manipulating intelligence

Today, Harry Reid has burned the biggest bridge in Senate history. Not by filibustering Bush’s new Supreme Court nominee, but rather by shutting down the Senate in what amounts to an apparent ‘Pearl Harbor Strategy’ to revive the idea that Bush lied to invade Iraq. Maybe Democrats are finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel… or is it actually a train heading down the tracks?

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

...Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war. abcnews

"...manufactured and manipulated intelligence..." This is THE most repeated phrase I have heard in the last two to three years. Repeated by those who also repeatedly claim that Bush or a member of his administration is just like Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels. The irony here is that they have been repeating such lies so often that they have probably convinced themselves that the technique is worth trying themselves.

Truth, however, is more effective than merely repeating lies. If there were ever a perfect example of anyone manufacturing and manipulating intelligence it is Joseph Wilson, who has been caught in so many lies that he should be entirely discredited, (but alas you do not need credibility to promote leftist causes).

Joseph Wilson claims to be 'apolitical'

On September 29th, 2003 he told Paula Zahn:

First of all, Novak also said that I was a Clinton appointee. In actual fact, my first political appointee was as ambassador. And I was appointed by George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush. So I really am apolitical in all of this. cnn

Yet he clearly has a well defined and extreme set of far left beliefs about a great many issues as well as a documented animosity against the Bush Administration. In short he has a severe case of BDS. I cannot imagine that he suddenly found his true beliefs only after visiting Niger at the behest of his wife.

Not only did Wilson unethically have his wife send him to Niger to 'investigate' the 'crazy' claim of the Bush administration that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials, but then he came back and deliberately tried to make it seem as though the Vice President had sent him to do so, which I will get to in a moment.

After Wilson returned from 'debunking' this story, which the Senate Intelligence Committee in fact confirms, he expressed his real views at a far left symposium on June 14, 2003, about the Iraq war, four months before he told Paula Zahn he was really, "apolitical in all of this". (The following quote is also before the Novak column.)

"...it doesn't show up on your television screens as shock and awe, [or] the burning of Baghdad at night, or the firebombing of Dresden. But it yeilds results. But this administration could not be patient. I remember these guys saying, the warmongers, --and I agree with you that they're, they have... there is no reason why we should allow them to kidnap our flag, and this morning before I went to play golf, before the sun came up I had-- or as the sun was coming up (because you can't put it out before the sun comes up), as the sun was coming up I had my flag out there because I'm not going to let these assholes claim that they're more patriotic than I am." Audio from event. 12:39 - 13:21

This puts his later quote into context when he said: "It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

The idea that Wilson has ever been apolitical is, in charitable terms, hard to believe.

Did Wilson lie about who sent him to Niger?

Wilson gave an interview to New York Times reporter who first printed the idea that Wilson went to Niger at Cheney's request. Where would the NYTimes get the idea that Cheney sent Wilson? Did Wilson say that Cheney sent him? Or did he say that the CIA sent him at the request of the Vice President's office? Well, I have found another quote that might shed some light on what he might have been saying to reporters and others that might have given them the idea that the government of George W. Bush, and in particular the Vice President sent him to Niger...

...I just want to assure you that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government-not of the CIA but of the government-and came back in February of 2002 and told the government that there was nothing to this story, later called the government after the British white paper was published... From audio 1:32 - 2:03

So we see that Joseph Wilson is quite practiced on being coy about these kinds of statements. There is good reason to believe that he initially tried to make others believe that Cheney's office was directly responsible for his trip to Niger. I don't know, maybe he actually believed that. Maybe that's part of his fantasy about making trips for the CIA. Who knows.

What it begins to show is a pattern of deception.

END PART ONE

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 1, 2005 7:13 PM
Comments
Comment #89546

It seems to me that Wilson’s “radical ideology” is anti-Iraq war. What other ideologies does he have?

Regardless, I have come to believe that the man is a blowhard. For me, this doesn’t change the central issue: we went to war on shaky intelligence. Or is that still debateable?

If everything you say is true, then this is what you are saying:

This idiot Joe Wilson is completely wrong in his analysis. We went to war on bad intelligence, but not for the reasons that Joe Wilson outlined. While procuring yellowcake was a non-threat to the United States, the fact is that Saddam might have been asking around for yellowcake. Even though everyone in the intelligence community agrees that trying to procure yellowcake is a non-issue, and that the only reason yellowcake should be mentioned is because it is a sexy way to justify a war, the important thing to remember is that Bush was technically correct.

Of course, the administration admitted that it based its opinions on the papers that were debunked by the U.N. (in a matter of hours), but later it decided that actually it got its information from the British, and while that may be changing its story at the last minute, it still isn’t technically a lie.

All in all, the important story here is still clearly Joe Wilson… right?

Posted by: Julia at November 1, 2005 7:54 PM
Comment #89547

Eric

Brilliant bit of propagandizing! You should be the new Karl Rove. You’ve studied his moves and I think you have them down.

So, let me get your thesis straight: Cheney’s office asks the CIA about the yellowcake story, and in response the CIA sends Joe Wilson to check it out, and Wilson is painted by you, as though you were a partisan hack, as “lying” about being sent by the government?

So, how would you characterize his mission to respond to Cheney’s inquiry? Should Wilson have foreseen your (and other administration hacks’) careful parsing of his words to try to find anything they could characterize as misleading or false? Should he have written out a script that recapitulates in each instance the entire chain of events that occurred, rather than leaving it to reasonable people to reasonably interpret his meaning?

And what great harm have you discovered? Is severe violence done to the actual chain of events by his characterization of it? Look at it from slightly outside of your own partisan viewpoint, which so desperateley wants to discredit him in spite of the fact that the essence of his point continues to be valid. Suppose you, Eric, had been sent by the CIA in response to the VP’s inquiry to check it out, you find that the yellowcake story is false and report as such. Next thing you know, the Prez is talking about that story in his SOU speech. Might you characterize it as the government asking you to check it out and then ignoring it? To make it easy, pretend the president was Clinton and the VP was Gore. That make it any easier?

Bottom line, Eric, no yellowcake; the administration knew it and yet used it for the fear factor to intimidate the American people into supporting their efforts to go to war. I’m not saying this is the first administration to use this tactic, nor will it likely be the last. I just want some honesty here, instead of personally attacking the messenger.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 1, 2005 7:57 PM
Comment #89548

What I’m saying is, that best case scenario, the Bush administration is saying that the reason it’s justification for war was wrong was because the Bush administration got bad intelligence from a variety of intelligence agencies.

I believe that is called “passing the buck” and “not being responsible for your own decisions”.

What the administration is saying is “We didn’t get it wrong because we ignored intelligence, we got it wrong because we never bothered to learn what the sources of the intelligence were. And we shouldn’t have to be responsible for fact-checking our rationale for war. Somebody else should.”

Posted by: Julia at November 1, 2005 7:59 PM
Comment #89552

Julia

Excellent!

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 1, 2005 8:08 PM
Comment #89554

If I were like Wilson, and I saw my wife exposed, and my own good named trashed, I would lend support to whoever was opposing the person in question. But of course, you expect people to remain neutral or unchanged in their attitudes even after you apply a coating of slime to them and everything they care about.

That’s why you continue to be puzzled by our response. You expect us to take in stride what you take in stride- your party’s vicious behavior to anybody and anything at cross-purposes to them. That doesn’t happen!

What’s more, you’re acting like it takes liberal politics to oppose this war. How about knowledge that the war isn’t as necessary as somebody claims? How about an incipient campaign of slime and evasion, directed at you? You really misunderstand the real cause of many people’s discontent with the war. I personally had no problem with finishing the job on Saddam Hussein, given the right plan, the right timing, and the right cause for war. Why? Because I don’t like to see my country at a strategic disadvantage to its enemies, caught in the aftermath of bad planning, or exposed as wrong before the world. I have a sense of pride that inhibits me from wanting to let my country sink so low.

So does Wilson. Do you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment #89556

Nice post Eric. To answer your question, I think the Democrats are “a train heading down the tracks.”

They’re on their heels and they can’t get a grip. What they should do is stop going after wild-goose chases and challenge the repubs on the key issues. They haven’t and won’t though. They have no power and it’s as if they throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way.

On judges to the Supreme Court “Bush has to pick a moderate”. “He has to unite us with a pick that we all can be happy with”. No he doesn’t, elections matter and he has every right to pick who he wants. Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasn’t a moderate and she didn’t replace a liberal, she replaced a conservative.

On Social Security reform. Not coming up with a plan at all was bad. And, let me say this, I wasn’t happy with Repubs that didn’t back the Prez; however, the dems wouldn’t come to the table at all.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2005 8:16 PM
Comment #89557

While I don’t agree with you completely, I think that the view you articulate is valid in many respects.

From my viewpoint the entire issue isn’t Joe Wilson, but at this point the real issue has been buried under Joe Wilson’s ego and the irrational desire of many to see Bush disgraced and out of power.

The question you have to ask yourself is why was the intelligence so wrong? Any rational and dispassionate observer would see that Bush didn’t invent all the evidence from numerous intelligence sources around the world and in particular Clinton era CIA intelligence about Iraq.

He didn’t go to Democrats and convince him that Iraq had WMD out of the blue. They had been looking at the evidence for years, that is why they almost unanimously voted to authorize the war. Not because Bush lied and fabricated a threat when there wasn’t one. If Democrats had not been convinced pre-Bush I do not think that they would have gone along at all. They don’t on any other issue.

Posted by: esimonson at November 1, 2005 8:28 PM
Comment #89558

The last comment was addressed to Julia.

Posted by: esimonson at November 1, 2005 8:31 PM
Comment #89559

Mentalwimp wrote:
Bottom line, Eric, no yellowcake; the administration knew it and yet used it for the fear factor to intimidate the American people into supporting their efforts to go to war.
_______________________

There’s just no disputing the fact that Bush’s “16 words” said they were “seeking” yellow cake, rather than “buying or purchasing” yellowcake. It’s in the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
http://roberts.senate.gov/07-09a-2004.htm

You’ll also notice in that report it says: “one fact is now clear, the U.S. Intelligence Community told the President, the Congress, and the American people before the war that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”

The Bush Administration didn’t pressure the Intellienge agencies nor did they lie to the American people to make their case for war. The Senate Intelligence Committee would have busted them.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2005 8:33 PM
Comment #89560

Mental Wimp,

Did Cheney send Wilson?
Did Bush claim that Iraq obtained Yellowcake from Niger?

Posted by: esimonson at November 1, 2005 8:34 PM
Comment #89567

Joe Wilson OUTED his OWN wife!!

Don’t worry. The Dems are coming out with their own ‘Take back America’ plan.

They are planning to make abortion legal until the 40th week of pregnancy for any reason.
They are going to take our guns away.
They will raise our taxes.
They will completely do away with Christmas and Easter and make it a federal offense to speak of these holidays in public because it is offensive to some.
They will play patty cake with the radical muslims. (I’m sure the dems are who the royals came to see about ‘understanding’ Islam.)
They will allow porn to be shown on all TV networks 24/7.

Wilson OUTED his OWN wife!!!

Posted by: wilsonsucks at November 1, 2005 8:57 PM
Comment #89568
Today, Harry Reid has burned the biggest bridge in Senate history. Not by filibustering Bushs new Supreme Court nominee, but rather by shutting down the Senate in what amounts to an apparent Pearl Harbor Strategy to revive the idea that Bush lied to invade Iraq.

Oh cry me a river, Eric. They closed the doors for a couple of hours to discuss a sensitive national security issue. If they talked about it openly you would be calling them traitors.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2005 9:02 PM
Comment #89569

Woody Mena wrote:
They closed the doors for a couple of hours to discuss a sensitive national security issue.
_____________________________

What National Security issue? I thought that was settled Friday; no one was charged with outing of a covert agent. There were no indictments on that charge; had there been a charge on outing an agent, then it would have been a National Security concern. But it wasn’t.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2005 9:10 PM
Comment #89574

Rahdigly,

Look at Reid’s words quoted above. That was the sensitive national security concern.

I guess you weren’t paying too much attention to the press conference. According to Fitzgerald:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified… Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson’s wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

In brief, someone blew Valerie Plame’s cover as a CIA officer, and it was probably Scooter Libby.

I’m sure someone is going to say that I am jumping the gun, but the words are there in plain English.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2005 9:24 PM
Comment #89578

The fact that only 38% of Americans approve of Bush says more than all the pontification and spin any Rove or clone can produce.

Posted by: Dave at November 1, 2005 9:35 PM
Comment #89581

Woody Mania wrote:
I guess you were not paying too much attention to the press conference….In brief, someone blew Valerie Plame’s cover as a CIA officer, and it was probably Scooter Libby.
_______________________

After reading the quote from Fitzgerald he still didn’t charge or indict anyone for outing a CIA agent. And saying that “it was probably Scooter Libby” isn’t a fair assessment in this case. If it was Libby that outed her, he would have certainly been charged for that exact crime.

So, I don’t see how the dems can hold a meeting on National Security when Rove and Libby weren’t even indicted. Even though the democrats didn’t get the indictment they wanted they are still going on as if it happened anyway. This is weird. What do you think?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2005 9:57 PM
Comment #89582

Temper tantrum is all it was. Hyjacking the Senate was so immature. Another thing to add to my list for not supporting the Democrats. The act today by the Democrats was a waste of the peoples time and money. Phase 2 is an ongoing investigation on schedule except when the Democrats cause trouble. Todays antics was just a ploy to make the public think otherwise.

The Republicans need to conduct an investigation as to why Clinton during his administration said Saddam needed to be gotten rid of and why Kerry and his buddies voted for the war. Now who is really not telling the truth here.

Posted by: vam at November 1, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #89585

One thing that hasn’t been revealed here is that Saddam actually HAD ALREADY bought yellow-cake uranium from Niger before. Much less, the British report from MI-5 has been checked and re-checked and they found it to be true, and if you say that the Bush administration disregarded the intelligence of Joe Wilson from his trip, why didn’t Tenet speak to that in his testimony for any NUMEROUS things. He was by no means ever a Bush fan. Mainly, b/c there is documentation that states that the reports of Joe Wilson did not invalidate the original intelligence (nor corroborate it either—so what the hell was he doing on his trip?!?!) Second, the reason for going to war with Saddam has been so bastardized by the left it’s uncanny. How about 13 UN resolutions stating basically “disarm or there will be serious consequences”. Well if padding his, Kofi’s, and Kojo’s pockets with Oil-for-Food money was “serious consequences” I’d love to get a hold of some chemical weapons myself.

Final point…so was it lying when it was stated that “Saddam’s weapons of mass-destruction and his search for nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to the security of the world and the US.” was that a lie?

Posted by: Robert at November 1, 2005 10:12 PM
Comment #89594

All this is part of a larger strategy in part because remeber Rockefellers famous memo ‘of strategy’ exposed by Orin Hatch, also because together with the CIA, Wilson, and the Dems, they are ready to bring the Bush Admin down. I also belief that today’s meltdown is related to today’s release of the David Barretts investigation report of Cisnero/Bill and Hillary Clinton in its entirey to every member of congress, although the release to the public does not include part V, which lits the names of all involved incl Irs and Hillary. But don’t take my word for it, log onto barrett.oic.gov

Posted by: cali_sun at November 1, 2005 10:50 PM
Comment #89595

Well, Harry Reid’s pointless little knuckle-dragging hissy fit has certainly made him look like an ass, but the worst example of such behavior in Senate history?

I still give that honor to Preston Brooks who used his cane to beat Democratic Senator Charles Sumner of Massachussets into a coma on the floor of the Senate in 1856.

Reid seems to have read closely through the Senate rules in search of the tiniest means the minority can use to pointlessly irritate the majority. That he never fails to employ these tactics speaks not only to his low character, but makes it much harder for centrist Republicans to show him any cooperation whatsoever.

In the end, Reid’s obstructionist tactics depend on him getting cooperation from those centrist Republicans, especially those in the “gang of fourteen.” He seems more interested, though, in making these empty symbolic gestures for the gratificiation of the embittered far-left in the peanut gallery.

Posted by: sanger at November 1, 2005 10:58 PM
Comment #89596

Stephen,

If I were like Wilson, and I saw my wife exposed, and my own good named trashed, I would lend support to whoever was opposing the person in question. But of course, you expect people to remain neutral or unchanged in their attitudes even after you apply a coating of slime to them and everything they care about.

One small fact you are missing here— Wilson was calling Bush a war monger BEFORE his wife was allegedly outed.

If you were like Wilson you apparently wouldn’t care if ‘your wife’s life’, and the ‘lives of every agent she ever worked with’ would be endangered if you started *stuff* with the President. Would you have your wife send you to Niger and then put yourself on the NY Times, and start doing interviews, and making speeches calling Republicans “war mongers” BEFORE she was outed? Wilson started this BEFORE she was outed. He didn’t ‘turn on’ the Bush administration after they exposed his wife, he began a very public, very nasty campaign before the administration even knew his wife sent her to Niger.

Posted by: esimonson at November 1, 2005 10:59 PM
Comment #89597

God Bless you, Harry Reid!

It seems Eric forgot to reference Reid’s statement before taking the Senate into closed session today.

Keep in mind Reid is a moderate pro-life Democrat. But he’s a moderate with a spine! Enough is enough! What’s not to like here?

Reid shows leadership.
Reid shows character.
Reid shows savvy.
Reid gets results.

The GOP is floundering with the least support it has enjoyed in years, Frist is whining, DeLay is irrelevant, and the MINORITY party’s leader has the most compelling voice on the Hill. Partisans will spin, but your words have a hollow echo, while Reid’s have the ring of truth. This isn’t about left vs right, it’s about right vs wrong, and Reid has put a stop to the GOP’s ignore it and it will go away tactic.

God Bless you, Harry Reid!

Posted by: Walker Willingham at November 1, 2005 11:02 PM
Comment #89599

Harry Reid is a moderate? Does that show how far left the rest of the Democratic Party has gone? No wonder that they can’t stand a judge that’s anything but just slightly right of the general counsel of the ACLU!! What a crock.

Posted by: Robert at November 1, 2005 11:07 PM
Comment #89601

The only ones who did the “ignore it and it’ll go away” tactic was the Clinton administration who refused to confront terrorists during the 90’s (mainly since the ‘93 WTC bombing). Which you can say is what REALLY led to all the problems we are having now with terrorism, b/c we didn’t nip it in the bud. Let’s put some responsibility where it needs to lie. Instead of truly passing the buck.

Posted by: Robert at November 1, 2005 11:13 PM
Comment #89604

Julia wrote: What I’m saying is, that best case scenario, the Bush administration is saying that the reason it’s justification for war was wrong was because the Bush administration got bad intelligence from a variety of intelligence agencies…I believe that is called “passing the buck” and “not being responsible for your own decisions”.
__________________________


It’s interesting that you used “passing the buck” b/c “The buck stops here” is a big Harry Truman quote. And Harry Truman went to war in Korea based on faulty intelligence, from the world intelligence community, saying that China would never invade, it’s ok to go into Korea. So, Truman ordered McAuther in and what happen? China came right over the border and sided with Korea.

Now, that was faulty intel then and American lives were lost for that misleading intel. Did we hear the “Truman lied kids died”? That’s the problem nowadays, Bush has to demand the “Buck stop” with him for the war in Iraq and Truman was able to “Pass the Buck”? What’s the deal with that?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2005 11:19 PM
Comment #89605

The GOP is floundering? I guess that’s true if you think that making charges that don’t stick and throwing temper tantrums on the Senate floor are more significant than moving the court to the right and increasing majorities in the House and the Senate over three elections.

By this time next year, DeLay will be exonerated, Libby Scooter will be a fading memory (he was hardly a known quantity to begin with) and the Republicans will be poised to pick up 1-3 seats in the Senate. You read it here first.

Posted by: sanger at November 1, 2005 11:21 PM
Comment #89607

I don’t think I’ve ever seen one politician outmaneuver another as consistently and as overwhelmingly as Reid outmaneuvers Frist. Reid absolutely owns Frist. Amazing peformance. Very impressive, really remarkable. Remember, the Republicans have the majority in the Senate; Reid represents a minority, and obviously has the weaker hand; yet in one deft blow, Reid derails the Republican attempt to distract the public, and refocuses attention on the issue Republicans so desperately want to avoid.

After last week’s debacles- Libby, Miers, Iraq- the White House panicked. A Supreme Court nomination is a political ace in the whole, good for numerous political purposes, a great advantage. With proper manipulation, a SCOTUS nomination can draw headlines for weeks, frame the national agenda, control the discussion. In terms of politics, it’s pure gold.

But the Republicans panicked. Devoid of ideas, they led with their best and possibly only card. Big mistake, in cards and in politics.

Misha’s column in the center is right on. Today’s maneuver by Reid tells you everything you need to know about politics in the coming months. Alito will be confirmed, accompanied by the usual noise from each side, as consituencies demand. But there will be no filibuster, no nuclear option.

Instead, Reid has chosen the topic of Iraq as his battlefield.

Dang, that guy is good.

Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2005 11:44 PM
Comment #89610

Phx8, that would only make sense if Reid plans to pull this little stunt he pulled today every single day from now on. If Frist decides to punish him for this, he (unlike Reid) has considerable power to do so.

I agree that Frist has been passive (more passive than I’d like to see) in the face of Reid’s yapping and nipping-at-the-heels routine. But that’s only because Frist can afford to be. As majority leader, he sets the Senate’s agenda day in and day out, and Reid can only pull this latest stunt once.

Frist has a far greater arsenal of procedural and other powers at his fingertips than Reid does, and if Reid keeps this up, he may come to work one day soon and find that his new office is a janitor’s closet in the Senate basement.

Posted by: sanger at November 1, 2005 11:59 PM
Comment #89613

So, I’m wondering if the secret prisons run by the CIA is classified information?

Posted by: womanmarine at November 2, 2005 12:09 AM
Comment #89614

Can anyone say “Dashelled”…if Reid isn’t careful, it WILL happen in a state that (except for Las Vegas) will always be a republican led state. Which begs the question of how did he get elected to begin with? Was he “laundering” money too? Maybe there should be an investigation into him and Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 12:14 AM
Comment #89615

I know I mispelled Daschele, but who cares…he’s not in the Senate anymore.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 12:15 AM
Comment #89617

OK…still didn’t get it right…but again, who cares? It’s Daschle right?

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 12:20 AM
Comment #89618

Raghdily,

I fail to see your point. Do you want me to say that Truman was irresponsible for going to war on faulty intel? He was. So was Bush. If I had been around to call Truman on his decisions, I would have.

Eric,

The majority of the intelligence was fabricated by Chalabi’s group and planted across a variety of agencies. Italy, Britian, Germany and the U.S. can trace the majority of their information through INC plants.

We all know the main reason why so many individuals voted yes on the war resolution is b/d they were embarassed during Gulf War I.

However, that doesn’t excuse any of them. The fact of the matter is, there were well-researched dissenting views at State AND the CIA. No one read the source data reports. Or if they did, they chose to dismiss them.

And that’s poor leadership.

Posted by: Julia at November 2, 2005 12:24 AM
Comment #89621

The point of the maneuver is to focus the spotlight of national attention.

The Republican Chairman of the Committee, Pat Roberts, will never permit an investigation of the political uses of intelligence to make any progress. He’s not stupid.

The best thing to happen to Democrats was the loss of Daschle as a leader. Don’t get me wrong, he was a good man, and the Dems needed that seat in South Dakota, no doubt. But let’s face it- Daschle was a ‘get along and go along’ Democrat. The Republicans rode roughshod over him.

Reid is a different animal. Think about it. Frist has every advantage, for sure. Yet time and again, Reid has manipulated the outcome to as much advantage as a minority party can muster. This latest stunt took attention away from Alito, and concentrated it on Iraq. How the heck did Reid manage that?! If I were a Republican, I’d be demanding Frist’s head on a platter. To have so much of an advantage, and so little to show for it, is inexcusable.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2005 12:32 AM
Comment #89624

Daschle was a get along go along democrat? You’re living in a parallel universe somewhere aren’t you? Please tell me that. He was one of the most obstructionist minority leaders in Senate history. It’s ridiculous to think that he’d “go along” with any truly sane idea (sweeping generalization—and a joke for those who can’t see it). Someone needs to get their facts straight.

All I can say is…if ‘94 wasn’t the wake-up call…and neither was ‘96 ‘98 2000 or 2004 then the Democrats are REALLY never gonna wake up. The filibuster may be a moot point after ‘06.

To all Democrats. Good night and good luck.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 12:49 AM
Comment #89631

To Walker Willingham and his sidekick phx8: Harry Reid molests collies. Where you get your education from, Sears and Roebuck or the Yellow Pages?
To Sanger: You’re 150% correct, especially concerning the Supreme Court. WE won the election, WE control the Executive and Legislative Branches, and the Democrats just need to shut the hell up! GET OVER IT! You lost!
And Daschle: Why are we now talking about this man? With a name like Daschle, he’s got to be a Commie or Hitler’s cousin. Come to think of it, he politicized in Washington like he was a Nazi. Good riddance!
And Julia: You’re an emancipated woman, learn to lose!

In closing…to all Demoncrats, please SHUT UP!

Posted by: Gary at November 2, 2005 2:01 AM
Comment #89632

Harry Reid’s action today was politically brilliant. How do I know, because the Republicans capitulated. There will be an oversight investigation. Hard to argue with success when a political maneuver ends with intended results.

But a huge question remains. Where were the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee prior to the invasion of Iraq. Didn’t hear a peep out of them insisting on an intelligence oversight hearing then. Had they been doing what they are paid to do prior to invading Iraq, Iraq might not be the quagmire it is today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2005 2:03 AM
Comment #89634

Walker,
I’m honored to be your sidekick. But I’m kind of new to the second banana business. Does this mean I have to supply all the beer, or bend all the ma-do-dah rolls?

David,
The Democrats were ineffective during the events prior to the invasion of Iraq because, in part, Daschle was one of their leaders. Sad, but true.

Gary,
In general, I do not talk about my education, and discuss career background in general terms. If you’d like to offer persuasive arguments, I’m very willing to listen. “Shut up” isn’t exactly a starter. Care to start again?

Posted by: Phx8 at November 2, 2005 2:28 AM
Comment #89636

Gary,
“In closing…to all Demoncrats, please SHUT UP! “

I’m a tad curious. Why are you on this blog if you don’t want to discuss not only yours, but supposely others’ opinions?

Posted by: Linda H. at November 2, 2005 3:24 AM
Comment #89638

phx8,

I don’t think I’ve ever seen one politician outmaneuver another as consistently and as overwhelmingly as Reid outmaneuvers Frist.

That’s the nature of insurgency, not a measure of deftness.


Julia,

The majority of the intelligence was fabricated by Chalabi’s group and planted across a variety of agencies. Italy, Britian, Germany and the U.S. can trace the majority of their information through INC plants.

We all know the main reason why so many individuals voted yes on the war resolution is b/d they were embarassed during Gulf War I.

You can’t be serious? Years of intelligence for every major country compromised completely by Chalabi? If that is true he should be running Iraq by now. The majority of intelligence that Bush and congress including democrats relied on did not come from Chalabi.

(This post is just part one by the way, I mean to get to the intelligence and the stated reasons for going to Iraq.)

I would not accept the premise that John Kerry et al voted to authorize the war because they were embarassed during Gulf War I. The real reason they voted for the war is because they had seen the intelligence for years. If the intelligence under Bush in 2003 was wrong it had been wrong for years, not just when Bush became president.

However, that doesn’t excuse any of them. The fact of the matter is, there were well-researched dissenting views at State AND the CIA. No one read the source data reports. Or if they did, they chose to dismiss them.

And that’s poor leadership.

Are you speaking only about WMD intelligence?

Posted by: esimonson at November 2, 2005 3:29 AM
Comment #89639

Gary,

Watchblog is a place for debate. If you can’t take the time to actually articulate an argument then you lose the argument. ‘Shut up’ is not an argument. It is a sign that you are losing the argument.

Since you happen to agree with me, we can assume that you are in fact right, but lack the patience to debate. So be it. Take a deep breath… and remember patience is a virtue. Come back and engage without trying to end the debate.

Posted by: esimonson at November 2, 2005 3:39 AM
Comment #89641

Robert,

You blame:

the Clinton administration who refused to confront terrorists during the 90’s (mainly since the ‘93 WTC bombing).

But if it was so obvious that Clinton had dropped the ball for 7 YEARS, why did Bush wait until 3,000 Americans were dead before picking it up? What exactly did Bush do before 9/11 to fight this threat that Clinton was supposedly ignoring?

Instead of truly passing the buck.

Posted by: adverbal at November 2, 2005 4:02 AM
Comment #89642

ignore that last line. I edited my comment down before posting and failed to delete that.

Posted by: adverbal at November 2, 2005 4:04 AM
Comment #89644

What are the Republicans SO Afraid of?

My question is, why take one report over another? Why was Dr. Blix’s report that there were NO WMDs less important then the Intelligence info received that supposedly stated the there were WMDs?

I submit that any intelligent person would want to know the same thing. The Republicans expressed irate feelings when it was discovered that the Intelligence was incorrect. They all but PROMISED an investigation. The fact that they never followed through with this investigation strikes me as not only odd, but troublesome. Had they managed to clear Bush, back when they said they were going to do an investigation, I would imagine the subject would have been laid to rest. As it is how, any type of investigation they do now will appear tainted, simply because they attempted to avoid, or do I dare suggest, cover-up the problem.
See links below regarding, both Republicans and Democrats feel about the Bush and in particular,the Iraqi War.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Libby Indictments Cast Pall on White House
Monday, October 31, 2005
By Jane Roh

One thing Bush can count on during this trying time is his supporters’ willingness to emphasize any Democratic questions about the case as an attempt to make political hay.
underline text


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173938,00.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
October 14, 2005
Iraq’s Civil War- Who benefits?
Filed under: misc, Iraq, headline news — Lula @ 10:40 pm

It has become apparent as the US continues to push the idea that Iraq will fall into civil war without our military occupation, that we are the ones provoking, not preventing it.

Middle East
Who needs WMD when you’ve got Saddam?
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - With former president Saddam Hussein in the bag, the administration of President George W Bush appears determined to make US voters forget Washington invaded Iraq on the pretext that its now evidently non-existent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a direct threat to the United States and its allies.http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL20Ak03.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

Published: January 9, 2004

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no “smoking gun” proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.

“I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,” Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. “But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html?ei=5070&en=423d5eb7615c8439&ex=1131080400&th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1130915614-XY
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal — and Being Wrong
It was (Colin) Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels “terrible” about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, “Of course it will. It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake

Now, if the sources fell apart we need to find out how we’ve gotten ourselves in that position,” he (Colin Powell) said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3596033.stm



Posted by: Linda H. at November 2, 2005 4:24 AM
Comment #89645

After checking for almost an hour, I can’t find anything about the Republicans wanting to investigate Bush. Considering the amount of time that has gone by, is it any wonder that it appears a little strange that the Republicans accepted the Prez’s information without so much as batting an eye. That sounds more like cows following each other up a ramp to be slaughtered.

Posted by: Linda H. at November 2, 2005 4:33 AM
Comment #89651

Eric Simonson:

you forgot to mention that the Senate promised to investigate the political motivations for war after the election. They have lied once again.

Posted by: Aldous at November 2, 2005 5:41 AM
Comment #89656

Aldous,
The Republican Leadership did not lie, they would of got to it sometime before the year was out if they had time with their busy agenda.

The Democratic Leadership pulled a page out of the Rove play book and walked the dog with it. Now ethically, legally, and morally we can get down to the facts of what happened in the middle of a heated debate because this issue covers the political motivation of the actions to oust Mrs. Wilson. That is if the Conservatives are willing to back up the trash they have been talking since the run up to the 2002 Elections.

It should be the duty of every red blooded American to request that as much as those meetings be open to the public as possible, but preserve National Security. For if this push for war with Iraq was a political and diplomatic game plan that went wrong, do not “We the People” need to know that? A hundred years is a long time before something to happen again; however, is it not our responsibilty to make sure it doesn’t happen again? To do that we need to get to the bottom of “Libby’s World.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 6:41 AM
Comment #89667

Eric,

You sound desperate.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 2, 2005 7:32 AM
Comment #89670

Robert,

How about 13 UN resolutions stating basically “disarm or there will be serious consequences”.

And now your country know what the 2003’ UN inspectors in Iraq were more and more suspecting: Iraq had disarmed. I guess some people like more “serious consequences” than inspecting. Should be a question of business mindset…

Final point…so was it lying when it was stated that “Saddam’s weapons of mass-destruction and his search for nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to the security of the world and the US.” was that a lie?

No. It’s not a lie stating US is not part of the world, just arrogant and selfish.
Also, introduce may between weapons and a grave threat and it’s not a lie.
You know, the word may as maybe, could, we suspect, we fear, we can’t prove it but we worry about… After all, that’s why your president call Iraq war a preventive war, because of a possibility of a future threat he don’t want to face, right?

No facts proved that WMDs were there, just suspections, fears, worries.

And since? No WMDs found.
Yeah, not a lie maybe.
But a damn stupid texan cowboy-ish error. An error still killing in Iraq childs besides adults, your soldiers included.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 2, 2005 7:41 AM
Comment #89671

Eric-
He had already had bad feelings about the sixteen words. Anybody who sees the timeline knows this.

Why should challenging the president put anybody in danger? Is the White House not discreet enough or morally aware enough to keep our secrets secret when some whistleblower calls them on an issue? He never mentioned his wife in his op-ed, so this claim he might have outed her is ludicrous. That takes identification, and he never did so.

You blame the victims because the alternative is acknowledging that at least two officials close to the president committed a breach of national security so the president wouldn’t lose face by being exposed as a liar. Do yourself a massive favor and get a sense of proportion.

I have never seen an administration so obsessed with it’s own image, and so willing to implement bad policy, bad strategy, and commit unethical and even illegal acts just to improve their polling numbers.

The question is, where do you draw the line? I draw the line in the real world, where it matters more what gets done, than what it necessarily looks like. I think image, given the right actions sorts itself out. When people devote themselves simply to papering over error after error instead of taking care of it, it’s always a no-win situation. You can’t fight reality with image.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2005 7:53 AM
Comment #89683

Rahdigly,

“They’re on their heels and they can’t get a grip.”

Based on what? Rush Limbaugh?
The Republican party is imploding.

Ex.

Katrina.
FEMA failure
Plame exposure
Rove deception
Miers exposing far right hypocritical Republican party agenda and splitting party in half.
Oil profits vs. price gouging the American people.
Iraq war failure.
Faulty and doctored intelligence leading to war coming to light.
Cronyism.
More cronyism.
Tom Delay corruption.
Bill Frist’s lucky investments(corruption).
Christian Fundamentalists who are being catered to by Republicans are being viewed more and more like the hypocritical bigots and kooks that they are by mainstream America.
Crushing debt.
Mounting casualties(U.S. and Iraqi.)
Fiscal irresponsibility.
Big government.
Pork
Waste.
Environmental hostility.
Ignoring science.
Disasterous foreign relations.
Domestic policies that benefit the wealthy or are ignored or mocked by the American people.
Wide open borders.
Homeland security is a joke.
Weakened military.
32% Approval rating.
Elections in 06 means more of the rats than usual will be jumping ship to get reelected,killing what party support he has.
Taking lame-duck to a whole new level.
Americans are equating the name Republican with the word indictment.

If the Dems. are barely hanging on, the Reps. have already slipped into the abyss.

Eric,

When will you let go of this dream? You’re not going to wake up to find the Bush administration competent or devoid of corruption and greed. You will not one day wake up to find that the rest of the world was wrong and G.W. and Cheney somehow discover Nukes stashed under a Baghdad Taco Bell.
You will not one day wake up to find the United States populated solely by white, upper-middle class, white, Evangelical Super-Patriots, who while not burning books or trying whitches, permeate our schools,converting the sinners and godless savages, convincing them to follow Jesus in a war against Iran and South Korea.
It’s a beautiful dream Eric, it truly is.
Disturbing, but beautiful.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 2, 2005 8:44 AM
Comment #89728

Eric,

From the Washington Post:
Re: Closed-door Senate meeting

“The usually unflappable majority leader, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), was searching for words to express his outrage to reporters a few minutes later. The Senate “has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” he said. “They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas.” Never before had he been “slapped in the face with such an affront,” he said, adding: “For the next year and a half, I can’t trust Senator Reid.”(Unless he has some insider trading information that could put a few hundred thousand in his pocket)
This coming from a guy facing investigation for illegal stock transactions.
The hypocrisy from the GOP is staggering. The hypocrisy from the Republican supporters is mind-boggling. Blow-job = impeachment.
A war that has caused the deaths of thousands of American and Iraqi lives and cost hundreds of billions of tax dollars = No big deal.
Glad to see the GOP and its supporters have their prioritie straight.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 2, 2005 11:43 AM
Comment #89734

Eric,
You write: “Years of intelligence for every major country compromised completely by Chalabi? If that is true he should be running Iraq by now.”

Funny you should mention it… his hat is in the ring for Prime Minister. He is currently an intermim minister for oil, and Deputy Prime Minister of the country. Google his Wikipedia bio for some interesting reading.

On another note…
Amusing headline from a liberal site:
“Democrats in Senate Act as An Opposition Party: Republicans Dumbstruck”!

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2005 11:48 AM
Comment #89744

Walker Willingham, phx8
If Reid is a moderate, then DeLay is a moderate. I disagree with that analysis tho. Reid is a left wing liberal. Reid being a moderate is only hope or imagination. Sen Roberts intel comm. has been looking into the Iraqi situation way before Herr Reid’s hissy-fit. Here is a thought. If Reid, Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Biden, and Clinton were to be voted out all in the same year, if possible, they could retire to the ACLU and get lifetime tenure.

Linda H
The NYT, ABC news, and BBC are hardly a bastion of fact and truthfullness.

Posted by: tomh at November 2, 2005 12:12 PM
Comment #89748

Eric:
“What it begins to show is a pattern of deception.
END PART ONE”

(Unrestrained laughter, followed by a shake of the head)
Yes, indeed. Part two: Republican’s are Toast.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2005 12:28 PM
Comment #89757

Henry,
You wrote,”The Republican Leadership did not lie, they would of got to it sometime before the year was out if they had time with their busy agenda.”

I frequently can’t tell which side you are own, but I think and hope you were being sarcastic.

You do however bring up an interesting question.
Is the Republicans agenda to busy to check out whether we are spending billions of dollars, sacrificing thousands of lives, causing what appears to the beginning of a major chasm in our own country, as well as setting a horrible example for the world?

I just want someone to check into this matter once and for all.

I am tired of the shenanigans of both parties when it comes to Iraq. They seem to be very good at squabbling, but lousy at accomplishing major tasks. They also seem to prefer accusations, and repetitive retorts rather than actually finish up the tasks they were suppose to do. I.E. Investigate Bush, Libby, Rove, Cheney,and Tom Delay for example.

Instead the Republicans threaten to change the Senate policy by changing the judicial filibuster rules, or the Democrats wasting time pointing fingers at the Republicans. On the other hand, one has to admire Reid for using a great political strategy in order to try to get the Republican’s attention.

I personally think this illegal, immoral, and unethical war is far more a politically motivated one, and less a war against terrorism. I also believe that it has much more to do with OIL than terrorism.


Posted by: Linda H. at November 2, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #89760

Adrienne:

Interesting that I’ve been hearing how Republicans are toast for—-ohh, around 6 years now. Bush has no chance against Gore, Bush has no chance against Kerry, Jeffords switching party allegiances is the death knell for Republicans, the mid term elections will go Democratic, Bush being AWOL is going to doom him, Abu Ghraib will end the Republican party……and on and on.

I’ll give the left credit. They are persistent. They remind me of the quote about the Larry Holmes/Randall “Tex” Cobb heavyweight boxing match: “Using his face, Cobb unmercifully pummelled Holmes’ fists throughout the fight…”

One of these times, the left will be accurate. Its bound to happen. After all, Red Sox and White Sox fans have been correct in the last two years about their teams winning the Series, but they are still only 2 for 171 in accuracy. So too for all the “sky is falling” predictions from the left.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 2, 2005 12:41 PM
Comment #89762

Eric,

Support for the Bush administration is eroding like a barrier island beach in a hurricane, but instead of acknowledging the situation and thinking about what the Bush administration could do to regain the nation’s trust, you fall back on that Karl Rove / Lee Atwater trick of trying to make the administration’s critics into the issue. Karl Rove would be so proud! How lame.

And you said this:

[Wilson] began a very public, very nasty campaign before the administration even knew his wife sent her to Niger.
Please (1) define what constitutes “nastiness”, and (2) show real evidence of this “very nasty campaign”, and (3) show real evidence that this “very nasty campaign” happened before the administration knew he went to Niger. Otherwise, this is nothing more than what my grandfather called “the product of the south end of a north-facing bull.”


rahdigly,
(1) Your Korean War history is completely wrong. Did you make it up? You said:

Harry Truman went to war in Korea based on faulty intelligence, from the world intelligence community, saying that China would never invade, it’s ok to go into Korea. So, Truman ordered McAuther in and what happen? China came right over the border and sided with Korea.
Here is are the REAL facts. Chinese troops didn’t come into the war until AFTER the US and S Korean troops finished driving the N Koreans out of South Korea and continued north beyond the 38th parallel, into North Korea. Douglas McArthur actually proposed invading China. And Chinese entry into the war wasn’t a surpise. China had previously issued public warnings that they would intervene if any non-South Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel. Here’s the Wikipedia article.

(2) You claimed that

in that [Senate Intelligence Committee] report it says: “one fact is now clear, the U.S. Intelligence Community told the President, the Congress, and the American people before the war that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”
The problem is that you aren’t quoting the Senate Intelligence Committee Report itself, you’re quoting a statement by a Republican Senator, which is not the same thing. Your own link proves it - it’s a link to the senator’s own website.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 2, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #89765

Julia wrote:
I fail to see your point. Do you want me to say that Truman was irresponsible for going to war on faulty intel? He was. So was Bush. If I had been around to call Truman on his decisions, I would have.
________________________________

Yes that’s the point. They both were given faulty intelligence in going to war; however, Truman didn’t go through any of the slander and backlash, from the American people, like Bush did. Truman didn’t have to hear the anti-war crowd saying things like “Bush lied kids died”, “We went for oil”, “Bush is a terrorists”, “Bush is a Nazi”… and on and on.

When it comes to war, there are always mistakes. It’s because you don’t know what the other side is going to do, you don’t know each others strategy.

So, with Bush and Truman, I don’t blame either one of them. I’m just pointing out the fact that Bush took the heat and Truman didn’t for similar faulty intel for going to war.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 12:51 PM
Comment #89772

Linda wrote:
I personally think this illegal, immoral, and unethical war is far more a politically motivated one, and less a war against terrorism. I also believe that it has much more to do with OIL than terrorism.
___________________________________

Well, then where’s the oil? Why are gas prices still above $2? If we had Iraqi oil, we could set out own price. We’ve been there over two years now, so where’s this oil we went there for?

And, you think the war is illegal, huh? Well, there was a peace resolution with Saddam after the first Persian Gulf War; he was to be held in check from there on out, that’s why he was still in power. He broke that agreement; he shot at our planes in the no fly zone; kicked out weapons inspectors; not to mention broke 17 UN resolutions. So, no it wasn’t illegal to hold Saddam accountable for breaking the law.

Saddam’s actions were illegal and the oil for food scandal was certainly illegal.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 1:08 PM
Comment #89776

Robert, tomh, and those of you who think Reid is a ‘lefty’,

Though I suspect you’ve been so saturated with the right wing talking points to believe that EVERY Democrat in the Senate (maybe excepting Nebraska’s Ben Nelson) is some left wing extremist, if you have a scintilla of sensibility for the distinctions between gradations of liberalness, consider that the American Conservative Union grades 36 of our Democratic Senators with lower (more liberal) scores than Senator Reid, and another 5, Pryor, Baucus, Landrieux, Lincoln, and Bayh as about on par with Reid. Newly elected Senators are not yet rated. Cry liberal if you want, but those of us grounded in reality know better. I should know, I’m a liberal, and proud of it - Reid is a moderate. I don’t even think that Bush is particularly extreme on the conservative scale, he’s just incompetent and willing to put criminals in charge.

I’ll say it again, it’s not about left and right, it’s about right and wrong.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at November 2, 2005 1:19 PM
Comment #89779

“Your Korean War history is completely wrong.”
_________________________________

I definitely wasn’t wrong with Korean War history.
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/fall_winter_2001/article06.html

Check out the section on “The Chinese factor”, here’s part of a quote from that source:

“overt assistance by the Chinese would require Soviet approval and a Communist willingness to risk general war. The memorandum concluded that there was no direct evidence of indications as to whether China would intervene…”

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 1:36 PM
Comment #89788

Rah,

You write: “Truman didn’t go through any of the slander and backlash, from the American people, like Bush did. Truman didn’t have to hear the anti-war crowd saying things like “Bush lied kids died”

Truman was tremendously unpopular, with all-time low approval ratings. The reasons for Truman’s low ratings differed, but he certainly suffered a backlash from the public. And remember, this unpopularity occurred during wartime.

“• Truman’s approval dipped to 24 percent in the late spring of 1951 after he removed popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from command in Korea.

• Nixon’s approval dropped to 31 percent in August 1973 as the war dragged on in Vietnam and revelations of administration misdeeds kept spilling out of the Senate Watergate hearings.

• Carter’s approval plunged to 29 percent in the early summer of 1979 amid economic troubles and news of increasing problems with new Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

• The first President Bush’s approval sank to 32 percent in July 1992 as his presidential rivals Clinton and Ross Perot gained momentum in the campaign and the unemployment rate rose.

For the current president to fall to those levels, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents would have to abandon him in large numbers…”

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2005 2:08 PM
Comment #89806

Linda H.,
I very politically Independent. Unlike the extreme Left that believes in Socialism and the extreme Right the believes in Rapitalism, I can honestly say that our Founding Fathers figured out the Riddle of a Rightous Nation and designed our government and society that would take The American Spirit on a journey that has yet to be spoken or written.

However or more directly because of, our Elders put into motion about 40 years ago a way to show Today’s Youth how to design and build a world that our parents, including myself, could only dream of. Right vs. Wrong and four generations to include a 10 year old to debate how and what would make the most “More Perfect” government and society that our little brains can come possibly come up with that can coexist in Nature is a legacy that would go hand in hand with the gift of Nature given to our generation by our Forefathers of the 19th Century. Like I have said before it is “We the Consumers” that rule the world.

BTW, yes I was being sarcastic about the Republicans; however, I try to take the high road for the most part. If the one thing the Children of the 70’s; 80’s; & 90’s should know real well is the argument over what is “Socially Acceptable” and what is not. You want to start a book on it?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 2:38 PM
Comment #89812

First, your Iraq-Korea analogy is poor. The reason for US involvement in the Korean War was blindingly obvious even to the most casual observer - N Korea invaded S Korea! That’s completely different from the situation in Iraq, where the justification for the war changes depending on the day of the week, Bush’s popularity, and who’s been indicted recently.

If anything, The Korean War was analagous to the FIRST Gulf War, not to the invasion of Iraq. Like the first Gulf War, N Korea invaded another country and was repulsed by a coalition of troops from several countries, acting under UN authority.

Second, the link you posted doesn’t back up your assertion that “Truman ordered McAuther in and what happen? China came right over the border and sided with Korea.” As I stated, the Chinese didn’t get involved until US/UN troops approached the Yalu River, which is the border between N Korea and China. Furthermore, there was PLENTY of evidence that they would do so.

Look at this link. It says that on Sep 30, 1950,

public warning from China’s Chou En-lai to stay away from the Yalu border - called by MacArthur “diplomatic blackmail” - but G-2 reported massive buildup of Communist China Forces (CCF) along northern side of Yalu
I assume you know that G-2 refers to US military intelligence?

Look again at the Wikipedia article. It says:

While the People’s Republic of China had issued warnings that they would intervene if any non-South Korean forces crossed the 38th parallel, Truman regarded the warnings as “a bald attempt to blackmail the UN”.

Your own link says this:
By late August, China was moving aggressively on all fronts to demonstrate its concerns regarding a defeat of the DPRK forces and US-UN occupation of [North Korea]. On the international propaganda scene, World Culture, China’s official organ, featured an article equating a DPRK defeat as a defeat for Chinese policy

Check this link. It says:
China, finding the UN Command occupation of North Korea unacceptable and its diplomatic efforts ignored, announced the formation of the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army in October 1950. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army massed some 850,000 “volunteer troops” north of the Yalu River. The UN force’s advance had continued despite warnings of a massive Chinese intervention by the huge Chinese force assembled across the Yalu in northern China. Mao Tse Tung feared that the Allies would not stop in Korea, but would continue across the Yalu River into China and attempt to overthrow communism in mainland China.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 2, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #89814

My last post was directed to rahdigly.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 2, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #89823

No. no. no. My analogy was about Bush and Truman with pre-war intelligence. Once again you’re not paying attention. And I backed up the Korean war intelligence with facts. There’s no question that the intelligence was saying one thing and what actually happened was another; similar situation happened with Intelligence in Iraq.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #89826

Henry

“Rapitalism”, heh, heh. I like it and hope you don’t mind if I steal it from you.

We need independent-minded voters who are not so wound up in the partisan fervor that often has us accepting BS we shouldn’t. Independents keep us honest. Independents seek multiple information sources and keep the media honest. Independents decide the elections and anchor the middle of the electorate.

I consider myself progressive, but that doesn’t mean I agree with every stance that is labeled progressive. There is plenty of stupidity to go around. And I certainly enjoy the give and take of our discussions here.

Thanks for putting up with this extended aside.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 2, 2005 3:30 PM
Comment #89827

Bush’s latest approval numbers (Zogby’s?) increase to 45%. Better numbers coming, with the Supreme Court nominee and improving economic figures.

Posted by: Kyle at November 2, 2005 3:30 PM
Comment #89828

There is a basic question that everyone is overlooking. When the CIA sent Wilson to Niger to investigate the verity of the claim that Iraq tried to purchase Yellow Cake from Niger, there was a document that was used to support this claim. That document turned out to be fraudulent, deflating the integrity of the invetigated claim. The question is: Who created the fraudulent document? and what was their motive??? When President Bush said he wanted to get to the bottom of this affair, I think the bottom is really finding out who created the documents that started people into thinking about things that never happened!!

One might speculate who has a motive to create such a document, and such speculation leads into very dark corners. I would prefer to have this question answered through the efforts of people who are serious about getting to the bottom of this whole twisted affair.

Posted by: Ken at November 2, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #89830

Why do liberals talk about intelligence as if it’s black and white? Are they that moronic? Spend a few years in the military and you’ll understand how hard exact information is to come by. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Chirac all lamented about it in the late 90’s. (I suppose the governor of Texas had pull with the CIA then too?) Hillary Clinton warned about Iraq WMD just in 2002. World intelligence thought so. Iraq had used WMD’s in the past!! Why do liberals continue to discuss Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as if he was in charge of Switzerland??!!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at November 2, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #89831

Rahdigly

Your analogy breaks down pretty quickly. It wasn’t Truman’s rationale for the war that depended upon intelligence, it was the expected result of intervention that did. It is more analogous to Bush’s failure to plan for the post-invasion scenarios.

By the way, is there any evidence that Truman ignored conflicting intelligence regarding China’s intent? ElliotBay’s links would imply that Truman knew China was threatening and chose to ignore the threats as they constituted blackmail. Or do you understand the situation differently?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 2, 2005 3:34 PM
Comment #89833

Ken Cooper

Wow! Stunningly obfuscatory comment. Opponents of the war (Liberals, in your terms, although many mainstream conservatives are now admitting that the war was a mistake) are saying yes, the intelligence was hazy and mixed and didn’t form a basis for going to war. It sounds like you agree. Or did I misunderstand your broadside?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 2, 2005 3:38 PM
Comment #89834

Rahdigly,

Regardless of what the facts are on the Korea debate, I think we have come face to face with the crux of our disagreement. I believe that it is our responsibility to hold our presidents accountable when they go to war without doing their homework. Name-calling and anger is entirely appropriate. If a president puts the lives of other human beings on the line, and he is wrong, then he should pay a price.

I appreciate that we should be kind to people who try REALLY hard to be good at their jobs. But some jobs really should require competency and not operate on the “you get an A for effort” ideology. I’m not loyal to anyone because of their title, or because other people think they’re a good guy. I’m loyal when they deserve my loyalty. For a president, my loyaly is given when they have proven themselves to be intelligent and competent.

Posted by: Julia at November 2, 2005 3:39 PM
Comment #89838

Elliotboy,

the 11/2 3:23pm post was in response to your quote: “First, your Iraq-Korea analogy is poor.”


This is to your quote: “Your own link says this”
_______________


Not only did I provide the source and the link, I also gave you a sample of the quote. You can’t retrieve the facts that you want, while overlooking the obvious. You have to look at the whole thing again. They were worried about China and China had stated that defeating the DPRK would be a threat to China; however, Mao’s government were in cahoots with the Soviets and they had no intention of joining forces against the US and UN.

“On 28 July, the CIA Weekly Summary stated that 40,000 to 50,000 ethnic Korean soldiers from PLA units might soon reinforce DPRK forces. The article concluded, however, that there were no indications that the Soviets were prepared to use Chinese reinforcements.”

“0n 25 June 1950, the North Korean People’s Army of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) swept across the 38th parallel and came close to uniting the Korean peninsula under the Communist regime of Kim Il-sung. American military and civilian leaders were caught by surprise, and only the intercession of poorly trained and equipped US garrison troops from Japan managed to halt the North Korean advance at a high price in American dead and wounded. Four months later, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) intervened in massive numbers as American and UN forces pushed the North Koreans back across the 38th parallel. US military and civilian leaders were again caught by surprise, and another costly price was paid in American casualties.”

In case you missed that or attempt to disort it “US military and civilian leaders were again caught by suprise”… As I’ve said, Truman had faulty intelligence going into (and during) The Korean War and American troops paid the price. We have faulty intel with Iraq and it’s somehow Bush and his administration’s fault only.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 3:50 PM
Comment #89843

Mental Wimp,
No problem using the word Rapitalism, I thought it was a nice pc correct way of addressing the social questions that want to put “The God Almighty Dollar” in fornt of America and the Rest of Humanity’s Nations from doing the Right thing. What makes it funny is that most of them don’t realize that we now have the ability to do what our parents could only dream of and at the same time rock the very foundation of Civilization by making them richer than they could even imagine.

Because I have a question for your progressive view. Can you name we one good reason why the corporation that builds a million dollar yacht should not have as many potentail economically viable customers than Wal-Mart if the playing field in the economy is to be level? All I can say is the Founding Fathers were right in a manner of speaking.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 4:00 PM
Comment #89845

Ken Cooper wrote:

Why do liberals talk about intelligence as if it’s black and white? Are they that moronic? Spend a few years in the military and you’ll understand how hard exact information is to come by. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Chirac all lamented about it in the late 90’s. (I suppose the governor of Texas had pull with the CIA then too?) Hillary Clinton warned about Iraq WMD just in 2002. World intelligence thought so. Iraq had used WMD’s in the past!! Why do liberals continue to discuss Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as if he was in charge of Switzerland??!!
_________________________

Right on! Well said.

However, something that makes sense won’t convince or persuade liberals. If it’s not hateful and directed at Bush, it’s not in their arsenal.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 4:00 PM
Comment #89854

rahdigly,

However, something that makes sense won’t convince or persuade liberals. If it’s not hateful and directed at Bush, it’s not in their arsenal. Posted by rahdigly at November 2, 2005 04:00 PM
Read the top of this web page, rahdigly. Is says to critique the message, not the messenger.

My point about the Korean War was that American involvement was justified by the North Korean invasion of South Korea, NOT by “bad intelligence”, which happens in EVERY war. Trying to justify the invasion of Iraq by linking it with the Korean War doesn’t make any sense.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 2, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #89858

Henry

I would love it if the number of customers for yachts was the same as the number for Walmart, as long as that meant 150M households with yacht-level incomes. If it meant only 13K families could afford to shop at Walmart and have a yacht, then I say we failed as a society.

My main concern is that everyone have an equal opportunity to get into the game (but not requiring equal outcomes) and that the game is played honestly and fairly. I also want to make sure that those unable to play the game through no fault of their own are not left to rot. It is a balancing game, and we as a nation have failed on both accounts so far. I think these aims - which are clearly progressive, though they don’t conform to the stereotype promoted by the right-wing echo chamber - are not far from what most Americans want our society to pursue. I also think most classic, mainstream conservatives agree with these goals, though they may differ with me about how best to achieve them.

I think the question of how to achieve them should be resolved with data, and that we as a society should be willing to experiment with ways to achieve these goals, not in an ideological fashion, ignoring the data, but in an open-minded way with sufficient rigor to make the results clear. I think ideologues resist this notion because they are truly afraid there dogma will be shown erroneous. Open-minded individuals will embrace such an approach and help to foster the environment where such experimentation can be done.

There is, in fact, a large body of knowledge about the effects of social policy, but ideologues want to dismiss most of it as the product of a biased academic community. I believe this is the genesis of the attacks on the credibility of academic research in this country, especially in the social sciences. It is analogous to the attacks on mainstream biology to salvage the ideological belief that evolution doesn’t explain the emergence of homo sapiens. However, careful reading of the relevant publications quickly discounts the research that is rabidly biased toward a predetermined viewpoint, and most of what is left is pretty clear about the effects of social policy.

In regard to manipulating intelligence, we should take the same approach to our foreign policy. That is, we should carefully evaluate the data gathered and make decisions that respect the quality and certainty of those data, rather than ideologically determining the course of action, then picking and choosing the facts that support it.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 2, 2005 4:43 PM
Comment #89865

Andre,

Eric,

You sound desperate.

…or passionate.

When will you let go of this dream? You’re not going to wake up to find the Bush administration competent or devoid of corruption and greed.

You will not one day wake up to find that the rest of the world was wrong and G.W. and Cheney somehow discover Nukes stashed under a Baghdad Taco Bell.

You will not one day wake up to find the United States populated solely by white, upper-middle class, white, Evangelical Super-Patriots, who while not burning books or trying whitches, permeate our schools, converting the sinners and godless savages, convincing them to follow Jesus in a war against Iran and South Korea.

It’s a beautiful dream Eric, it truly is.

Disturbing, but beautiful.

Ahhh, insult and prejudice. Nothing like painting your opponent as a rascist, a warmonger, and a religious nut. Kind of what Harry Reid, Nancy Pilosi, Michael Moore, et al have been trying to do for the last 5 years. No wonder I oppose them so passionately.

Posted by: esimonson at November 2, 2005 5:19 PM
Comment #89866

Eric, on Chalabi’s role in intelligence (In the U.S., Germany, etc)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Ahmed_Chalabi

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/

http://deep_blade.tripod.com/journal/index.blog?from=20040331

In one of the cases Defense Intelligence had concluded the defector probably was coached by Ahmed Chalabi’s exile group, earning him in 2002 a “fabrication notice” on a classified computer network run by US intelligence. And Curveball himself turns out to be the brother of one of Chalabi’s top aides!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/23/MNGE86QJVK1.DTL

Because even friendly spy services rarely share the identities of their informants, or let outsiders meet or debrief their sources, it only has become clear in recent months that Chalabi’s group sent defectors with inaccurate or misleading information to Denmark, England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, as well as to the United States, the officials said.

As a result, the officials said, U.S. intelligence analysts in some cases used information from now-discredited “foreign intelligence sources” to corroborate their own assessments of Hussein’s suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Few of the CIA’s pre-war judgments have been proved accurate so far.

“We had a lot of sources, but it was all coming from the same pot,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They were all INC guys. And none of them panned out.”

And the article that I tend to believe the most:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content?031027fa_fact

Posted by: Julia at November 2, 2005 5:33 PM
Comment #89867

Eric,

I do not think you are prejudice. I do not think you are a warmonger or a religious nut.

I feel that those who support Bush are living in a super-patriot dream-world if they think that things are O.K.
I hope that I have not offended you personally, just the administration you support and the Republican party as a whole;)

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 2, 2005 5:34 PM
Comment #89869

tomh
You wrote:

The NYT, ABC news, and BBC are hardly a bastion of fact and truthfullness.

Do you think that Fox News is any better?

You missed the very first link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173938,00.html

Henry,
Thank you for clearing that up. Am I understand why I usually agree with you.

Posted by: Linda H. at November 2, 2005 5:52 PM
Comment #89880

Elliotboy wrote:
My point about the Korean War was that American involvement was justified by the North Korean invasion of South Korea, NOT by “bad intelligence”, which happens in EVERY war. Trying to justify the invasion of Iraq by linking it with the Korean War doesn’t make any sense.
_____________________

I understand your point and, by the way, I like the similarities between the Korean War and the first Gulf War.

Once again, my point of the analogy was in the Korean War there were faulty intelligence and it got many of our soldiers killed as did the faulty intel for going to War in Iraq got our soldiers killed.

In both Wars, faulty intel got soldiers killed. That was one point. The other point is, even though both had low approval ratings during the war, Truman didn’t receive the backlash that Bush did. It’s disgusting how they are attacking this President when he received faulty intel from everyone, including President Clinton.

And, what the heck were you talking about with “critique the message, not the messenger.”?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 7:18 PM
Comment #89883

Phillipe


No. It’s not a lie stating US is not part of the world, just arrogant and selfish.
Also, introduce may between weapons and a grave threat and it’s not a lie.
You know, the word may as maybe, could, we suspect, we fear, we can’t prove it but we worry about… After all, that’s why your president call Iraq war a preventive war, because of a possibility of a future threat he don’t want to face, right?

No facts proved that WMDs were there, just suspections, fears, worries.

And since? No WMDs found.
Yeah, not a lie maybe.
But a damn stupid texan cowboy-ish error. An error still killing in Iraq childs besides adults, your soldiers included.
______________________________________

The problem with your response to my comment is…John Kerry said those things during the Democratic primaries in 2003. He also said that “if you don’t think that we should confront Saddam over is weapons of mass destruction and that they are a threat, then you shouldn’t vote for me”. Don’t you remember that being one of the half a 100 things that he flip-flopped on?

And then what Walker said “but those of us grounded in reality know better”. Your reality is some sort of alternative reality like cross-dressing is an alternative lifestyle. You people still believe that Bush “stole” the election in 2000. You still believe that Ohio should have been given to Kerry. Honestly Walker…do you think that Reid is a moderate? another example of alternative reality.

Ben Nelson is one of my senators. And both of our senators are extremely moderate. That actually unnerves me b/c the two of them could be interchangable.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 7:21 PM
Comment #89885

Mental Wimp,
I sort of took the view from an American Eagle’s eye when I look at how to use our societal tools to best serve our Citizens and Humanity’s Civilizarion. You are right about one size does not fit all and is why most ideologies do not work in the long run. However, did you know that the Founding Fathers solved that problem by allowing every citizen to become economically viable and financially independent (i.e. Self-Sufficent) by Constitutionally allowing us to invest in our own National Treasury.

Since that would be measurable depending only on the lifestyle one would choose to live, society could fulfill it’s obligation to the citizen. Than all we have to do is teach our children and their children how and why they need to invest in not only their best interests, but the inherent best interest of all consumers.

Did you know that almost all poverty in the world could be ended in the world if every Human, all 6.4 Billion of us, could/would invest only $5.00 a week for 25 years in Central Bank Notes. $41 Trillion dollars or about 13-14 years of our Federal Budget to invest in societal tools and every Human being worth at least $6,500.00 plus interest would put a huge dent in a problem that has puzzled the Human Race for thousands of years. Ridicule by even today’s standard I know, but purely Capitalistic at heart.

Linda,
Do you think that main stream politics are ready to answer some of my political points?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 7:31 PM
Comment #89893

Kyle,

CBS poll released today, Bush approval rating:

35%

Better numbers coming? Fed Funds rate hiked again to 4%, with “measured” language intact. That indicates continued increases to 4.5% highly, highly likely.

Say, it’s been almost 5 years of Bush. I wonder… How much have the stock markets increased after 5 years?

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2005 7:54 PM
Comment #89895

Look at the poll cross-seciton in that poll phx8. I’m sure that it’s very hard leaning left. I’m mean seriously…it is See-BS.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 8:00 PM
Comment #89896

rahdigly,

what the heck were you talking about with “critique the message, not the messenger.”? Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 07:18 PM
Click on this link. Read the second line on each of the three columns.

even though both had low approval ratings during the war, Truman didn’t receive the backlash that Bush did.
I’d say that Truman’s low approval rating was a pretty good indicator of a backlash. But, since you made the claim that there WASN’T a backlash, let’s see the evidence.
he [Bush] received faulty intel from everyone, including President Clinton.
What faulty intel was that? The intel that Al Qaeda was going to be Bush’s biggest challlenge? The intel that people possibly linked to Al Qaeda were learning to fly, but not how to land? The intel that Al Qaeda was planning on SOMETHING on September 11? The intel that Al Qaeda was planning on using airplanes in a terrorist attack? You mean that intel? Or maybe you mean the intel that OBL was behind 9-11, which was prematurely announced to the press by Orrin Hatch (R - Utah), and about which Donald Rumsfeld said “[leaks like that] compromise our source and methods” and “inhibit our ability to find and deal with the terrorists who commit this kind of act”. Is that the faulty intel you’re referring to? Read the August 12, 2002 issue of Time magazine for more details.

Was Clinton to blame for the “faulty intel”? Ask Robert Oakley, who was President Reagan’s “ambassador for counterterrorism”. He said “Overall, I give them very high marks. The only major criticism is the obsession with Osama [bin Laden].” Or mayber you should ask Paul Bremer, Oakley’s successor, and the head of the interim government in Iraq. He said that the Clinton Administration had “correclty focused on bin Laden.” Both quotes came from the December 24, 2000 issue of the Washington Post.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 2, 2005 8:01 PM
Comment #89898

Robert,
Does the CBS poll lean left, and show lower approval numbers than other polls? Yes. Nevertheless, in relative terms the poll shows a drop of 2% from last month. We’ll see how the others come in. My guess is that Kyle is dead wrong, and the other polls will show approval ratings in the high 30’s.

Btw, get a chance to evaluate how much the stock markets have increased under the Bush adiminstration? They’re supposedly leading indicators…

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2005 8:06 PM
Comment #89904

Well that depends on the benchmark there phx8. If you’re talking about the all-time high then it is down, but that is a totally inflated stock market. Are you talking about since Bush got into office? And how fair is that considering the fact that disasters like the hurricanes and 9/11 happened during that time? I’m sure you’ll say it’s totally fair and if so…then also take into account that Clinton took over an economy that was SLOWLY on it’s way back up, and Bush took over one that was on a sharp down-turn even before 9/11. So if you want to talk relativism. The closing today was 10473. Looking back 5 years, the market looks pretty much the same. So, by my estimation, with everything that’s happened and at the same time fighting a war…he’s done exceptionally. Do I attribute this to Bush? Actually, NO! Bush has hardly ANYTHING to do with the economy despite what people really believe. He has ideas and he makes suggestions to congress, but THEY are the ones who write and pass the budgets and also “hold the purse-strings” for any other expenditures (war, special prosecutors, etc.). So if you’ll grant me those things then sure I’ll grant you that we’re really not any better off now than we were at the time of Bush’s election, except that the economy (despite high energy prices and the like) is on the rise. Hopefully slowly and steadily instead of inflated like it was in the mid-90’s. Again, I don’t “blame” or praise Clinton for that either (see explanation above).

Finally,I disagree with you on the poll numbers. I think that Kyle is right considering that Zogby and Rasmussen (again) were the only ones to get the 2004 election right. My two cents…do I get a penny back?

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 8:19 PM
Comment #89906

Oh, one more thing…the thing about the stock market is…it’s not actually a linear thing. If you look at the market as a logarithmic function (which is mathematically correct—trust me on this I have a math minor), then you notice that the largest dip in the market was back in the Great Depression (wow, what a surprise) and the dip from 1997-2003 is barely a blip. You have to look at it this way, the higher you go, the thinner the air. That means it’s EXTREMELY hard to go up farther and farther. Eventually you pass out, fall down and get encased in ice for someone to find 3500 years later and call you a cro-magnon.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 8:27 PM
Comment #89907

“Oh, one more thing…the thing about the stock market is…it’s not actually a linear thing.”

by thing, I mean function (it’s a math term, and yes it is technical)

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 8:28 PM
Comment #89908

try this link phx8:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 8:30 PM
Comment #89912

Elliotboy wrote:
He said that the Clinton Administration had “correclty focused on bin Laden.” Both quotes came from the December 24, 2000 issue of the Washington Post.
______________

Clinton “correclty focused on bin Laden.” What????!!!! read these, While I crack up laughing:

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/ijaz121101.html

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.regnery.com/regnery/030820_losing.html

http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/sudan_bin_laden.html


Ok, I’m back. And the “critique the message, not the messenger”, I can give props to someone if I want. And he was right. Hence, “right on!”

Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 8:44 PM
Comment #89923

I know I mispelled Daschele, but who cares…he’s not in the Senate anymore.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 9:56 PM
Comment #89924

Robert,
Thanks, I can never remember the word “logarithmic function.” I just look at the Federal Reserve as a bucket of water with a tap. Investment in Bonds and Notes as well as Savings adds more water to the bucket and the market plus taxes adds and subtracts water from the bucket. Everything else I am glad to see somebody knows what this words really mean.

While I am surprised that the market is up around 10500, I am still worried about the shift in the market that is coming hard. Hopefully the Fed can keep it from happening until spring, but high energy costs and lack of investing the hugh profits by the oil companys will have to be passed through the economy very soon.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 10:03 PM
Comment #89927

If you look at the market as well. The price of oil that gets people so worried is actually the futures price. With that, the price of oil now is around what(?) $59 a barrel. Anyway, my point is that there is a lot of room for gas prices to come down. I predict that the majority of the country will come down below $2/gal (except for Chicago…since even when it was .75/gal in Missouri it was 1.86 in Chicago)but then it will go back up after Thanksgiving b/c the refineries must switch their production to heating oil. The BIG problem is the fact that there is so much regulation and too many tree-huggers who have made it darn near impossible to build a new refinery and we are at an impasse with out supply abilities. Any questions? This is an apolitical post. haha

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 10:26 PM
Comment #89935

Robert,
That is one reason I think President Bush messed up real good. Katrina and Rita gave us an area the size of England to redesign and build back better than ever. How can a tree hugger object to refineries that produce bio-deisel and ethonal? Talk about a spark toward the future. Could you see if the government released enough money into the market so that we could build the plants that could produce the “Green Products” that will be required to rebuild that entire area? Now does a tree hugger want to scream because we will have to do some major rearranging of the coast to make it safer for all Americans to visit and be a shining light on what we can do in the future? Besides, it would be a good proven grounds, Florida certainly did alot for safer building materails after Andrew. Maybe that is why they don’t get so much damage from the storms.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 10:41 PM
Comment #89942

Henry

Why do you think they brought back the 30year bonds. more money to balance the budget!

I personally wish they would scrap this tax code and start over with something simpler and more effective. but it will never happen!

Posted by: cad at November 2, 2005 10:57 PM
Comment #89946

How is it that Bush messed up though? The reason that New Orleans and the Texas gulf coast is where 80% of refineries (don’t hold me to that number b/c I think it’s actually more) are is b/c of the ports there and the locality to the oil (if you didn’t know—although those are obvious reasons). As for “green products” and tree-huggers allowing for refineries of ethanol and such. Do you realize the only reason that ethanol blended fuels are “cheaper” at the pump is b/c there are SO MANY subsidies paid by us the taxpayers to ethanol plants and the oil companies for blending fuels. So basically you’re still paying just as much or more in the end. It’s kind of phantom economics, but it is there trust me. My objection is that why does it take 10 years and over $30 billion to build a refinery. Why? There’s where the tree-huggers come in. Trust me, I’m all for recycling and such, and I’m all for the idea that renewable fuels may be the better CHOICE for us if they can become practical. Right now, to get rid of oil as a basis for our fuel needs, we’d have to make engines out of plastics (no need for lubrication), we’d have to make a fuel cell that produces enough power for a long enough period of time that it becomes feasible, and heating would have to be shifted to something other than natural gas and heating oil. That would mean there would have to be some sort of fuel that burns efficiently or produces enough energy to supply the needs.

I’m an engineer, and if I could get funding for this…I would spend my lifetime to try to find a way to do all this practically, but I doubt that within the next 50 years that we will be able to reduce our dependence on oil.

The solution is to produce more fuel for the time being. Demand around the world is skyrocketing and supply is keeping up through OPEC, but OUR supply is not. My brother works in the oil industry and 85% of the refineries in the ENTIRE industry are running as full capacity or slightly higher than the “intended capacity”. I could go ON AND ON.

I think the final solution may be something that Bush actually suggested. Use closed down military bases. The BIGGEST problem there is getting the crude TO those areas.

any more questions?

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 11:08 PM
Comment #89947

Robert,
Good yahoo link.

You write: “Bush has hardly ANYTHING to do with the economy despite what people really believe. He has ideas and he makes suggestions to congress, but THEY are the ones who write and pass the budgets…”

The President has more influence upon the economy than any other individual in the country. While the President cannot take sole credit or blame for the economy, the combination of both Legislative & Executive branches gives Bush & the Republicans the opportunity for full credit, or full blame.

By most traditional measurements, the recent recession was relatively mild. What makes it exceptional is the inability of the economy to recover. While GDP is healthy, wages for workers are down for the Bush administration. That’s bad.

The biggest problem is the miserable failure of Bush administration policies to generate jobs. Personally, I blame it on outsourcing.

To put this into perspective- a perspective with a decidedly partisan twist:

During four years of the Carter administration, the economy generated @ 10 million jobs.

During five years of the Bush administration, the economy generated @ 1 million jobs.

To put it another way:

During the past five years, the US population has increased @ 13 million, yet the economy has generated only 1 million jobs.

So why digress into this discussion? More and more people are coming to the same conclusion; sometime next year the economy will peak.

And when the next downturn comes, we’ll be in a very very poor position, entering the recession saddled with enormous debts & deficits, and untenable foreign commitments.

We’ll draw down in Iraq, partly because a monthly expenditure averaging 5.9 billion will become intolerable.

You know, Bush could simply declare victory. After all, Saddam is gone, and the Iraqis have been provided with an opportunity to form a representative government.

Hopefully Bush will make a virtue of necessity.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2005 11:10 PM
Comment #89948

Cad,
Actually the reason the brought back the 30 year bonds was to force more people to turn over their money quicker and not occur the long term interest rates on the federal budget.

However, given the choice to invest in your inherent best interests or be taxed which one do you want? It would only cost approx. $13,000.00 a year invested by every working American (160 million or so) to cover the federal budget. Interest excluded, what else would we need to raise taxes for?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 11:10 PM
Comment #89951

phx8,

1 million jobs in 5 years? is that relative? b/c during the years of 2003 and 2004 over 3 million jobs were created. So you spin your numbers to make Jimmy Carter look “good”? What world are you living in?

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 11:20 PM
Comment #89952

And to say that the President has that much power over the economy is a misconception. Yes, he has a “bully pulpit” of sorts b/c he is THE figure-head of the govt and the Executive Branch and can make requests and such, but I’m not sure that he even has to sign the budget into law. That I will admit I don’t know.

Maybe you can help me with that.

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 11:22 PM
Comment #89953

instead of actually debating the points it’s “Bush is bad” “Bush is incompetent” “Bush lied”. All of a sudden lying is important?

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #89957

Robert.
Our ability to go off oil is just a step away from happening. Check out this Pulsed Electromagnetic motor by GM as just one example at just how far technology has come in the last 30 years.

No, the only thing from keeping us from dealing with our pollution problems is our leadership anfd their loyality to the oil companys. What we need to do today is to explain to the Middle East that they are about to go broke if they still want to rely on only oil for their national income.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 2, 2005 11:42 PM
Comment #89960

Sure…if you want to pay 65000 for a car the size of a Ford Fiesta…I could make an engine like that too. Great idea. Nice jab at Bush for his ties to the oil companies, but Clinton has the same ties. Along with MANY other leaders on both sides. They are all “in bed” with the oil companies, and the steel companies, and a lot more. They are the building blocks of this country and our economy. Grow up and realize that things aren’t as easy as you make them out to be, just to be simplistic. You produce some of these things that reduce all the dependence on oil. What happens to the thousands of people who are employed by the oil companies? Talk about job issues!!

Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2005 11:55 PM
Comment #89964

Robert,
Here is a wikipedia article on job creation by presidential term.

The 3 million jobs you’re referring to are the ones created from the low point of the recent recession.

It’s no spin. It’s not a matter of opinion. Would you prefer to compare Bush’s job creation numbers with Clinton’s numbers? Carter created @ 10 million jobs in 4 years. Clinton created @ 23 million jobs in eight years. Now that’s a remarkable performance. Compare those numbers with job creation stats under other Republican administrations. Notice a pattern? But as for the present, the conclusion about the Bush economic performance, particularly job creation, is inescapable:

The truth is, the Bush economic performance really is that bad.

He’s very likely to become the first two-recession president.

On another note…
The President has many ways to influence the economy: appointments reflecting policies, such as Chairman of the Fed, Treasury Secretary, and so on; ability to promote or veto legislation, to raise of lower taxes, to increase or cut spending; actions such as declaring war, or busting unions… and more.
Every administration faces difficulties, sometimes foreign, sometimes domestic. Some difficulties are relatively random, others self-inflicted.
Yes, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but a president can take credit/blame for economic performance.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2005 12:02 AM
Comment #89969

Robert,
Please, the first car to roll of the assembly line that does not require fuel is a hugh lift to the matket and consumer. What our government needs to do is to push this technology so that we can change our local, state, and federal fleets and save taxe dollars. Or will the Conservatives and Liberals stay loyal to oil today as they did in the late 1800’s with the Whalers?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 3, 2005 12:17 AM
Comment #89972

Would you prefer to look at the actual TIMES that these presidents had and the things that occured to effect job growth? As for being a two recession president…he already is…and has gotten us out of both of them. The one he inherited and the one post-9/11. I’m sorry when did Bush name a chairman to the Fed…oh that’s right just this week!!! That means he inherited that too. You also didn’t look at the 11 million that Ronald Reagan put on the board (17 mil overall). And finally, the paragraph directly above that!!

“The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. They only include nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President’s term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery). Furthermore, it is debatable as to how much effect any President realistically has on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists.”

Posted by: Robert at November 3, 2005 12:24 AM
Comment #89973

What do you suggest Henry subsidies to consumers to buy these cars like they’re talking about doing with TV? And who pays for THAT?

Posted by: Robert at November 3, 2005 12:26 AM
Comment #89978

Robert,
If you don’t think such employment statistics are useful, why bother to mention the Reagan numbers? Fact is, despite limitations, the non-farm payroll statistics are the best available.

You’re right, I didn’t mention the Reagan numbers. Didn’t mention Bush #41 either. You’re welcome.

Is the scale of a president’s effect upon the economy debatable? Of course. It’s not a question of if there’s an effect; it’s a question of how much. Unless you can name someone else, I’ll stick with the statement, and re-affirm that the office of the President has more effect on the economy than any other individual or organization (including the Fed).

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2005 12:45 AM
Comment #89981

Robert-
Definition: Tax incentives- what Republicans call subsidies so they get to manipulate the market. SUVs had a mighty big subsidy in that respect.

In the real world, technology develops more than drops out of mid-air. Superconducting magnets didn’t work out like we thought for transportation, but they are at the core of most MRI machines. Computers haven’t got much smarter, but they’ve gotten a hell of a lot better at channelling and processing information.

Materials technology is at a point where we’re beginning to design these machines. But yet, we aren’t at the point of being able to do this on a molecular level. Could nanotech change that? Perhaps, but my instinct tell me it could be some time before the changes get that far, if ever. One thing technology doesn’t do nowadays, it sit still. Go look at your hybrids.

The problem isn’t tree-huggers. It’s those who embrace the mindless philosophy of market fundamentalism, acting as if the market can do all the thinking and deciding for people.

Well, you know, sometimes people have to act outside the formal boundaries of the market to make it work. After all, it is a human enterprise, and there’s more to us than just dollars and cents.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2005 12:55 AM
Comment #89982

then go take an economics course b/c you’re WAY off base

Posted by: Robert at November 3, 2005 12:55 AM
Comment #89984

Robert,
Almost let it pass, but… what is this about the Bush presidency already undergoing two recessions? You’re making that up, and you know it.

Are you referring to stock market performances? A drop in the markets is not the same as a recession. You know that, I’m sure. Please explain why the Bush administration has already undergone two recessions.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2005 1:08 AM
Comment #89988

rahdigly,

I guess those Reagan counterterrorism officials were lying, huh? They respected the job the Clinton administration did - why don’t you believe them?

An I’m still waiting for you to back up your assertion that there was no backlash against Truman.

Eric,
I’m still waiting for you to back up your claim of a “very nasty” campaign by Jiseph Wilson against President Bush.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 3, 2005 1:35 AM
Comment #89989

as I stated…the one he inherited…and brought us out of before the effects of 9/11 got into full swing…which took about 8 months. Stock market performance had been going down and kept going down post-9/11.

Posted by: Robert at November 3, 2005 1:38 AM
Comment #89990

Stephen…it’s not mindless philosophy of market fundamentalism. It’s called the first law of economics (supply and demand). Or are you gonna argue with Newton that the first law of Physics isn’t “what goes up must come down” b/c he’s mindlessly philosophizing in physical fundamentalism?

Posted by: Robert at November 3, 2005 1:44 AM
Comment #89994

Robert,
You’re wrong, and you know it. Here is the Wikipedia definition of a recession:

“A recession is usually defined in macroeconomics as a fall of a country’s real Gross Domestic Product in two or more successive quarters of a year.”

The fall of the NASDAQ in 2000 was a leading indicator of recession, not the recession itself.

The largest percentage drop for most of the stock markets came in 2002, after the Bush tax cuts.

You might contest the duration of the Bush recession by ignoring the traditional defintion of a recession, and including leading indicators in the timeline. However, an argument over the duration does not change the fact that it was one event, one recession.

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2005 2:07 AM
Comment #89995

hate to break it to you…but when Bush took office…it was in the middle of a stretch of 5 straight quarters of loss (4 under clinton and 1 under Bush—jan to march) that by definition is a recession followed by 3 or 4 straight quarters of no-growth or small growth…that is the recession I am referring to

Posted by: Robert at November 3, 2005 2:20 AM
Comment #89996

Robert,
Baloney. Prove it. Provide a link. Cite specific statistics. Here is Wikipedia on the Bush recession:

“The US economy experienced negative growth in three non-consecutive quarters in the early 2000s, the third quarter of 2000, the first quarter of 2001, and the third quarter of 2001. Using the common definition of a recession as “as a fall of a country’s real Gross Domestic Product in two or more successive quarters”, then the United States was not technically in recession during this period.

The beginning and ending dates of the recession, however, are argued by those using a less traditional definition of the term. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Early 2000s recession lasted from March 2001 to November 2001, as “real” Gross Domestic Product (Regular GDP adjusted for inflation) dropped during this period by 0.6% total from the fourth quarter of 2000.”

I’ve cited specifics, and I’ll provide more statistics if requested. You’re turn. Back it up, or give it up.

Posted by: Phx8 at November 3, 2005 2:40 AM
Comment #89997

Robert,

Phillipe

[…]

The problem with your response to my comment is…John Kerry said those things during the Democratic primaries in 2003. He also said that “if you don’t think that we should confront Saddam over is weapons of mass destruction and that they are a threat, then you shouldn’t vote for me”. Don’t you remember that being one of the half a 100 things that he flip-flopped on?

The problem with your counter-argument to my post is I don’t care about John Kerry and what he could have said because I’m french, not an american, so I don’t have to align myself with Kerry or whoever in US political landscape.

What I argue about is saying “the suspected (not hard fact) WMDs of Saddam Hussein may pose a grave threat” is not a lie. Unfortunatly, that was NOT what Bush said in his now famous SOTU. He presented this threat as hard facts. Which nobody had at this time (not even Saddam himself I suspect, go figure!). I consider presenting suspected threats as facts is lying. Manipulating intelligence at best!

And then what Walker said “but those of us grounded in reality know better”.

Again, unfortunatly, Bushies didn’t know better about WMDs existence (and, so, how much threating they were supposed to be). Maybe because, after all, they were NOT that grounded in reality either. Less than UN inspectors in Iraq that were far near the reality while grounded in Iraq land, at least…

You people still believe that Bush “stole” the election in 2000. You still believe that Ohio should have been given to Kerry. Honestly Walker…do you think that Reid is a moderate? another example of alternative reality.

These points are voided because I’m not one of the “You people” you think I’m part of.
Plus everyone live in his own alternative reality, The Reality is just what’s commonly accepted by the huge majority of people.

- Philippe the frenchy.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 3, 2005 5:11 AM
Comment #89998

Robert,

Grow up and realize that things aren’t as easy as you make them out to be, just to be simplistic. You produce some of these things that reduce all the dependence on oil. What happens to the thousands of people who are employed by the oil companies? Talk about job issues!!

The Energy companies have already started to move to be in the next energy(ies) market fields. Here in France, Total & BP are both focusing on solar and wind energies more and more. I can’t see reasons why their current workforce can’t be re-used on producing these new energy source(s)!

One job issue I agree here, indeed, is that some alternative energy source need less workers than for oil. Solar and Wind come to mind.

Plus, you know, oil resources are not limitless so one day or another, the people currently working in oil producing will face this job issue if they (or their companies) don’t move to others energy sources production.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 3, 2005 5:33 AM
Comment #90002

Robert,
We the Consumers pay for Everything! no matter who is at the wheel of our society thats way IMO we need to teach our children how our economy works in school. Talk about a good reason to stay in school. However, that is beside the point for now.

Besides Robert, why doesn’t anybody want to talk about the approx. 2500 points on the market in 2001 that was bought on margin in a time when the economy was cooling down. Wasn’t that sort of the same thing that happened in 98 when President Clinton and Mr. Greenspan closed the markets until all bets were covered?

However, today we lack enough money going into our National Treasury. Therefore, Robert by every American investing a small part of their payroll taxes to purchase U.S. Federal Reserve “Special” Treasury Notes over the next century or so than you have to ask Mr. Greenspan what it would do because while I understood it when I heard him talk about at a Senate Meeting in 2004 there is no way I’m going to attempt to explain the mechanics of it. This way we have the credit to purchase these products. Hopefully the Youth of today have learned a few things from the Youth of the 60’s.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 3, 2005 6:36 AM
Comment #90006

Elliotbay wrote:
I guess those Reagan counterterrorism officials were lying, huh? They respected the job the Clinton administration did - why don’t you believe them?

An I’m still waiting for you to back up your assertion that there was no backlash against Truman.
_______________________________________

I never said the Reagan officials were lying; I just don’t agree with them. And, by that extension, I was laughing at them as well as that statement. Ha! Since when did the Reagan Administration, or any other administration for that matter, know how to deal with terrorism? All the Presidents (except GWB) did little or nothing at all in dealing with terrorism; and that especially includes Clinton. Check those links again. In fact, you can google the heck out of it; just type in “Clinton and terrorism” or “Clinton and Osama Bin Laden” and you’ll get plenty of information that counters your two sources, bigtime.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25717

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
_________________________________

As far as the “I’m still waiting for you to back up your assertion that there was no backlash against Truman.”

Well, keep waiting b/c I never said that. Read my post again, elliotboy: “Truman didn’t go through any of the slander and backlash, from the American people, like Bush did. Truman didn’t have to hear the anti-war crowd saying things like “Bush lied kids died”…”

I know Truman took a hit on that war, my point was Truman didn’t have it nearly as bad as Bush has. As I’ve said, their certainly wasn’t a backlash against Truman like there was (is) against Bush. That’s just a fact, buddy. Go look it up, show me where they were examples of people screaming “no blood for oil”, “Bush lied kids died”, “Bush is a Terrorist”, etc. to Truman as they do for Bush.

Also, show me where there were mass media outlets “reporting” that kind of “freedom of speech” every night for 2 years straight!

Posted by: rahdigly at November 3, 2005 7:28 AM
Comment #90039

Robert-
Clinton’s legacy? How about your wonderful legislature? They weren’t exactly wallflowers during that time, now where they? Clinton is to blame in that he allowed accounting laws and the laws separating the sale of equities from the issuing of loans to the same corporations But who pushed that crap on us?

Because of those changes, a permissive enough environment was created to both create the illusory wealth that created the stock bubble, and to bring it down when the corporations getting away with things finally had to pay the piper. Many of the regulations your people decried were meant to prevent the false creation and fraudulent transfer of wealth. Predictably, when removed, those whose competitiveness and greed outweighed their ethics and morality took their opportunity to make their fortunes.

Capitalism works to the extent that the production of wealth encourages people to do useful things for the rest of us, in the form of goods and services. The economic is not a simple system, nor is supply and demand.

An economy works when it gets people what they need at a reasonable price, when people can support themselves without outside help, so long as they consent to live within their means. The current system is pushing people past that, past what the market can bear. Just paying the rich more won’t improve the economy. The wealth has to be shared, or the circulation through our economy will be poor indeed.

Your system is stagnating on its own inequity You can’t have a consumer economy running on all cylinders if the only fuel for its continued prosperity is debt. That is what your president encouraged, both publically and privately. Notice the steady uptick in the Fed rate, the drop in the dollar?

I have lived through the wonders of your party’s economic policy, and from my perspective, I much prefer liberal policy to conservative.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2005 10:05 AM
Comment #90057

Dave
The fact that only 38% of Americans approve of Bush says more than all the pontification and spin any Rove or clone can produce.

There is a neo-lib stratagity that has been around for a number of years. It started with the communist and the neo-libs picked up on it (I guess it’s because they’re so close in idelolgy).
Anyway it say ‘Tell a lie long enough and soon most people will believe it.’ And the neo-libs have been telling lies about Bush now for 8 years.
Every time the news comes on, in the newspapers, magizines, over the internet, and every other way they can think of. With so many lies being told about him, and very little truth, it’s NO WONDER that most people don’t approve of Bush.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 3, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #90061

There is no doubt in my mind that Joe Wilson is a scumbag. That doesn’t give anyone the right though to blow his wife’s cover. And who ever did it needs to spend the next 30 years at hard labor.
Fitzgearld says that there’s no evidence that Libby outted Valerie Plame. Someone did and I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut it was Wilson.
Why? Who knows, the guy has proven himself to be an idiot. But I’ll also bet that he won’t get investigated or indicted if he is. He’s the lefts NEW darling and they’ll protect him at the cost of more CIA agents being outted of necessary.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 3, 2005 11:24 AM
Comment #90084
There is no doubt in my mind that Joe Wilson is a scumbag. That doesn’t give anyone the right though to blow his wife’s cover.

Yes, Joe Wilson’s a real scumbag alright. Only a scumbag would stand up to Hussein’s face with a noose around his neck and dare him to blink, just to help save the lives of a few hundred Americans.

At least we agree that no matter what your opinion is of Wilson, it gave no one the right to out his wife.

And who ever did it needs to spend the next 30 years at hard labor.

Hey look at us. Agreeing on two sentences in a row.

Fitzgearld says that there’s no evidence that Libby outted Valerie Plame.

Ooops. Now you gone and done it. Sorry, but that’s a big fat fib. From the Fitzgerald press conference:

“Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson’s wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.”


Someone did and I’ll bet a dollar to a doughnut it was Wilson.

You lose the bet, but I’m confused. Do I get a dollar or a doughnut?

Why? Who knows, the guy has proven himself to be an idiot.

Egotistical? Perhaps. Idiotic? No.

But I’ll also bet that he won’t get investigated or indicted if he is.

Well, that’s for sure considering he isn’t accused of doing anything illegal.

He’s the lefts NEW darling and they’ll protect him at the cost of more CIA agents being outted of necessary.

I’m sure you must know much more about this case than I, but how exactly would outting CIA agents protect Joe Wilson?

Posted by: Burt at November 3, 2005 12:44 PM
Comment #90100

In the whole last week of talking about Joseph Wilson (and the Iraq war), only two major newspapers — The Chicago Tribune and the Investors Business Daily — have mentioned the name of Ibrahim Mayaki.

In all the sound and fury, not even The Associated Press, on which thousands of American newspapers rely for national and international news, has referred to Mayaki.

Mayaki was Niger’s former prime minister whom Wilson met in Niger on his famous February 2002 trip. And what did Mayaki tell Wilson? He told Wilson he thought Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger.

Mayaki said an Iraqi delegation came to him in 1999 with an overture for “expanding commercial relations.” As he explained to Wilson, to him, that meant they wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson found no evidence that a uranium deal had gone through, but he certainly found evidence that Saddam sought uranium from Africa. And that’s exactly what President Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union message.

But Wilson doesn’t talk publicly about Mayaki, and the press doesn’t ask him about Mayaki. Why not?

I have a more complete post on this here.

Posted by: Frank Warner at November 3, 2005 1:24 PM
Comment #90107

rahdigly,

You said there “wasn’t a backlash against Truman like there was (is) against Bush”. How do you know that? Did you read the newspapers from the time? Did you read the Congressional Record from the time? What evidence can you offer to back up your statement? I’m not disputing what you said - I just want you to back your claims up. You made the claim, not me, rahdigly. You can’t avoid that. If you make a statement of fact, you need to be able to back it up. Otherwise you won’t have any credibility in here.

And I’ve noticed that you’ve pretty consistently referred to me in here as “Elliottboy”, which is incorrect. It’s “ElliottBay”. I don’t know if you’re deliberately trying to be insulting or not. I’m going to presume that it was unintentional. However, from now on, please try to get it right.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 3, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #90117

Ron Brown-
So, the American people are too stupid to see throught those damned liberal’s lies.

Or maybe they see what’s in front of them and consider that instead of the spin, which only serves to further alienate them. People cannot buy rationalization forever without evidence that it’s truly rational, and not just pleasant sounding fiction. They can’t look at a terrible situation that continues to get worse, then believe the light is at the end of the tunnel isn’t the train.

It’s easier to believe it’s all a liberal conspiracy than that your people are wrong.

Frank Warner-
Mayaki told him that their had been some sort of meeting where the Iraqi delegation hinted at it. That said, there was no deal, and as I’ve posted elsewhere, the CIA says that Niger really didn’t matter because they had all manner of Uranium ore already on hand (under IAEA seal, though) The key is not merely seeking the material, but being able to attain it, which was strictly out of the question. One Uranium mine was flooded, the other is under the control of an international combine that includes our friends and allies. Additionally, all their supplies of it were already bought up.

Taken out of context, it may look good, but this illustrates why you take such things in context. Iraq is not a threat if nobody is selling them the parts or the chemicals to make their weapons, or if they don’t have the facilities. There were ways to find out whether this was the case, ways this administration did not employ.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2005 2:01 PM
Comment #90119

Elliotbay wrote:

You said there “wasn’t a backlash against Truman like there was (is) against Bush”. How do you know that? Did you read the newspapers from the time?
_____________________

Look it up! You’re the google master. You’re the one that always tries (and I said tries) to call me on my facts. Where are the facts that people were this hateful and vocal about President Truman as they are about Bush? Instead of “no blood for oil”, did you see “no blood for kimchee”?! Instead of “Bush is a terrorist”, did you see “Truman is a Communist”?!! How about “Bush is a Nazi”, did you see that for truman?!!!

All you have stated thus far is the fact that Truman, as well as other Presidents, took a hit in poll numbers. Big deal. Presidents drop in popularity all the time and for all kinds of issues. This was (one of) the reasons I used the Korean War/ Iraq War analogy with the two Presidents. Intelligence was bad in both wars and US soldiers died as a result of it. The difference is the animosity and hatred for Bush. It is clear for all to see.

So, look it up for yourself; I’m not giving a history lesson to you. I’m not going to quote something that’s not there. If you disagree with my comment on Truman and Bush’s treatment from the people, then show me where the hateful comments were with Truman.

And as far as “Elliotboy”, that was done purposely when you made inane, attacking comments towards me; like a little boy would do. When you challenged me straight up, then I called you Elliotbay. Huh, it only took ten times for you to figure it out. Good job, buddy…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 3, 2005 2:08 PM
Comment #90120

Vice President Cheney recently announced that Frank Warner may be constituting his own personal nuclear weapons program.


“Today,” Cheney intoned, “Mr. Warner posted a comment on the internet which repeatedly mentions ‘uranium.’ Despite warnings, it is clear that Mr. Warner continues to purchase tools which can be used to construct a nuclear weapon. Three seperate sources confirm that Mr. Warner conceals these tools in an area which remains closed to our inspectors, and whose doors are often locked. Even worse, Mr. Warner has the ability to use his computer to download thousands of pages of material for the continuation of his nuclear program and the use of his tools, which include wrenches, hammers, and a powerful staple gun. What will Mr. Warner do with those materials in his garage? He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.”

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2005 2:21 PM
Comment #90129
Mayaki was Niger’s former prime minister whom Wilson met in Niger on his famous February 2002 trip. And what did Mayaki tell Wilson? He told Wilson he thought Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger.

No. That is a gross exaggeration.

Mayaki said an Iraqi delegation came to him in 1999 with an overture for “expanding commercial relations.”

This is also untrue. A Nigerian businessman approached Mayaki to set up a meeting with an Iraqi delegation. The Nigerian said that the subject of the meeting was for “expanding commercial relations”. At that point he had never met, nor discussed anything with the Iraqis, let alone “expanding commercial relations”. At the time, Mayaki thought that the Iraqis might want to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. However, when the meeting actually occured, no uranium was discussed. Wilson knew this, and it was why he did not consider it an overture by the Iraqis toward trying to accumulate yellowcake.

Generally, if someone sets up a meeting to purchase something, they actually talk about purchasing something. That wasn’t the case.

Wilson found no evidence that a uranium deal had gone through, but he certainly found evidence that Saddam sought uranium from Africa. And that’s exactly what President Bush said in his January 2003 State of the Union message.

He found nothing of the sort.

But Wilson doesn’t talk publicly about Mayaki, and the press doesn’t ask him about Mayaki. Why not?

Wilson does talk publicly about Mayaki…especially when the press asks him about him. Google is your friend.

Posted by: Burt at November 3, 2005 3:15 PM
Comment #90154

Stephen Daugherty
It’s easier to believe it’s all a liberal conspiracy than that your people are wrong.

They’re NOT my people. And they ARE wrong, they’re liberial too. I left the Republican party back in 1970 because of it’s liberial views.

No, the American people are not to stupid to see through the lies of the Democrats. Or the lies of the Republicans for that matter. It’s just that if your lied to all the time it seems easier to believe the lies, or maybe ignore them, than to take a stand against them. Either way it works the politicans lie and the public excepts their lies.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 3, 2005 3:58 PM
Comment #90170

“Burned the biggest bridge in political history”

One of the more breathless statements I’ve read in awhile. Its a simple political move. A blip. A Minor irritant. So what.

Move on.

Posted by: leaf at November 3, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #90217

It appears that “lies” are the main ingredient in a lot of these postings. Therefore I submit that Joe Wilson should step forward and straighten out all those lies he has put forth and that would certainly answer many, many questions; from Valerie to Libby to Niger to WMD’S.

Posted by: tomh at November 3, 2005 6:13 PM
Comment #90230

tomh,

Until you retract your statement that Joe Wilson outted his own wife, you are the proven liar.

Posted by: Burt at November 3, 2005 6:54 PM
Comment #90373

rahdigly,

How very mature of you. Calm down. As I said, I wasn’t disputing you. I was just asking how you knew that people didn’t say stuff like that about Truman.

The problem with your Iraq-Korea analogy is that it isn’t accurate. Truman’s justification for the Korean War was the same as Bush I’s justification for the 1st Gulf War - to drive an aggressor nation out of the country it invaded. The Chinese did not get involved when US troops initially landed in South Korea, they got involved when US troops crossed into North Korea and approached the Chinese border. And although you claim that we didn’t know about their plans, the links I posted show that the Chinese certainly didn’t try to hide them.

“Faulty intelligence” had nothing to do with the start of the Korean War, so it doesn’t make Iraq similar to Korea. The Korean War started because North Korea invaded South Korea. Furthermore, as you yourself said, there is faulty intelligence in ALL wars. So you could as well have argued that Iraq was EQUALLY similar to WWI, The Spanish-American War, The War of 1812, The Boer War, The Pig War, The Civil War, or the 100 Years War. Or even the Vietnam War.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 3, 2005 11:00 PM
Comment #90379

Elliottbay,

“The Chinese did not get involved when US troops initially landed in South Korea, they got involved when US troops crossed into North Korea and approached the Chinese border.”

And Truman only ok’ed it after MacAurthur assured him that the Chinese wouldn’t dare.

From wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur

“After the surprise attack of the North Korean army in June 1950 started the Korean War, the United Nations General Assembly authorized a United Nations (UN) force to help South Korea. MacArthur led the UN coalition counter-offensive, noted for an amphibious landing behind North Korean lines in the Battle of Inchon. As his forces approached the Korea-China border, the Chinese warned they would become involved. During his trip to Wake Island to meet with President Truman, MacArthur was specifically asked by President Truman about Chinese involvement in the war. MacArthur was dismissive.”

Posted by: Rocky at November 3, 2005 11:35 PM
Comment #90383

Rocky,

Thanks for the clafication. My main point was that the Chinese DID give warnings about what would happen if US troops approached the Chinese border. And your link renforces that. As I posted earlier, G-2 also warned that there was a massive Chinese troop buildup on the Chinese side of the China-North Korea border border as US troops neared it. If you scroll back to my post from November 2, 2005 03:01 PM, you’ll see the links I posted to support that asertion.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 3, 2005 11:52 PM
Comment #90390

Robert,

You said

the Clinton administration refused to confront terrorists during the 90’s (mainly since the ‘93 WTC bombing).
Well, for one thing, the Clintons couldn’t have done much BEFORE the ‘93 WTC bombing, because it took place 38 days after his inauguration. And I guess the fact that the Clinton administration captured, tried, convicted, and imprisoned Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Sali Khan Amin Shah, who were the people responsible for the WTC attack is “refusing to confront terrorists”, huh? Maybe you could visit them in prison and ask them if THEY think the Clinton administration refused to confront them.

Lemme ask you a question, Robert. If Bush II was so serious about terrorism, why didn’t he mention it in his first State of the Union address? I went back and read it. He didn’t mention the word “terrorist” one time, other than referring to “eco-terrorists”. Why is that, Robert?

And if Bush was so serious about terrorism, why did his administration ignore warnings from Clinton’s terrorism experts Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke about how serious a threat Al Qaeda was going to be? Did you know that Berger and Clarke between them briefed Condaleeza Rice and her deputy TEN TIMES about terrorism? Do you also know that Rice lied about that and said she’d never met with Berger, only to admit later that she had? Did you know that the anti-terrorism plan that Bush implemented following 9-11 (with the notable exception of the invasion of Iraq) was the one written by Richard Clarke following the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000? It was. Did you also know that it had been turned over to the Bush administration when they took ofice, BUT THEY IGNORED IT? It’s true. This was all published in various news reports from the time. It’s also condensed in the August 2002 issue of Time Magazine, if you don’t believe me.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 4, 2005 12:30 AM
Comment #90404

Julia,

“I’m not loyal to anyone because of their title, or because other people think they’re a good guy. I’m loyal when they deserve my loyalty. For a president, my loyaly is given when they have proven themselves to be intelligent and competent.”

The shifting ‘values’ of the left is truly frightening. History is full of many competent and intelligent but terrible world leaders. Perhaps having taken his organization to the top of priority lists in coutnries around the world and his “intelligence and competency” unquestioned, Osama Bin Laden is the best candidate suited to lead the contrarian Democratic Party today. :-/

Stephen,

“The problem isn’t tree-huggers. It’s those who embrace the mindless philosophy of market fundamentalism, acting as if the market can do all the thinking and deciding for people.
Well, you know, sometimes people have to act outside the formal boundaries of the market to make it work. After all, it is a human enterprise, and there’s more to us than just dollars and cents.”

The mindless philosophy of humanist fundamentalism is no better. Change is not synonymous with progress. “Whatever works” is not a precept many Christians will fall for— note the meltdown in the GOP these days.

Stephen,

“Clinton is to blame in that he allowed accounting laws and the laws separating the sale of equities from the issuing of loans to the same corporations But who pushed that crap on us?”

Harry Reid has given a very nice object lesson why your argument of being ‘pushed around’ does not hold up. The Democrats may be in the minority but they are far from helpless.

Robert,

“[…]it’s not mindless philosophy of market fundamentalism. It’s called the first law of economics (supply and demand). Or are you gonna argue with Newton that the first law of Physics isn’t “what goes up must come down” b/c he’s mindlessly philosophizing in physical fundamentalism?”

Law of supply and demand reflects better the humanist view of natural (the physical world is supreme) law than Christian charity (spirit of love has dominion over fallen nature). Supply and demand cannot work properly if thwarted by charitable unselfish acts.

The GOP’s claim to represent Christian values is merely whitewash and groundless. Publicly proclaiming to support families and Christians in the media while sneaking around in secret boardrooms reminds one of Judas Iscariot.

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 5:04 AM
Comment #90444

Jo-
Don’t look now, but you’ve defended having an incompetent fool as a leader. If a leader does well, by definition they are competent. They can make mistakes, but they won’t let people down totally, typically.

As for humanist fundamentalism, my comment had nothing to do with humanism, much less in a fanaticaly sense. The market is a human enterprise, and the economy only one face of society. I’m simply saying that there are things that affect the economy that don’t start with dollars and cents. It’s not a closed system, nor is it one without human, natural, and emotional factors. The market is supposed to work by the gathered good judgment of the many, as a proving ground for good strategies. It’s not supposed to do our thinking for us. The world’s too complicated and opportunities too manifold for us to rely on experience as our only teacher, and that what the market basically functions by.

As for Harry Reid, he doesn’t have the power to win on a party-line vote. Frist does, and he uses it.

As for the laws of supply and demand, you’re forgetting that much thought goes into what people demand, and much trouble, design and process goes into what people supply. It’s not necessarily straightforward. Every innovation has started at low demand, and gone up as it’s caught on.

Charity and unselfish acts are necessary, because the market will not always steer us to do the right thing. It’s herd behavior that can often lead to ruin, if principle are not applied to its operation.

Not everybody can be in a position to support themselves all the time. If we support others, they might be able to get back to supporting themselves, or at the very least free others not to have to bear their burdens.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2005 10:01 AM
Comment #90446

Elliotbay:
The problem with your Iraq-Korea analogy is that it isn’t accurate. Truman’s justification for the Korean War was the same as Bush I’s justification for the 1st Gulf War - to drive an aggressor nation out of the country it invaded.
_________________________________

Alright, check this out. You have to take a look at my previous post “Posted by: rahdigly at November 2, 2005 07:18 PM “. That’ll answer that.

I’ll try to be very mature about this: “You have to read my posts and stop taking me out of context”. I complimented you on the Persian Gulf/Korean War analogy on the invasion. I also answered and backed up the “faulty intelligence” getting US soldiers killed and I backed up the slander towards Bush that Truman didn’t receive.

One last time, we went into both wars for different reasons; however, the “faulty intel” got our soldiers killed and Truman didn’t pay the price (politically) like Bush did/does.

Now, we’ve got to move on, bro.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 4, 2005 10:09 AM
Comment #90451

Stephen,

Goodness, do we actually agree today? :-o

i think so; except yes, i would much rather have an incompetent fool for a leader than an intelligent effective leader intent on destroying us. See, i also have some faith in the people. A moral people will stand despite a slippery leader and i have more confidence in the law of sowing and reaping than i have in the law of supply and demand. ;)

Posted by: jo at November 4, 2005 10:22 AM
Comment #90488

rahdigly

You said this on November 1, 2005 at 11:19 PM:

Harry Truman went to war in Korea based on faulty intelligence
The problem with that statement is that Truman didn’t go to war based on faulty intelligence. He went to war based on the fact that North Korea invaded South Korea.

I agree with you that faulty intelligence gets soldiers killed. Here’s one example I happen to be familiar with. The Battle of Gettysburg was arguable the turning point of the Civl War. But it took place only because Lee’s confederate army stumbled onto the Union troops completely by accident. The confederate cavalry (commanded by Jeb Stuart) failed in its assigned task of scouting the Union army’s location. The result was as many as 50,000 casualties on both sides. There’s an excellent book about the battle called “The Killer Angels” by Michael Shaara. I highly recommend it.

But the point is that faulty intelligence happens in ALL wars. So comparing Iraq and Korea makes no more sense than comparing Iraq and any other war.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 4, 2005 12:59 PM
Comment #90595

Jo,

Don’t use my comments as the platform for the democratic party, it’s just my own. As for my statements being an indicaton that Osama bin Ladin would make a great leader, I just assumed that at a base level, we all have the same kind of priorities. Those priorities would be, the security of our country, the education of our children, a better standard of living, peace, and justice for all. That sort of thing.

Being competent, to me, would mean being effective at enacting solutions to further those type of goals.

rahdigly,

My argument remains on the Truman scenario. If what you said was true, are you saying that you are happy that Truman went to war on poor data and no one held him to task for that?

If we start saying that the right and proper way to handle things was the polite way we handled them back in the 50s, then wouldn’t it follow that it was “unfair” that Martin Luther King Jr held white people to task for segregation, when no one had said anything about it being bad 10 years before?

Could it be that starting a war on bad data is a bad thing?

Could it be that we should be angry when that happens?

Could it be that we should do our utmost to prevent that from happening again?

Just because problem-solving is hard to do, does not excuse anyone from doing it badly.

It may not be “fair” that some other president didn’t get picked on for being incompetent. But that’s like saying “How come I get a ticket for a DUI when in 1930 it was legal to drink and drive?”

Times change. And this conversation doesn’t alter the fact that we went to war on (at the least) bad data.

Posted by: Julia at November 4, 2005 7:07 PM
Post a comment