words exactly what I’ve been feeling and poorly expressing for the last 2 years.

I guess I’m not surprised at the complete lack of defense here for Bush (beyond the typical unsupported denials and unimportant talking point blame-da-dems sidetracks)

Time to take out the trash, bury the right wing, and hope the left doesn’t blow it, again.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 13, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #181063

It amazes me when I read Rhinehold’s comments, how drastically different his/her point of view is from facts.

Let’s look at this whopper:

but there was a ton of reasons to invade Iraq without that or WMD so there is really little reason to fall back on it.

Really? I suppose one of those reasons is because he was on the “terrorist nation list” as you assert? WRONG.

Iraq was not, and is still not on the US list of terror nations. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

There are some bad dictators out there, but they’re not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower, are they? Bush ignored N. Korea in favor of Iraq and now they have nukes. Bush ignored Iran in favor of Iraq and now they’re close to having nukes. Bush ignored Sudan in favor of Iraq and the genocide there goes on unchecked.

I know, you watched the path to 9-11 so you still think after 6.6 years of the Bush Administration all this is Clinton’s fault.

I feel sorry for you, I really do.

Posted by: Tim at September 13, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #181064

“Cheney dynamited the levees!”

I thought Bush did that.

“Rhinehold is one of the base group continuing to support Bushco”

Geez Rhinehold, you refuse to believe the lefts “opinions, hopes and wishes” and ask for FACTS to back-up the talking points they have been served and now your part of this “base group” that supports Bush at all costs.
How dare you not just take the lefts “word” on everything.

Think the Libertarians will Lieberman you now?

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #181068

“It amazes me when I read Rhinehold’s comments, how drastically different his/her point of view is from facts”

Well, I am definetly nowhere near Rhinehold in class or knowledge, but yes, I think ALL the facts are important too.

“There are some bad dictators out there, but they’re not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower, are they?”

No they aren’t. But why did we go into Bosnia again?

Not for this was it?

“Bush ignored N. Korea in favor of Iraq and now they have nukes.”

Hmmm? I wonder how they got that technology?

“Bush ignored Iran in favor of Iraq and now they’re close to having nukes.”

Bush is doing what you all said we should have done with Iraq That is a bad thing now?

“I know, you watched the path to 9-11 so you still think after 6.6 years of the Bush Administration all this is Clinton’s fault”

Nope, not all. Unlike the left and their hatred for Bush, most others believe it was the fault of our govt, past and present.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #181075

Rhinehold:
Oblermann’s powerful commentary covered many items; ‘lying by implication’ was one small part of this piece.

If you wish to focus your attention to that portion of his commentary, then okay. But let us examine what is meant by ‘lying by implication’.

When the President says on August 21st that “Saddam Hussein had relations with Zarqawi.” did he mean that he had sexual relations with Zarqawi or that he had terrorist relations with Zarqawi? Given that the context of the speech he was giving was surrounding National Security and the War on Terror, i would suspect the latter. And since it was the Senate Intelligence Committee that stated that Saddam hated al qaeda as much as we do and was actively trying to get him out of his country. Is that lying by implication?

We can play a game of semantics all we like, but it’s unproductive and disrespectful of those that lost their lives in 9.11, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: john trevsani at September 13, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #181082

I didn’t even believe Olbermann when he used to read the ball scores for ESPN….but that’s ok when you only reach 556 people every night he’s pretty insignificant….

Posted by: John K Takos at September 13, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #181085

califrep,

The degraded WMD’s were not complete. No material to declare.

As for Sadaam having ties to terrorist organizations…duh. Of course he had. He WAS a terrorist organization…to his own people (Kurds and Shias). That is not the point. The question is whether he had ties to Al Qaeda. He didn’t. Neither did he have the capacity to be a clear and present danger to us. That IS the point.

The El Salvadorans considered the Contras to be terrorists. We armed them and supplied them. Does that make us terrorists?

We funded two attempts to create successful insurections in Cuba. Are we terrorists?

We armed and supplied the coup that put Pinochet in power in Chile against a duely elected government that had huge popular support of the Chilean people. Are we terrorists?

For most of the last century, the IRA has been armed and funded by Irish-Americans. Why are we not going after Irish Americans for being terrorists?

The Chinese government to this day continues to carry out religious based torture and execution of Christians and Falun Gong. Is that not terrorism?

We cannot fight all these battles. There are an infinite number of reasons why we cannot be the world police and should not try. To do so is to add to the infinite number of reasons people take violent issue with us. It is crazy, self destructive and stupid to do what we are doing which is why so many see Bush as crazy, self-destructive and stupid. No mystery there.

How do you justify saying the Plame-gate scandal was a smear campaign? Would you also argue that Watergate didn’t happen? …or Iran Contra?

These are all the same party by the way - just in case you hadn’t noticed that.

Posted by: RGF at September 13, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #181089

Olberman makes some valid points, all of which have been said before. I have a big problem with him using Ground Zero as a backdrop. The only difference between him and Ray Nagin is that he had the juice to go to the site and set up his piece. This guy was recently one of the sports clowns reading scores and now is a spokesperson for the “Angry left”?? Unfortunately he is just another in the army of Bush haters and just as irrelevant as the army of Clinton haters. It is really difficult to listen to either.

Posted by: Jack Farrell at September 13, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #181092

RGF Very well done you do your homework BRAVO!!

Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #181095

RGF, … *sigh*

First, Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. I’ll repeat it for you again:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp

The 9/11 report found many ties, including Hussein offering asylum to OBL. Clarke was VERY worried about this in 1999.

Nevertheless, top U.S. officials were so worried about the possibility of an Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration that they took care not to provoke bin Laden into a closer relationship with Saddam. In February 1999, for example, the CIA proposed U-2 aerial-surveillance missions over Afghanistan. The report says that Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, worried that the mission might spook bin Laden into leaving Afghanistan for somewhere where it might be even more difficult for American forces to reach him:

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.
National-security adviser Sandy Berger suggested that the U.S. send just one U-2 flight, but the report says Clarke worried that even then, Pakistan’s intelligence service would warn bin Laden that the U.S. was preparing for a bombing campaign. “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad,” Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that “Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.”

As for the rest, you mention several military issues and then try to tie them to terrorism. Apparently you don’t realize what terrorism is, I don’t remember any of those military operations TARGETTING innocent civilians.

*shrug*

Btw, I did post a long reply to all of the other misrepresentations of my previous statements as well as countering the outright innacuracies, but it is sitting in a queue for review right now…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #181096

Rhinehold:


The 9/11 report found many ties, including Hussein offering asylum to OBL. Clarke was VERY worried about this in 1999.

Forgive me if i’m wrong, but i rarely read the National Review. But this differs from what the 911 commission found. If you recall the 911 found “no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda” and further explained in the report that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996, but that “Iraq apparently never responded” to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. Additionally the report cited states of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, but concluded “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.”

Posted by: john trevsani at September 13, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #181098

When all else fails, trot out the National Review.

How would you feel if I tried to make my point using an article from “The Nation”?

Would you say the Washington Post was more credible?


By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47812-2004Jun16?language=printer

Posted by: Tim at September 13, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #181104

Oh Please Califredp you stated:” you are telling them they’re dying for nothing. you might as well just spit in their faces”
Unlike mindless pro-Iraq hawks who sit on their asses and pontificate, we anti-Iraq warriors and ex-soldiers are trying to save our brave bretheran from a fool’s folly: Would you have the crew rally behind the captain of the Titanic as he heads the ship into an iceberg? Would you cheer Custer as he heads his troops into disaster?
As someone said: “going into Iraq is like invading Mexico for the attacks on Peal Harbor” JJ5

Posted by: jj5 at September 13, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #181105

John,

I’m sorry, it was partially quoting the 9/11 commission. Let me do that again for you:

Page 134, the final part of 4.4:

In February 1999, Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135 Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.136
Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #181108

Tim,

re-read, I was quoting from the actual 9/11 commission report, it was prettied up in the National Review.

I reposted directly from the report just above. However, I did want to point one thing out…

Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.

First problem, the report came out on June 22, 2004.

Both the Times and the Post based their reporting on a single paragraph, written by the staff of the September 11 Commission, which conceded a few ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but said there was no “collaborative relationship” between the two. The findings, revealed in the commission’s last hearing on June 17, were preliminary, and the apparent rush by some in the press to deny any Iraq-al Qaeda relationship left commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton baffled. “I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this,” Hamilton told reporters. “The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.”

So, do you argue with Clarke and Berger about the very real concern they had with Iraq and Al Qaeda joining forces more?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #181110
I didnt even believe Olbermann when he used to read the ball scores for ESPN….but thats ok when you only reach 556 people every night he’s pretty insignificant….

Posted by: John K Takos at September 13, 2006 01:58 PM

I guess you’re one of the dozen or so that still listen to Rush & O’reilly. Olbermann’s ratings are a hundred times that of both Republican talking heads combined (BTW O’Reilly never won a Peabody either). And even if Olbermann had only 556 listerners the content of his show is infinite compared to the two jackasses spewing Republican propaganda endlessly.

Posted by: Pat at September 13, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #181113

Well said!!!

Posted by: Tracy at September 13, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #181115

Thanks Rhinehold, may i parse your post?


He(Clark) wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladi(e)n’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.”

Did Bin Laden meet with Iraqi officials or may he have met with Iraqi officials?
What is the definition of an official? Were they officials representing Hussein’s government?

If Bin Ladi(e)n actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his (bin laden’s)network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him.
If. If bin laden moved. Not when. Not how. If. Unless i’m mistaken. “If” is not evidence; this is heresay on a theory.

Posted by: john trevsani at September 13, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #181119

Kind of like IF President Bush lied to take us into war?

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #181123

Ah, so many things wrong, so little time…

She WAS undercover and her identity secret. Revealing her identity WAS a crime and was done for political purposes.

You are right so far, to a point. Libby wanted to get even with the CIA and actively leaked the information for this purpose. You then go on to tie Cheney and Rove to it, even though there is no proof, and then try to make the original accusation stick, even though it has no legs. *shrug*

The only WMD evidence found at this point was old safe and utterly degraded stuff that was a part of a program that lost it’s dangerous material even before Gulf War I. As chaotic as things are in Iraq and the region, do you really think an in depth and effective cover-up and transfer of hundred’s of tons of dangerous materials COULD have taken place in the first days of our invasion? before? after? huh?

Before the invasion, sure it’s possible. After the invasion with the state of the country we can’t possibly have made an indepth investigation yet. There are credible accusations by members of the Iraqi military that much of it was moved into Syria and members of the former WMD investigations team that says it’s still buried but we can’t get to it and won’t say where it is until we can in case someone who controls that area goes and gets it.

Are these facts? No, I don’t think we know all of the facts yet. That was sort of my point. But apparently you do…?

The connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden:

It was never there.

What a stupid thing to say, IMO. Even Clarke, the liberal icon of post 9/11 Bush hatred has written and affirmed such links. The 9/11 commission detailed links. I’m not sure why you can still claim there were no links at all, it just flies in the face of facts…

When will the republicans pull their collective head out of their collective backside?

I don’t know, I think they are as incapable as democrats to have their heads anywhere else…

I can’t believe rhinehold is pushing this envelope that there were no Bush lies that brought us to war with Iraq. This war was justified on the premise of a false negative. The U.N. weapons inspectors could not find WMD in Iraq, so the US will overthrow the regime and find them. Well, the US did overthrow the regime, but it found exactly what the UN found: NOTHING.

What twisted non-logic is this?

Ok, let’s have a history lesson. Iraq agreed to allow uN supervision of their WMD stockpile to ensure that it was all destroyed. They blocked several inspections and then the inspectors were removed for a time as Clinton bombed Iraq. Then they were put back in by Bush to continue their efforts. They were again stalled and blocked. Resolution 1441 was enacted, the 17th resolution, a chapter 7 one, that said they must fully comply immediately. They did not (even though Blix tried to argue for more time he had to admit that they weren’t getting full and immediate cooperation, only that the cooperation had ‘improved’).

So, since there was no way we could find out for sure that the weapons were destroyed since Iraq violated several UN resolutions preventing it, the only way to be sure was to go in and look for ourselves without the Saddam government blocking it.

No one suggested that they prove they didn’t have them, only that they let the inspectors look for themselves. The constant blocking of the inspection teams suggested to many that Iraq was hiding something.

——-rhinehold—- Our Sea Ports are still under the control by the United Arab Emirates an are no safer then they were seven years ago. Our Rail system is not secure at all. Six Mo. ago security experts took sim. explosive devices threw most major Air Ports with out being detected. Our Northern borders are no different then they were 20 years ago, an containers from ships are checked about 3% .

You’re right, the administration is failing on all levels to do what needs to be done now. I don’t think I said they weren’t or that Olberman wasn’t right on most of what he said. I was responding to something that he and Barbara Brown said about the ‘immoral war’ and have yet to get a satisfactory response other than ‘bush lied’. :/

Dick Cheney appeared on Face the Nation before the invasion of Iraq and told us that the CIA had intelligence information linking Suddam Hussein to terroist organizations and to weapons of mass destruction.

Both statements were true, I’ve detailed much of this here: http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001765.html

Not to mention an impeachable offense

Which is?

Rhinehold is one of the base group continuing to support Bushco.

I am? Wow, too bad I never voted for him and despise much of what he stands for… But, labelling and grouping and then arguing straw men is easier than debating facts I suppose…

It amazes me when I read Rhinehold’s comments, how drastically different his/her point of view is from facts.

Let’s look at this whopper:

Ok, let’s…

but there was a ton of reasons to invade Iraq without that or WMD so there is really little reason to fall back on it.

Really? I suppose one of those reasons is because he was on the “terrorist nation list” as you assert? WRONG.

Did I say that? Or did I say that Iraq was in the top 5 STATE SPONSORS of Terrorism?

Hmmmm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/part1.html

I know, you watched the path to 9-11 so you still think after 6.6 years of the Bush Administration all this is Clinton’s fault.

Sorry, never saw the show and wouldn’t have watched it anyway, I am tired of hearing about and talking about 9/11 to be honest.

As for Clinton’s fault, he shares much of the blame. As I have stated MANY TIMES on this forum, the US has failed since the mid 1970s to deal adequately with the issue of terrorism, in fact we are still failing, flailing away at ghosts and fears blindly and not looking at the real issues. Clinton was just as bad as Carter, Reagan and both Bush’s in this…

I feel sorry for you, I really do.

And I you.

Rhinehold: Oblermann’s powerful commentary covered many items; ‘lying by implication’ was one small part of this piece.
I agree, it’s a shame that my asking a simple question and stupidly thinking I could get an answer that adressed that question has led off on this path. :( To be honest, I agreed with much of what he said.
When the President says on August 21st that “Saddam Hussein had relations with Zarqawi.⦣x20AC; did he mean that he had sexual relations with Zarqawi or that he had terrorist relations with Zarqawi? Given that the context of the speech he was giving was surrounding National Security and the War on Terror, i would suspect the latter. And since it was the Senate Intelligence Committee that stated that Saddam hated al qaeda as much as we do and was actively trying to get him out of his country. Is that lying by implication?

Seriously, do you believe the SIC or the likes of the 9/11 commission, Clarke, Clinton, etc who pointed to and list several instances that prove that they did not ‘hate each other’ including Iraq repeatedly offering OBL asylum in Baghdad?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #181129

jj5: “Someone said going into Iraq was like invading Mexico after the Pearl harbor attacks.” No, actually, we went into the European theatre.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 13, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #181130
“Bush ignored N. Korea in favor of Iraq and now they have nukes.”

Hmmm? I wonder how they got that technology?

AQ Khan from Pakistan.

as for saddam if you believe he no hand in funding terrorists, when he was openly offering money to suicide bombers, you need to open your eyes!

He paid money to the surviving family members of suicide bombers, not the suicide bombers themselves.

saddam was known to have funded terrorist acts, and in the past had actively tried stonewall weapons inspectors. what would you do?

Diplomacy is hard work. Harder work than war. If the neocons placed all their patience in diplomacy rather than in waiting out the disaster we have now then we might have a few hundred thousand less deaths on our hands and a lot more respectability. Saddam was contained. And this isn’t hindsight. There were plenty of calm voices of dissent before the war. It’s just the response we received was spite and vitriol and accusations.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 13, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #181134

There will always be terroists we can never kill all of them but he was not paying them to bomb us. So you can spin it all you want Iraq was a mistake or service people are dying and bush keeps lying

Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #181136

kctim:


Kind of like IF President Bush lied to take us into war?

Again, it’s ‘lying by implication’.

i get it; you don’t believe the bush lied or jury-rigged or mislead this country into an unwarranted war.

While you were debating semantic, two more marines died in Iraq today.

Posted by: john trevsani at September 13, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #181137

the oil for food program was working wonderfully, especialy for are buddies the french. yeah i’m sure your right he wouldn’t dare fund any other terrorist orginizations since he loved us so much. keep fiddling nero!

Oh, I see. You aren’t serious about discussion. By all means, keep quipping and spouting vapid rhetoric!

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 13, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #181144

“jj5: “Someone said going into Iraq was like invading Mexico after the Pearl harbor attacks.” No, actually, we went into the European theatre.”

You might want to read this one again… and take it slow. There’s a joke hidden in there… and a point to be made.

Posted by: tony at September 13, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #181145

Somthing which continues to re-surface, for me…
Questioning my own rationality, my thoughts continue to go back to that moment, when my mouth dropped! Then, there was another… did I actully witness this, on TV? Or, did I have a moment of visual blurring, or was my mind playing tricks? So, you cynics can blast as you will - but, I have held it in for too long!
Our President has begun whooing some strange ‘bedfellows’ it seems to me.
First, I saw him holding hands with the Chinese President, and another leader whom I do not recall, then kissing Tony Blair on the mouth, then, putting his hands on the German Prime Minister, and who knows? I didn’t bother to take account, until it became kinda weird to me. Now, I try to stop noticing any of his strange behaviors, it got too weird for me!
What say you others? Anyone else notice any of these weird events?

Posted by: RUDE RO at September 13, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #181148

I just heard OIberman say that this adm operates on faith, not facts. They believe they can manipulate the facts to make them exactly what they want. This is why all Secreataries in the adm are STILL connecting Iraq and 9/11. It’s about time somebody realized that this is suicide in a democracy.

Posted by: voxmin at September 13, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #181154

Mr. Reinhold, you ask a fair question that deserves a fair answer. Where and when did the President lie? Most of the responses to your query have been as off-base as was the President. Let’s see just how.

NEVER did the President or any of his advisers mention that they were not certain of their claims about WMD, or al-Quaeda ties, or yellow cake uranium, or drone airplanes, or mobile biological labs (one could go on and on). The level of certainty they claimed was absolute and unequivocal. I believe we can all agree on that point.

Had the President or any member of the administration couched their claims with words like “we believe” or “we think” or “we suspect” then we would have surmised, correctly, that they did not know for sure what the facts in Iraq might have been. Go back and check the many, many public statements made before the war. You will note the absence of any kind of qualification about the information used to justify the Iraq war.

At that time, before the war, there were many persons who disputed the information the President used—that is why the Plame affair is important. Beginning with the UN inspectors through Scott Ridder’s comments and the infamous Intelligence Report of fall, 2002. In each of these counter-claims could be found reason to wonder about the veracity of the administration’s claims. I can vividly recall my own questions; how can the President and his administration be so sure? Plainly, anyone who read and thought could come to the same conclusion. There were no grounds for certainty; in fact, there were grounds for much uncertainty.

I do not know about you, Reinhold, but when someone tells me he or she knows something to be true when I have every reason to believe they cannot be so certain, I assume they are either lying or are very obtuse. The President and those around him are not obtuse; they are motivated and committed to do what they think is correct. And they are very clever at politics. No, they are not the dunces some like to portray them as being. Consequently, one has to draw the inevitable conclusion that they lied.

The press chose not to point out the mendacity and even now use euphemisms like misstated, or distorted or manipulated to merely suggest what might have happened; they, the press, seem incapable of calling a lie a lie. It all comes down to the fact that the administration lied. To claim you are certain when you cannot be is perfidious.

It has been a tortuous 5 years. It is not always in our country’s best interests when Presidents lie. They do it, yes, and we must then ask why? When they deceive us to get us into a war (as LBJ did) the results can be disastrous. We should not let it pass without consequence. The consequence is impeachment—especially for a deceit to get us into a preventive war.

Finally, I do not like to see Presidents pilloried as this one is being treated. It does us no good. This whole issue is like a big boil that needs to be lanced. Politics is not for the faint of heart, but its messiness can go too far without redress. We have now reached that point. This President and his advisers must be held accountable for the highest “crimes and misdemeanors” that presidents can commit.

Peace, cml,

Posted by: cml at September 13, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #181157

Mr.Olbermann is right on the money.G.W Bush used 9/11 to go to war with Iraq.There are no WMDs in Iraq.The idots who support him,have an IQ of a two year old kid.I am glad to see KKKctim in Kansas City is still up to his old tricks.

Posted by: thelibertine at September 13, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #181160

John Trevsani,

Good article. Of course I’m a Democrat and I believe that America can and should do better than we’re doing today. I believe ALL American’s should PAY and PLAY a part in a major war effort.

Thanks for inflaming the so-called Libertarians to the point that they showed their true colors. You’ve helped to show that the Democratic Party is the true party of diversity.

We welcome new ideas and even criticism but we still tell the truth. Only the truth will prevail. It may be struck down temporarily but in the end the truth will prevail.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 13, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #181166

Old tricks? KKK? Nice. But sadly, nothing new. Name calling and changing the topic is the standard course of action when one is proven wrong and can’t accept the facts.

KDem
True colors? Not one lefty has been able to show where Bush intentionally lied. Instead, they base their statements on what they have been told was true or what they want to be true.
Rhinehold provided the facts for you guys and that still is not enough.
Rather than admitting the truth, we get arguments on what “if” means, are told that is not what Bush “really” meant and, as always, when unable to accept or counter the FACTS, the name calling starts.

True party of diversity? Only if you blindly believe and think as they do.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #181168

And the lie was? Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously you are going to have to do better than that…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 11:21 AM

When indisputable evidence fails, try thinking.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at September 13, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #181169

Posted by: rhinehold at September 13, 2006 11:43 AM

Yea asshole, if it had been Clinton offering the same justifications as Bush……how quickly it would have been a lie worthy of impeachment.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at September 13, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #181172

“if it had been Clinton offering the same justifications as Bush……how quickly it would have been a lie worthy of impeachment”

At least the Republicans knew what the lie was and could prove it with FACTS!

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #181176

“True party of diversity? Only if you blindly believe and think as they do.”

Neighbor,

Remember we’re the party that can’t make up our mind what our position is. That sir is diversity of opinion. That’s also why the “majority” opinion rules. Which is why the Republicant’s have been in power for a while.

As far as Bush lieing. Holy crap! This is OLD sh**!

Investigate Bush’s State of the Union Speech
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/state.html

Text:

Richard’s Reflections

————————————————————————————————————————

Investigate Bush’s State of the Union Speech
July 15, 2003
(updated Aug 1 to add Senator Cleland’s accusation)
(updated Aug 3 to add comment on aluminum tubes)
(updated Feb 28 to add legal grounds)

The State of the Union is Constitutionally required testimony to Congress.

Knowingly giving false or misleading information or concealing a material fact in the State of the Union is a violation of 18 USC 1001, 1018, 1505, and 371. One lie is punishable by five years in prison. Under these statutes, it is illegal to lie to Congress whether or not you are under oath.

Such lies are a serious breach of the duty of the Office of the President. Certainly, when it comes to such important testimony, the buck must stop in the Oval Office.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax.” No such weapons have been found. Mr. Bush appears to have concealed material facts about intelligence agency doubts about this very strong claim.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.” No such weapons have been found. Mr. Bush appears to have concealed material facts about intelligence agency doubts about this very strong claim.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” No such material has been found. Mr. Bush appears to have concealed material facts about intelligence agency doubts about this very strong claim.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.” No such weapons have been found. Mr. Bush appears to have concealed material facts about intelligence agency doubts about this very strong claim.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “we know that Iraq… had several mobile biological weapons labs.” No such labs have been found. Mr. Bush appears to have concealed material facts about intelligence agency doubts about this very strong claim.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” The Washington Post had reported months before that experts had determined that the tubes were not suitable for nuclear use and probably were intended for artillery rockets that Iraq was allowed to produce. Mr. Bush made no mention of contradictory evidence.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.” No link between Hussein and al Qaeda has been found. In fact, former Senator Cleland says that the White House delayed release of a Congressional report before the War which would have questioned Mr. Bush’s claim.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” We now know that the White House had been informed that this was erroneous before Mr. Bush gave this testimony. He did not just make a neutral statement that the British government claimed this to be the case. By saying they “learned” it, he implied that the US government believed it to be factual. 18 USC 1001 explicitly prohibits using a “trick” such as hiding behind such wording in order to conceal the material fact that the CIA had knowledge that this claim was based on forged documents.

The White House now tries to cover up these apparent lies with revisionist claims that elimination of WMD was not the reason Mr. Bush went to war. Yet Mr. Bush testified to Congress, “But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” Mr. Bush’s revised claims that the war was not about disarming Hussein are themselves violations of 18 USC 1505, subject to one year in prison.

We must find out what the White House knew and when it knew it. These specific and credible claims that the President misled Congress must be fully and openly investigated to either demonstrate that there was no wrongdoing or to learn where we went wrong and ensure that it never happens again.

Richard M. Mathews’ end quote”

Is that enough?

Should we talk about why Bush is guilty of a felony for “declassifying” only certain parts of a classifiede report to discredit a detractor to his LIES?

The ‘worm does turn’.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at September 13, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #181177

“Yea asshole, if it had been Clinton offering the same justifications as Bush……how quickly it would have been a lie worthy of impeachment.”

expatUSA_Indonesia,

No way! It had nothing to do with the bedroom. Blowing people up is one thing. Getting blown is impeachable.


KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 13, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #181187

Oh, just before going to bed I had to read the headlines. Here’s a headliner for you Bush aplogists:

Doubt Cast On War Rationale
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-intel.artsep12,0,3617600.story?coll=hc-headlines-editorials

Is that proof of anything? Yeah, it’s proof that us Democrats are nowhere near standing alone. The gig’s up! Tell your old buddy GW to resign and make a deal so he can stay out of Federal Prison.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 14, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #181191

rhinehold,

IN fact, we knew and inventoried much of the WMD and were charged with assuring it was all destroyed (they agreed to accomplish this within 90 days). 12 years later, 3 different inspection teams and nothing but resistance from the Iraqi government we were still unable to account for all of the WMD that we knew they had, let alone if they were creating any more.

Indeed. You didn’t know, nor Bush did know exactly if all known 80’s and 90’s Hussein WMDs were destroyed or if new ones were created or not.
So, based on ignorance, you and Bush goes for this fearfull 1% doctrine, using and fueling post-9/11 americans fears to approve a “preemptive” (aka, agression and in Iraq War case, invasion and occupation) war against Iraq.

In fact, we still don’t know FOR SURE that there weren’t more WMD than we have already found that was buried or secreted out of Iraq

That’s just one step away from paranoia. I still don’t know FOR SURE that nobody will ever hurt me in the future. I see potential enemy everywhere!? Help me! ;-)
Future is not SURE. Nothing is. Try to control your nerves and use your brain and heart to get some safety feeling, it works better. Some even calls this “living”.

but you make the assumptions for political points, preventing any real discovery… *shrug*

So far, what prevent such “real” discovery is, AFAIK, the lack of successfull research in Iraq. Since when vocal politicians could be more effective at stopping the now demantled Iraq Survey Team to find yet-to-be-found WMDs than, well, WMDs that can effectively be found nowhere?
I know the Rumshelf’s motto “lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”, but I guess we now have enough evidence of lack to stop you parroting him…

Now, if you have any PROOF that Bush lied about WMD, please provide it now, I’m sure a lot of people would be curious to see it.

I’m not. I think many people have made their opinions already. Yet, they’ll be curious for any facts relating to this subject, indeed. They just don’t wait after more facts to take a side anymore.

… (you know, terrorism, the thing we were fighting against), …

We WERE???
Tell me you made a lapsus here, please.
According to your pro-Irac/9-11 War rethoric, I’m sure you think “We ARE”, right?

Yes, a lot of people in the US think that Iraq was involved in 9/11. In fact, many thought that the day after the attack, without any prompting from the administration. The notion that the administration is ‘pushing’ this thought is not needed

So the administration knows it’s wrong to believe this but the fact she push this idea is not lying???

That doesn’t mean there is any proof, but it doesn’t mean there wasn’t any tie nor does it make those who believe it to be stupid.

Nope. Just ignorant.

I don’t think that we should use it as a reason to do anything to Iraq, but there was a ton of reasons to invade Iraq without that or WMD so there is really little reason to fall back on it.

The “little” reason to fall back on it is this administration used *these* reasons in march 2003: WMDs and state-sponsoring terrorism. Only months after, facing the lack of WMDs to show americans, the administration start to flip-flop the initial reasons to go to war.

In the mean time osb got away

Yes, so far he has. THAT makes the war in Iraq immoral?

Nope.
Totally unbacked pre-emptive (self-defense without being attacked first?!?) war doctrine does. Torturing does. Using White Phosphorus as a tactical weapon does. 3+ years of occupation without honoring basic invaders duties under Geneva Convention (keep security and infrastructures up) does. Better securing oil fields than iraqis children does.

Or does it just make the US incompetent.

Unfocused, at least. But let’s keep your word.

And what evidence do you have that if we weren’t in Iraq we would have caught him?

None. Neither do you have the proof of the contrary.
What’s an evidence is that there’s more americans soldiers in Iraq than in Afghanistan and Pakistan. OBL being suspected to be more probably in the laters than in the former, if Bush was really after honoring his september 2001 promise to get OBL dead or alive, he really doesn’t seem to think having more eyes looking could help finding quicker sometimes…

But that’s flat rethoric. We both know Bush himself said he’s not looking for OBL anymore.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #181193

califrep,

the oil for food program was working wonderfully, especialy for are buddies the french.

I really hope you enjoy french-bashing as much I enjoyed calling Iraq War the Oil for US program…
What’s more evil: corrupting or killing for profit?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 6:29 AM
Comment #181194

califrep,

the oil for food program was disaster,

Agreed.

and the french were on the take.

Poor you, you may discover one day they were not alone. including some US businessmen. How come? Isn’t americans always morally right? Isn’t america business morality?

they voted against us in the security council each time we tried to get a resolution passed that authoized the use of force to enforce the previous resolution.

Oh, so strongly disagreeing with using again and again violence as a peace keeping tool is bad? Remember UNSC aim is to keep peace on Earth, not to be the US (or any other nation for that matter) foreign tool. Check the body name meaning.
And, please, don’t even talk about how much France used his veto power compared to US. Better check your numbers too before…

Bush was right the UN is nothing but a worthless debating society, and we contiue to give them money, and allow them to reside in this country.

It’s even worse: considering Bush opinions about UN, he still did ABSOLUTLY nothing to turn it into actions. He’s still participate to this worthless debating society (debating the UN protocol about Men’s Room access times?), he’s still giving *them* money (with huge delays but, hey, he’s the only leader on the planet to have some public money pending issues, we all know that) and he still didn’t have cancel the UN building renting contract in NYC…

What is the matter with this guy?!!
Why can’t he put *his* money where is his *mouth* regarding UN since 6 years!?

Yeah, screw the french, they even control Bush!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 6:53 AM
Comment #181201

Olbermann has to talk about O’Reilly because that’s the only way he can keep his audience (all twelve of them). Pat posted the outrageous lie that Olbermann gets better ratings than O’Reilly AND Rush COMBINED!! CABLE NEWS RATINGS Check your facts before you go spewing ignorance to the masses.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 14, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #181203
Indeed. You didn’t know, nor Bush did know exactly if all known 80’s and 90’s Hussein WMDs were destroyed or if new ones were created or not. So, based on ignorance, you and Bush goes for this fearfull 1% doctrine, using and fueling post-9/11 americans fears to approve a “preemptive” (aka, agression and in Iraq War case, invasion and occupation) war against Iraq.

Assumptions and straw men, Phillip. I never supported selling this war on strictly the ‘wmd’ issue. IMO, as I stated at the time, WMD was just an excuse, the myriad of other reasons to invade iraq (some of them I put into this post http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001765.html) was enough for me, coupled with the shame I felt for the US to incite the Iraqis to revolt and then leave them twisting in the wind to be slaughtered.

So please, don’t lump me in the same group as the administration who put all of its eggs in one basket and then act surprised when that one basket turns out to have no bottom.

That’s just one step away from paranoia. I still don’t know FOR SURE that nobody will ever hurt me in the future. I see potential enemy everywhere!? Help me! ;-) Future is not SURE. Nothing is. Try to control your nerves and use your brain and heart to get some safety feeling, it works better. Some even calls this “living”.

Get over yourself, it has nothing to do with paranoia, it has everything to do with wanting to find the answers. I’m one of the ones calling for an end to the insane airport security and realize that we are more likely to get killed by a hurricane, tornado, drunk driver, cancer, bird flu, sunspots, etc than a terrorist attack in the US so we shouldn’t be acting like scared little children.

That doesn’t mean I think we should accept theory and take everything at face value when there is legitimate suggestion that we don’t know the whole story. Unlike some, I would like to know the truth.

Yes, a lot of people in the US think that Iraq was involved in 9/11. In fact, many thought that the day after the attack, without any prompting from the administration. The notion that the administration is ⦣x20AC;˜pushing⦣x20AC;™ this thought is not needed
So the administration knows it’s wrong to believe this but the fact she push this idea is not lying???
Again, they are not ‘pushing the idea’, they have stated several times, over and over, that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and yet people still seem to assert what isn’t happening. And then expect to be taken seriously. Amazing.
And what evidence do you have that if we weren⦣x20AC;™t in Iraq we would have caught him?
None. Neither do you have the proof of the contrary.

I’m not the one making the assertion, the previous poster was. I think that we should have gone in, removed Saddam and left. I think that the last 3 years of nonsense in Iraq is a huge failure, especially on the part of Bush and Rumsfield. So keep attacking that straw man, he can’t defend himself so he makes a great target…

Posted by: rhinehold at September 14, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #181204

mr briggs; my postings may have some rhetoric in them, but it doesn’t make my points any less valid.

No, it’s vacuous talking points. You reek of superficial argument and logical fallacy. You use blanket statements to cover up lazy reasoning.

the oil for food program was disaster, and the french were on the take.

Prove it. I’m sure you can’t list all the millions of French involved so I will accept a province by province breakdown listing the percentages of each population involved in the corruption evident in one of the largest humanitarian efforts in human history. Or maybe you were just indicting the entire French government? If so, you can just give a party by party breakdown of the percentages.

they voted against us in the security council each time we tried to get a resolution passed that authoized the use of force to enforce the previous resolution.

Of course you wouldn’t consider that maybe they were voting against due to real concerns about an aggressive war under dubious intelligence. Why should you? Everyone was certain Saddam was a dire threat, right? And anyone who didn’t was either intellectually deficient, cowardly, and/or corrupt. Right? I’m sure your conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt.

bush was right the UN is nothing but a worthless debating society, and we contiue to give them money, and allow them to reside in this country.

Right. All the way up until the invasion. Then the UN was the way to go for everything.

All of your points are argued out of convenience, intellectually dishonest and shallow. I point out that Saddam didn’t offer money to suicide bombers (which would be eliciting a criminal act) but was instead giving money to the families of suicide bombers (which is indirect support after the fact). You said, “yeah, that’s what I said.” You take a simple nuance and reduce it to equivocation. You don’t want to clarify the issue, you want to cloud it with equivalence and implication.

I point out that diplomacy is more difficult than war and you bring up twelve years of relatively stable annoyances as some counter-point to this? In comparison to the five years and counting of what we’ve got? This isn’t a counter-point, it’s a whiff. You missed it completely. Seventeen years of futzing with Saddam had been and would’ve continued to have been tough. It would’ve been frustrating and would’ve required vigilance. But we wouldn’t have waged an aggressive war on false pretenses. We wouldn’t have killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. And we wouldn’t have plunged a nation into turmoil resulting in tens of thousands of more deaths. And Saddam was contained and would’ve continued to be contained despite whatever games he might’ve played. If all you have is “Saddam was thumbing his nose at us” then maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider that you aren’t cut out for diplomacy and that your foreign policy opinions might be skewed by this impatient predilection. Because that’s exactly the kind of weak reasoning that lead us into the war and look at what we’ve got to show for it.

Face it: the pre-war rhetoric has zero credibility. You and those like you grasp at the same tenuous straws to justify it still. It is ultimately fitting that the embodiment of this cause is George W Bush. The man who, as leader of the free world, commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, and one of the shrillest advocates of this war, blamed the CIA for his mistakes. The neocon agenda has proven only one thing: they got it all wrong. Correction, two things: and that personal responsibility and accountability means the other guy is to blame.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #181211

Wow, This is going to be fun…

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax.” No such weapons have been found. Mr. Bush appears to have concealed material facts about intelligence agency doubts about this very strong claim.

This is going to cover several paragraphs quoted above… The statements are true, Saddam did have those materials and weapons. That they didn’t exist when we invaded (either they were destroyed years before, were destroyed as we approached invasion, are still hidden in the desert of Iraq somewhere or they were shipped out of the country doesn’t matter). He didn’t say that Saddam ‘HAS’, he said they ‘HAD’. While you may think I’m being semantic, I’m not. The point is that the country had these weapons and because of their refusal to allow inspectors to monitor their destruction (as they agreed to) or inspect specific areas where they may be to determine what happened to them (as they agreed to) the world community had no way of knowing if they had them still or not.

This revisionism that ‘everyone knew Iraq had no WMD’ is laughable, especially considering all of the people, including Clinton, who were saying the exact same things as the president at the time in regards to Iraq’s WMD status.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

This was not a lie, this was the administration listening to the wrong intelligence sources. They had a mindset that the information they were getting from the experts were tainted. It has nothing to do with lieing, it has everything to do with gross incompetence.

As an aside, I find it funny that Bush is lambasted for not listening to and acting on much smaller evidence available that 9/11 was going to happen but that he acted and was wrong in WMD is evil, etc. Damned if you do…

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.” No link between Hussein and al Qaeda has been found. In fact, former Senator Cleland says that the White House delayed release of a Congressional report before the War which would have questioned Mr. Bush’s claim.

This is a load of crap that doesn’t jive with either the Butler report or the 9/11 commission. Or the statements of President Clinton and Richard Clarke.

In the testimony, Mr. Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” We now know that the White House had been informed that this was erroneous before Mr. Bush gave this testimony. He did not just make a neutral statement that the British government claimed this to be the case. By saying they “learned” it, he implied that the US government believed it to be factual. 18 USC 1001 explicitly prohibits using a “trick” such as hiding behind such wording in order to conceal the material fact that the CIA had knowledge that this claim was based on forged documents.

This was again considered a ‘well founded’ assumption at the time according to the Butler report and the 9/11 commission. It was not single sourced on the forged document.

The information from the State Department said it was not plausible, the CIA and British Intelligence said it was good intel. He’s a lier for choosing the CIA and BI over the State Department?

The White House now tries to cover up these apparent lies with revisionist claims that elimination of WMD was not the reason Mr. Bush went to war. Yet Mr. Bush testified to Congress, “But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” Mr. Bush’s revised claims that the war was not about disarming Hussein are themselves violations of 18 USC 1505, subject to one year in prison.

Sorry, again you are incorrect and reaching. Bush gave several reasons, as there were several reasons, to deal with the 12 year long Iraq issue. He did make, as I said at the time, a miscalculation in not pushing those other reasons harder, but to say he never gave those reasons is, again, revisionism.

Should we talk about why Bush is guilty of a felony for “declassifying” only certain parts of a classifiede report to discredit a detractor to his LIES?

Sure, but you’re going to have to do a better job than quoting from someone who is trying to invent something out of whole cloth.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 14, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #181214
I point out that diplomacy is more difficult than war and you bring up twelve years of relatively stable annoyances as some counter-point to this? … We wouldn’t have killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. … And Saddam was contained and would’ve continued to be contained despite whatever games he might’ve played.

Ok, Joseph, these statements are ignoring history.

Have you seen the figures of how many Iraqi children and innocents died under the sanctions that had been placed on Iraq? We haven’t come close to those numbers yet.

The ‘containment’ of Iraq only served to keep the country down, with no hope of ever rebuilding itself to sustain it’s own economy, killing (it is argued) millions of people and leaving most in the country with no hope, under the thumb of a brutal dictator, subjected to torture, rape and murder for not toeing the party line.

And it did not keep Iraq contained. Iraqi intelligence forces still roamed the US, terrorising former Iraqi citizens. They attempted to assassinate a former US president and were plotting to attack the US after 9/11 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/). This in addition to other terrorist activities during this ‘containment’ period.

But my real question is this, if we knew that Saddam had no WMD, why were we still sanctioning them for it? Why were we still ‘containing’ them and why would we continue?

It seems to me that we should have either acted as we did or drop the sanctions altogether, the path we had been on for those ‘containment’ years was truly immoral.

Posted by: rhinehold at September 14, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #181222

3+ years and toooooo many dead
Rapidly declining into Civil War
Unleashing (once again) the Sectarian violence that has plagued that region for centuries
Plunging out Treasury into new found depths of deficit
AND THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE CLINGING DESPERATELY TO THE BS LIES OF 3 YEARS AGO!!!!!
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
CORRUPT
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT
ARROGANT, STUPID, IGNORANT
THIS ADMINISTRATION IS THE WORST IN AMERICAN HISTORY
THE MOST CORRUPT, MOST DISHONEST, MOST THREATENING TO OUR CONSTITUTION
WE NEED TO START GOING TO THE STREETS IN HUGE DEMONSTRATIONS — WE HAVE ALLOWED THIS INCOMPENTENT, MORALLY CORRUPT GANG TO DRAG THE U.S. THRU THE MUD FOR TOO LONG

WAKE UP AMERICANS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE
sacrificing liberties for “security” gets you neither

Posted by: Russ at September 14, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #181232

Rhinehold,

I never supported selling this war on strictly the ‘wmd’ issue. IMO, as I stated at the time, WMD was just an excuse, […]

The point here is many feel it was not an excuse but worst: a lie.

So please, don’t lump me in the same group as the administration who put all of its eggs in one basket and then act surprised when that one basket turns out to have no bottom.

And you’re only responsible for you opinion (and eventually your 2004 vote) regarding Iraq War, while Bush government *is* fully responsible for it. Hence the critical voices asking for accountability.

That doesn’t mean I think we should accept theory and take everything at face value when there is legitimate suggestion that we don’t know the whole story. Unlike some, I would like to know the truth.

Agreed. I’m just against invading a country, killing children and using torture to know the thruth, if such thing is even possible.

And what evidence do you have that if we weren’t in Iraq we would have caught him?
None. Neither do you have the proof of the contrary.

I’m not the one making the assertion, the previous poster was.

Hum? Jeff assert this in his post:

“Thats not enough. OK he scared everyone with false facts about wmd and Iraq was out to get us they were THE BOOGIEMAN they did 9/11 its all saddam fault. In the mean time osb got away.”

His assertion regarding OBL is “in the mean time OBL got away” which is true, right?
To which you replied by this question:

“And what evidence do you have that if we weren’t in Iraq we would have caught him?”

So I fail to see how this last assertion right above is not yours. I also fail how such flat assertion can’t be countered by its reverse: what evidence do you have that if you weren’t in Iraq we still would have NOT caught him [OBL]? Both are equally weak assertions, equally unprovable.
What’s remain true is Bush didn’t get OBL so far, the mission/promise is unaccomplished and Bush officially said he don’t care about OBL anymore.

I think that we should have gone in, removed Saddam and left.

I think that we should have help iraqis to remove Saddam as much as we could legally, while keeping him under crosshairs every minutes. Oh, but that was what we were already doing.

I think that the last 3 years of nonsense in Iraq is a huge failure, especially on the part of Bush and Rumsfield.

At least something we both could agree!

He’s a lier for choosing the CIA and BI over the State Department?

Nope. He’s a liar for having presented the intelligence he cherry-picked as certain and in the meantime done all what he could to hide the others, divergent ones that were voiding this certainity.

He knew it was not certain.
He said it was.
He lied about the certainity.

He lied about it because he had to in order to sold the war.
Due to pre-emptive war doctrine immorality without a total and perfect certainity, he needs to present to americans (and congress) hard evidences that was for immediate and vital self-defense.

As he can’t find any hard enough, he presented whatever suspicions he could grab as evidences while knowing they were not. Aka lying.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #181238

rhinehold,

But my real question is this, if we knew that Saddam had no WMD, why were we still sanctioning them for it? Why were we still ‘containing’ them and why would we continue?

It seems to me that we should have either acted as we did or drop the sanctions altogether, the path we had been on for those ‘containment’ years was truly immoral.

Indeed, and many UNSC members were pushing for lowering or dropping the sanctions since months during 2001-2002 for these exact reasons. Bush acted as he did because he didn’t want to have to veto an UNSC resolution dropping sanctions that where killing Iraq. Instead he, and behind him his neocons wargamers, wanted since day one, before 9/11, to finish his father war.

Because he could, he did. Unilaterally.

Because he did, he’s viewed as the responsible of his decision and its consequences by everyone on the planet. Unfortunatly, so far the consequences are not looking that good. Bad luck (aka no plan). He was warned it before. Several times. By many different people. You break it, you own it.

Because americans re-elected him in 2004, the rest of the world views them as co-responsible. Aka “you still own it”.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #181243

So, Phillip, you state that a ‘pre-emptive’ invasion (which I could easily argue Iraq was not one in 2003) is immoral, what is your opinion of the following military actions in the past 15 years…?

Kosovo
Bosnia
Al Shifa
Grenada
Panama
Ivory Coast

Now, these actions didn’t have ‘boots on the ground’, they were waged by just bombing countries safely from ‘above’, something that is more likely to lead to civilian deaths.

What is more immoral, bombing someone, use troops to fight someone or starving someone to death?

Posted by: rhinehold at September 14, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #181265
So, Phillip, you state that a ‘pre-emptive’ invasion (which I could easily argue Iraq was not one in 2003) is immoral, what is your opinion of the following military actions in the past 15 years…?

Let’s see:

Kosovo Bosnia

Not pre-emptive. Not made in our self-defense. Not made unilateraly but under UNSC mandate. These conflicts were started before we (UNSC, OTAN) put our nose in it. There is a difference between multilateral ingerence and unilateral one: international legitimity.

Al Shifa

Unilateral US air strike, done under no international mandate. Not made on self-defense but on retaliation after a terrorist attack against US. Not an invasion.

Grenada

Unilateral US invasion, done under no international mandate (and against UK agreement while Grenada was part of the Commonwealth).
A Reagan pre-emptive war made for ideologic reasons (anti-communism). Immoral.
And asymetric war. Sounds very similar to Iraq, indeed.

Panama

Unilateral US invasion, done under Torrijos-Carter ‘s Neutrality Treaty which give US the right to defend the canal neutrality until 2000.
No made on self-defense. A Bush 41 war made both for ideology (removing Noregia, bring democracy) and self interests protection. Not an occupation war, though, and Canal returned to Panama in 2000.
I can’t tell how moral or not is it.

Notice that France vetoed, along UK and obviously US an UNSC resolution condemning the invasion.

Ivory Coast

8 french soldiers were killed *before* Chirac orderer the destruction of Ivory Coast air power. From grounds. Not pre-emptive, but in self-defense *and* retaliation, indeed.
I’m not sure about a clear mandate, as I’m sad about the collateral damage to ivorian rioters it leads to.

Now, these actions didn’t have ‘boots on the ground’, they were waged by just bombing countries safely from ‘above’, something that is more likely to lead to civilian deaths.

Hum??? 2000 french “boots” were and still are in Ivory Coast! We (Europeans) are still on the ground in Bosnia and Kosovo under NATO (KFOR) and UN mandate. We didn’t carpet bombed these regions.
Such air strikes are an US trademark, sorry.

What is more immoral, bombing someone, use troops to fight someone or starving someone to death?

Bombing. It’s way too asymetrical, without giving “someone” any way to escape death nor time to prepare himself to die or surrender.

While using troops sounds more moral, by facing your enemy (if any yet), no doubt. Plus, facing him give back as much humanity to “someone” as your.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #181270

“2000 french “boots” were and still are in Ivory Coast!”

Damn math!
Not 2000 boots but 2000 french soldiers. So 4000 boots. Sorry for misleading numbers.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #181284
The ‘containment’ of Iraq only served to keep the country down, with no hope of ever rebuilding itself to sustain it’s own economy, killing (it is argued) millions of people and leaving most in the country with no hope, under the thumb of a brutal dictator, subjected to torture, rape and murder for not toeing the party line.

This is why Bush pushed through the modified sanctions. They were working to great effect to lessen the burden on the populace and focus it on limiting the amount of funds to the Iraqi military. Nonetheless, I agree that there were disasterous side effects due to the sanctions and that modified sanctions shouldve been pushed through long ago. Still, I notice you don’t list any numbers. Just like there aren’t any solid numbers on the numbers killed in our current mess. Let’s see is it 567,000 children? Or 227,000? Or 350,000? And how many Iraqis have died in the last five years? 25,000? Or 250,000? Either way, my point is simple, the new sanctions would’ve resulted in less civilian death than the war.

Besides, Iraq had little justification as a humanitarian disaster.

They attempted to assassinate a former US president

There are some doubts about that.

This in addition to other terrorist activities during this ‘containment’ period.

Yeah, I saw your list on another thread. Worked out to about 23 deaths a year. That’s some dire threat there. That’s on par with, what? Aspirin?

But my real question is this, if we knew that Saddam had no WMD, why were we still sanctioning them for it?

Because he was an maniacal despot who had proven himself to be barely capable of restraint. And it was the prudent thing to do.

It seems to me that we should have either acted as we did or drop the sanctions altogether

Yes, this is a convenient fallback for the war supporters. “What if we hadn’t invaded and the sanctions were dropped?” they ask. But this is a rather dim hypothetical. If we hadn’t invaded, the only other avenue would’ve been through diplomacy and the existing sanctions regime as modified under Bush. Thinking that without an invasion we would just have happily allowed Saddam to do what he pleased is ridiculous.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #181289

Rhinehold’s posts are like a furby doll that has been neglected: repetative, predictable, and a constant reminder that stupid crap sometimes sells in big numbers. The good news is, as evidenced in the mass purging of Furbish from the american consciousness, a temperary lapse in collective judgement is usually just temperary…but it doesn’t stop those damn things from yacking away in the back of the closet.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 14, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #181303

Temper your emotions when it comes to Rheinhold. He has developed button pushing into an art form. He thinks Joe McCarthy was Mother Teresa

Posted by: Tom at September 14, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #181328

califrep,

phillipe; i would call taking payoffs in money that was supposed to feed hungry iraqis, many whom starved to death killing for money, wouldn’t you ?

I’ll call it corruption and scandal while trying to NOT killing hungry iraqis.
Stop kidding yourself, it’s UN strong sanctions in 90’s against Iraq who were responsible for iraqis starvation until OFF.
The Oil For Food program was between 1997 and 2003 trying to reduce the impact of sanctions on ordinary iraquis. Around 60% of iraquis were then solely dependent on rations from the program.
Even with the scale of corruption we now know was occuring, OFF was still successfully supplying most of everyday iraqis’s food cart until the program was cancelled. Compared to previous, not corrupted indeed, situation where iraquis were starved to death under UN Comprehensive sanctions on Iraq, I still think feeding iraquis was better, even with the corruption…

as for diplomacy, i agree it should be the first option. but how long do you wait for it to work? at some point you have to back up your threats. if a child misbehaves, and you tell him or her that if it doesn’t cease, there will be consequenses,and you continue to warn, but never follow through, at some point they become endless empty threats, and are never taken seriuosly. i think @ 12 yrs is a more than reasonable wait.

I think neither me neither you were ever in a position to fully know if these 12 years was enough or not, as the last UN inspection was never allowed to finih his work to report how far or not Saddam Hussein “cease” to escape what he was asked to do since long.

That’s why there is diplomats after all: to decide when diplomacy should stop. And not many would claim that Bush admnistration have shown the best diplomacy skills, if any, sadly.

here is one of many articles i found on the oil for food program. i’m sure there are many others, but there some figures in here hope this helps.

Hum, I prefer to stick with the official Duelfer report than a partisan book writers group for factual figures, lists and numbers. And when I’m refering Duelfer report, I mean the complete one, not the one CIA censored under Privacy Act to remove US companies and individual names from the report, Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexacco and El Paso corps among them, only to blame ones opposed to Iraq War, Russia, France and Canada.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #181330

califrep,

phillipe; i would call taking payoffs in money that was supposed to feed hungry iraqis, many whom starved to death killing for money, wouldn’t you ?

I’ll call it corruption and scandal while trying to NOT killing hungry iraqis.
Stop kidding yourself, it’s UN strong sanctions in 90’s against Iraq who were responsible for iraqis starvation until OFF.
The Oil For Food program was between 1997 and 2003 trying to reduce the impact of sanctions on ordinary iraquis. Around 60% of iraquis were then solely dependent on rations from the program.
Even with the scale of corruption we now know was occuring, OFF was still successfully supplying most of everyday iraqis’s food cart until the program was cancelled. Compared to previous, not corrupted indeed, situation where iraquis were starved to death under UN Comprehensive sanctions on Iraq, I still think feeding iraquis was better, even with the corruption…

as for diplomacy, i agree it should be the first option. but how long do you wait for it to work? at some point you have to back up your threats. if a child misbehaves, and you tell him or her that if it doesn’t cease, there will be consequenses,and you continue to warn, but never follow through, at some point they become endless empty threats, and are never taken seriuosly. i think @ 12 yrs is a more than reasonable wait.

I think neither me neither you were ever in a position to fully know if these 12 years was enough or not, as the last UN inspection was never allowed to finih his work to report how far or not Saddam Hussein “cease” to escape what he was asked to do since long.

That’s why there is diplomats after all: to decide when diplomacy should stop. And not many would claim that Bush admnistration have shown the best diplomacy skills, if any, sadly.

here is one of many articles i found on the oil for food program. i’m sure there are many others, but there some figures in here hope this helps.

Hum, I prefer to stick with the official Duelfer report than a partisan book writers group for factual figures, lists and numbers. And when I’m refering Duelfer report, I mean the complete one, not the one CIA censored under Privacy Act to remove US companies and individual names from the report, Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexacco and El Paso corps among them, only to keep nations who opposed to Iraq War, Russia, France and Canada.

I guess the White House didn’t like the idea corruption have no such flag after all.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #181331

Sorry for double post, guys.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #181340

califrep,

i think we both can agree that most of that money never made it to where it was supposed to go.

Hum, let’s put the Oil For Food scancal into perspective, would you? According to many reports, from the $64 billions incomes of iraqui oil sales, all but $2 billions went to its intended purposes, humanitarian included. So, sorry but I disagree, and I’m not alone: most of this money was used as intended by the program and up to 60% of Iraq was feed by its humanitarian part.

You seem to somehow confuse the money collected under the program with the illegal extra money that, whatever will have happened, was never to fund the program but corrupted individuals and corporates pockets.
And believe me, I’m as sad as anyone could be in face of such corruption occuring in such scale, the lost of credibility UN suffer since, but the genuine funds ammount and the fraud one are not at all on the same scale, thanks god.

saddam built palaces, and bribed others to turn a blind eye. it was not the sanctions that starved those people.

Quite revisionist order. It was the dramatic starvation of ordinary iraquis under 1992’s UN comprehensive sanctions on Iraq which bring the OFF program resolution in 1997, not the reverse. Check again.

Sure, Saddam did everything he could to keep his people starved and put the blame on the international community. But still, the events order is still sanctions, starvation then OFF program.
Timeline is not *that* flexible, sorry.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #181350

you argue that because the money was givin to families and not the bombers, that some how the money trail carries less wait, but ignore that money paid for terrorist acts regardless of the path is still blood money. who cares if it is illiciting a criminal act, or support after the fact. do you really believe at the time the man actually gave a damn about the legal implications? do you think because it was not illiciting a criminal act, that he would not help to fund other terrorist activities? not everything can be quantified into legal terms. sometimes you have to look at someones track record, and try to connect the dots on your own.

I was pointing out a distinction. Humans make distinctions to more clearly analyze a complex situation.

There is a difference between offering money to someone to encourage a criminal act and giving money to the surviving family of a criminal after the crime has been committed. The family is not guilty by association. Donating funds to compensate them for their loss is not inherently a criminal act. I’m not so naive to think Saddam was doing this for the sake of altruism or humanitarianism. Nevertheless, I think it desperate to use this weak “crime” as some added justification for invading Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocents, and instigating, through negligence at best, the current unrest and instability in the area. This is as bad as pointing to a couple of twenty year old shells and calling it WMD.

you state that the constant breaches of the original cease fire agreements were nothing more than minor annoyances. i think the pilots who were be fired at on a regular basis in the no fly zone might beg to differ with you.

Which do you think they would prefer, the chance of being stationed in Iraq and getting killed while patrolling the NFZ (sans invasion) or the chance of being stationed in Iraq today and getting killed?

The real and critical impact of military duty in hostile territory is a component point of view contained within diplomacy. It is a consideration not a mandate. And with all the considerations necessary for maintaining the sanctions and reasonably enforcing the No-Fly Zone compared to the considerations necessary to prosecute an invasion, occupation and reconstruction under the stress of an insurgency and with little international support… well, I would think the proper course of action to consider would be obvious.

you seem to be one of the typical blame america first crowd, unless a democrat is in office. i get the idea that you think the UN is the be all end all. there are going to be times sir when have to act in our own best interest regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

So with one comment, you assume enough about me to imply that I am blithely indifferent to the tragedy around me. And with but a few more comments, you’ve now gone so far as pigeonhole me as a “blame America first unless a Democrat is in office” type. This is what I’m talking about when I say you aren’t serious about this discussion. In case you were wondering. I can understand, though. Why bother to substantively address the issues I’ve actually commented on? Much easier to build an imaginary opponent and shoot that down.

And your gentlemanly attempt at imparting wisdom is merely an oversimplification. International politics and conflict resolution just might be a little more complicated than such trite formula as “sometimes you gotta go it alone.”

you claim we’ve killed tens of thoasands of innocent iraqis! where is your proof and documentation. i will expect you can prove this inflammitory accusation! like you said #s geographical, ethnic beakdown, and which branch of our forces committed these crimes!

Well, I’m still waiting for your comprehensive indictment detailing the rampant corruption of the French people. But I’ll play along as well as I can.

There’s always Iraq Body Count which has it at between 40,000 to 46,000. A Lancet study had it at about 100,000 in 2004 but this was later modified down to about 40,000. And of course there are plenty of extremists out there who probably think there are hundreds of thousands. Since they are all estimates based on surveys of morgue data and anecdotal accounts, let’s stick with the one that favors your position, 40k. That’s about 13,300 people per year.

And when did I call collateral damage a crime? The point is it’s unnecessary.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #181355
so as your completely against invading, and the UN sanctions, and warning letters were having little or no effect. how would you stop saddam from doing as he pleased?

I’ve made it pretty clear that I think Saddam was contained. I don’t understand how you could think otherwise given all the evidence since the invasion. But let’s assume, instead of spending his days writing romance novels and contemplating how big his hidey hole should be, Saddam was actually some evil genius constantly rubbing his hands together in sinister anticipation. Okay what now? He still has a decimated military budget. He still has to deal with inspectors and demands for more inspectors and demands for more access. He still has gigantic regulatory controls over oil and the revenue from it. He would still be a bug under a very large microscope. He wouldn’t be doing what he pleased.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 14, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #181449
if i agreed with you, would you then think i was seriuos about this discussion?

I don’t think you’re reading my comments.

as far as shooting you down, i’m just arguing my point

No, you’re not. As I said, you’re arguing against some figment of your imagination, a Nero who is the “blame America first unless a Democrat is in office” type.

you still haven’t proved your point when it comes to the body count. you now say it was collateral damage, from who US forces, iraqi forces, insugents, suicide bombers, IEDs which is it?

The point isn’t who did the killing, it’s that the killing has been unnecessarily excessive and instigated by an aggressive war under false pretenses. And if you think more civilian deaths would’ve resulted from a stable sanctions regime than from the invasion, occupation and insurgency, then I don’t see any point in trying to make the point. But this kind of mindset might give insight into why the administration thought we would be greeted with flowers. Since evidently, to your everyday Iraqi, a bombing campaign, invasion, and the resulting social upheaval, must’ve seemed like a holiday compared to the sanctions.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #181578

Joseph,

Reuters reported in 1998 that 1.5 million people, mostly chidren, died as a direct result of the sanctions.

Have 1.5 million people died in Iraq from the invasion yet?

Of course, the figures came from an Iraqi official, so how could we trust it, but if your are going to trust that they weren’t lying about WMD then we should trust them for everything, hmmm?

Posted by: rhinehold at September 15, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #181579

Oops, forgot the link http://nucnews.net/2000/du/98du/980929cn.htm

Posted by: rhinehold at September 15, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #181596

Mr. Rhinehold, sorry to have misspelled your name. That aside, I note you have not responded to my post. You asked for specifics as to when and how the President lied. And your response is?

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at September 15, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #181620

Rhinehold,

Reuters reported in 1998 that 1.5 million people, mostly chidren, died as a direct result of the sanctions.

Have 1.5 million people died in Iraq from the invasion yet?

Oh, fun, let’ play math. The iraqi dead from the invasion is already greater than the one if the sanctions were lifted by UNSC right after UN inspectors will have reported by 2003 end that no WMDs could be found in Iraq anymore.

But Bush was not after WMDs nor Saddam containment under constant watch nor stopping ordinary iraqis starvation due to sanctions he could have push to lift. No, Bush wanted a regime change, to one more pro-american. Period.

Bush decided for iraqis what’s better for them without even asking them. When now they are, they replied in majority “get out!”. But Bush know better than iraqis what good for US Iraq. Bush stay the course in Iraq. Well, yeah, he just *stay*, indeed.

Of course, the figures came from an Iraqi official, so how could we trust it, but if your are going to trust that they weren’t lying about WMD then we should trust them for everything, hmmm?

We don’t need today to trust them about WMDs. After both UN inspectors and US’s Iraq Survey Team, it’s not from trust that we know they weren’t lying about WMDs but because none could be found.
We also know Bush were lying about WMDs when he ask everybody to trush him because he know were they are… because he couldn’t tell where they’re.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 15, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #181643
Reuters reported in 1998 that 1.5 million people, mostly chidren, died as a direct result of the sanctions.

Yeah, I found that one, too, but it was so out of line with all the other estimates and most reports I found pretty much said the figure was bunk so I didn’t use it. Here are a few sources. Here’s a quote from the last one (my emphasis):

In the end, it is women, children, and elderly, the sick and the poor, those least responsible for Iraqi government actions, who suffer the most from the sanctions. And if the U.S. launches another assault on Iraq, their suffering will be compounded.

See, this is my point. I wasn’t saying that the number of dead in these past three and half years is equal to or greater than the number of dead due to the old sanctions over eleven years. I was saying that under the modified sanctions and no invasion, we could’ve avoided excessive and unnecessary added deaths while also avoiding the tragedy of the previous sanctions regime. We didn’t need to add 40,000 more deaths to the toll.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at September 15, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #182542

califrep,

We cannot MAKE the Iraqi’s stop killing each other. Neither can we MAKE them value democracy or put their faith and efforts into their new government. It is like when the USSR finally collapsed. The Russians had been many generations without any concept of democracy or a free-market economy and they are thus STILL having pains growing into the new role for them. How can we MAKE the Iraqi’s want and respect something they no knowledge or experience of? They know corruption and violence and what it is to be ruled by a strong military *fist* as it were, but we are asking them to suddenly know, respect and understand something they have no basis for knowing understanding or respecting. Because of what they DO know, dictatorship and militaristic rule, they see no difference between what we are offering to help them with and what they have always endured in the past.

Understand this truth about Iraq and Iraqi’s and you understand the reason why this whole Iraq war is nothing but folly and horror wasting American lives and ultimately making the world far, far, far less secure than before…especially for Americans.

Posted by: RGF at September 19, 2006 1:19 PM
Post a comment