Bush lied?

Did Bush lie when he said:

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons…”?

Actually, Bush never said that, the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, Democrat and Senator for the past 18 years said it. A man who is supposed to know something about the quality and accuracy of intelligence, and in particular the quality and accuracy of intelligence about Iraq.

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources--something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction . . . But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East... weeklystandard

George Bush never said anything even remotely this apocolyptic. But it gets better! I remember what was being said in the run up to the war and I find it funny, yes funny, that the only people who actually used the words, "IMMINENT THREAT" were in fact democrats. Democrats who then turned around and accused Bush of lying by claiming he called Iraq an 'imminent threat'.

Senator Rockefeller, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was on Fox News Sunday today and it was an enlightening interview. I am tempted to copy and past the entire transcript for context, but I won't.

WALLACE: OK. Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did.

In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

What is Rockefeller trying to say here? Isn't he trying to say that he was so completely incompetent that he believed the evidence that Iraq had WMD but at the same time was telling heads of state around the world that the evidence didn't matter? ie Bush has a reason to lie. Sounds fishy to me.

Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the presidential daily briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies -- like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power.

They left that out and went ahead with, "They have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power."

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate.

But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the president, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

ROCKEFELLER: The Silverman commission was absolutely prohibited by the president in his charge to them -- he appointed them -- from ever looking at the use of intelligence, whether it was misused, whether it was massaged to influence the American people to go along with a decision which he had long ago already decided to make.

WALLACE: But didn't they come to that conclusion which I just stated, that the presidential daily brief was, in fact, more alarmist and less nuanced than the intelligence you saw?

foxnews sunday transcript

Note: "More alarmist and less nuanced" than the intelligence the congress saw.

Democrats did indeed come to the same conclusion. The same conclusion they came to under the Clinton Presidency. I don't say this to say Clinton lied about WMD, but to point out a simple fact. That when looking at the intelligence from before the war, there was only one conclusion you could come to: Iraq had WMD, Iraq continued to work on producing WMD, and Iraq continued to evade sanctions and inspections for the previous reasons.

After 9/11 the imperative for dealing with this fact had increased from when Clinton was President.

Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people. In fact, he is a repeat offender, having used them both in the battle and against his people. - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Did Albright lie? or SecDef William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, John F. Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Bob Graham, Nancy Pilosi...

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years, and he could have it earlier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?

ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.

WALLACE: OK. But you had read that, and now we've read a declassified...

ROCKEFELLER: But, Chris, let's...

WALLACE: Can I just ask my question, sir?

ROCKEFELLER: Yes.

WALLACE: And then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing the nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the president did.

ROCKEFELLER: Because that -- first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin.

We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote.

But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.

WALLACE: Well, but a lot of people are not -- that's not the point of the investigation, Senator.

ROCKEFELLER: Chris, it is always the same conversation. You know, it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops to...

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm...

WALLACE: You're not?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions.

Priceless.

The sad fact is that Democrats have only one issue here. Only one tactic to play, which is this charge that Bush lied to get us into war. What makes it sad is that they are parroting the far left's false charges in contradiction to their own public statements. All they have in their arsenal is the marxist anti-war chant, "Bush lied, people died." Desperate times begets desperate measures I guess.

What's the point?

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 14, 2005 4:20 AM | TrackBack (1)
Comments
Comment #92639

Chris Wallace did a masterful job of holding Rockefeller’s feet to the fire and making him squirm. It was almost like watching the elder Wallace in the early days of 60 Minutes, back before Andy Rooney went all senile on us.

Now, of course, the Rather/Mapes Network news readers simply create stories to back up their opinions. It’s really sad how far they’ve fallen.

Chris Wallace now represents the finest in take-no-prisoners interviews, in my opinion, especially when facing pompous political hacks.

Great interview!

Posted by: Web Steward at November 14, 2005 5:58 AM
Comment #92641

LOL! So it was the DEMOCRATS who lied to get us into this war! Now it all makes sense. Thanks Eric.

That when looking at the intelligence from before the war, there was only one conclusion you could come to: Iraq had WMD

By March 2003, there’s no way anyone looking at the intelligence could come to that conclusion — but President Bush invaded anyways.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 14, 2005 6:07 AM
Comment #92642

Bush may not have used the words “imminent threat”, but this is the only circumstance that our armed forces should be used aggressively.

Instead, what we got was Bush scaring the bejeezus out of Americans to build support for his pre-emptive war.

I recall one “imminent threat” on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001. I believe the country was under attack and our fearless leader was either frozen solid or really interested in My Pet Goat.
(ok, you can bring up Clinton’s extramarital affair now)

Posted by: MyPetGoat at November 14, 2005 6:13 AM
Comment #92645

Democrats, go back to Junior High - you fail the test to be 9th graders. Your Logical thinking and transparent fibbing demonstrates why you are the Children of politics and Republicans are the Adults.

After exposing people like Sen Rockefeller for making up “stuff” for political gain you make statements like this:

“Bush may not have used the words “imminent threat”, but this is the only circumstance that our armed forces should be used aggressively”.

“LOL! So it was the DEMOCRATS who lied to get us into this war!”

I rest my case.

Posted by: Chris at November 14, 2005 6:41 AM
Comment #92646

Eric,

I find it funny, yes funny, that the only people who actually used the words, “IMMINENT THREAT” were in fact democrats. Democrats who then turned around and accused Bush of lying by claiming he called Iraq an ‘imminent threat’.

Bush may not have used the “imminent” word himself but many other synonisms like urgent threat, threat gathering against us. At end, the effect is the same, right.
His own team interpreted the same way. In mid October 2002, his Press Officer Ari Fleisher confirmed the imminent qualification of Iraq threat by the President:

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

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

If the White House press secretary during pre-war think Bush was saying Iraq was posing an imminent, how mainstreams americans except antiwar ones could think it was not? Are you arguing that democrats were/are all antiwar? If so, why then did they voted yes to war in congress only few weeks after such official Iraq threat qualifications by the White House?

Or are you arguing that qualifying a thread as “urgent” doesn’t mean you think it’s an imminent one??? Bush didn’t say it, only the ones who said *this* exact word were lying or misleaded?!?
Please, stop this foolish rethoric now!

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 6:49 AM
Comment #92647

Goat:

Bush may not have used the words “imminent threat”, but this is the only circumstance that our armed forces should be used aggressively.

Based on your words above, I must then conclude that you opposed Operation Desert Fox in 1998 when the United States used our armed forces aggressively against Iraq. There was no imminent threat then either, though there was of course the same logic used as with Bush’s use of aggressive armed forces (The degree of aggression was different, but the logic for use of armed forces was virtually identical).

It’s so damnably easy to be revisionist. Its like the golfer who stands over a shot, then duffs it into the woods, and grumbles “I knew I was gonna do that.” Well, dammit man, then why did you hit the shot??? The Democrats right now are doing the same thing.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 14, 2005 7:05 AM
Comment #92648

Good Eric

THe Bush lied idea is such a cherished myth among the Bush haters that they will never give it up. Truth will be no defense. It is part of their whole world view. If Bush didn’t lie, then they are wrong in most of their outrage and they love their outrage.

But consider this, if he lied George Bush sure must be a smart guy. He can trick all these experienced Senators. He can deceive people who have more experience in foreign affairs than he does. He can bamboozle powerful men and women who have access to intelligence and can ask any questions they want. Even someone like Hilary Clinton, who has a lot of first hand experience with presidential cheating, just take Bush’s word for everything. How stupid do you think leading Democrats are?

Of courese they are not stupid at all. They came to the right conclusions given the information they had. Just as Bush.

So let’s sum up. The Bush lied scenario requires:

Stupid, craven or dishonest Democratic leaders - almost every one of them.

Ditto for the leaders of France, Russia, UK,well almost everyone.

A grand deception that nobody has been able to create.

A super intelligent George Bush who can pull all this off (and still cover his tracks)

Who believes all these things?

I am glad Bush is finally hitting back. He let the clowns control the party for too long. That was his big mistake.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 7:06 AM
Comment #92651

All

The point here us that the president acted on what he believied to be the best availaible intelligence that he had at the time,supported by various intelligence agencies through-out the world.

Did he cull out intelligence that supported his decision?

Probably yes.

However,as president this was the prudent course in light of 9/11.

That was then.This is now.

Now,he has to horse whip the military and catch the really bad guys…and soon.

We have intelligence that OBL and what’s his name from Jordan are the perps.

Catch them,for Christ sakes.

Or bring in someone who can.

Enough of the bullshit.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 14, 2005 7:23 AM
Comment #92662
I am glad Bush is finally hitting back. He let the clowns control the party for too long. That was his big mistake.

I’m glad he’s hitting back, too. He can’t win. The best he can hope to accomplish is to convince people he is an honest fool. Now only 42% of adults even think he is “honest and ethical” (Newsweek poll, 11/10-11/11).

Yes, many Democrats did support Bush. Like most Americans, they trusted him. Won’t get fooled again…

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 14, 2005 8:11 AM
Comment #92667
We have intelligence that OBL and what’s his name from Jordan are the perps.

Catch them,for Christ sakes.

Or bring in someone who can.

Enough of the bullshit.

Amen, SE.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 14, 2005 8:48 AM
Comment #92668

Maybe, just maybe, there’s enough blame to go around for everyone - the Bush Administration, Congress, and the intelligence community all suck.

Was there flawed intelligence? Obviously. Was there accurate intelligence? Yes. Did the Bush Admin cherry pick intelligence to support the foregone conclusion that war with Iraq was the best move, post 9/11? Of course they did! The Bush Admin hatched the idea, marketed it, an sold it. Congress, not wanting to appear weak on national defense before the midterms, went along for the ride, shirked their constitutional duty to declare war, and gave one man authorization to invade a country (Charles Shumer and the rest, shame on you!). They should ALL be THROWN OUT! Then, maybe next time our government will think twice before going to war. Twice? Wait a minute, hopefully 3 or 4 times.

Any incumbent who voted for war should be voted out of office next election! On second thought, any incumbent should be voted out. Term limits rule!

Posted by: tom at November 14, 2005 8:50 AM
Comment #92671

Woody

I think you stumbled onto something. I think it is cognitive dissonance that make liberals so adamant about the Bush lied myth.

Support for the war was very high. Many of today’s Bush bashers must also be erstwhile war supporters. Now that things have not turned out as they hoped, they have two choices. They can admit that they were wrong and adjust their worldview accordingly. OR they can keep their worldview and find someone to blame, someone who misled them, an Old Nick so slippery that even the loyal, true and virtuous liberals would be tricked into supporting a war. That man is George Bush.

Bush should be flattered. In liberal eyes he is not only bad, but he is so clever that he was able to put one over on all the liberals (except Kennedy and a few others). We will have to change Old Nick to Old George.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 8:55 AM
Comment #92689

Did Bush lie?

or

Does the Pope have a balcony?

Posted by: German at November 14, 2005 9:55 AM
Comment #92690

Hitting back? It’s more like fighting for his (political) life.
You guys are in the distinct minority. Excusatory rhetoric and Attwater-style attacks on “liberals” doesn’t detract form the fact that BushCo misrepresented data in order to justify an attack founded in anachronistic neocon domino theory.
You act as if support for a war from a 9/11 traumatized public equates to the President speaking truthfully. Bush43 took advantage of our nation in the same way a pedophile takes advantage of runaway tweeners. And, to clarify, I hold him in the same esteem.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 9:55 AM
Comment #92695

Dave

You can believe what you want, but the evidence is not on your side.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 10:18 AM
Comment #92698

Jack,

You can believe what you want as well, but, the majority of Americans agree with me.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #92699

Or, perhaps, I agree with the majority. Doesn’t matter which.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 10:29 AM
Comment #92703
Hitting back? It’s more like fighting for his (political) life.

What political life? Is he planning on running for a third term?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 10:41 AM
Comment #92705

This blog always shows me examples of logical fallacies. Yours is called ad populum (or the appeal to popularity)

The majority agreed at the time to go to war. Majorities are important in politics, but we don’t take a poll to determine the truth.

YOu also recall that a majority of the voter elected George Bush. I suppose that made you believe he was right at the time too.

If Bush lied, so did most prominent Democrats. Or they were so stupid that he could trick them despite their own extensive experience.

Bush advocated a policy he thought was right. And are you so sure it was wrong? You prefer Saddam in power? If he didn’t have WMD back in 2003, he would be working on it now. You might have postponed the war until it was harder to win.

Posted by: jack at November 14, 2005 10:44 AM
Comment #92710

There is not enough time or room to expound on the intel now known by us common folk. There is enough evidence that Saddam was pursuing his nuclear program. There is enough evidence that his did have WMD’s. There is enough evidence that terrorism was a main thrust of his regime. And there is enough evidence to show that he was a threat to his neighbors. A name that has not come up at all is Mr. Khan from Iraq who was selling nuclear products on the black market. Or the airliner located remotely in Iraq where terrorists were training. What was know by past administrations and congressmen and leaders in the know is the same intel that the president used to go to war in Iraq. My only regret is that it didn’t happen sooner.

Posted by: tomh at November 14, 2005 10:59 AM
Comment #92716

Jack,

You’re arguing with irrelevancies and talking points, all of which has nothing to do with my disgust with Bush43 or that the majority of Americans believing that Bush is neither trustworthy nor doing an acceptable job.

I believed Nixon the first few times he said he wasn’t involved in Watergate. After a while, you have to get a clue that perhaps continuing to believe in Bush43 is a mistake.

Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Looks like sh*t, smells like sh*t, tastes like sh*t. Must be sh*t.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

ad nauseum.

Reinhold,
Perhaps he doesn’t want to be remembered as the worst and most useless president since, ummm, ever? If so, his speech fees won’t be worth squat.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 11:07 AM
Comment #92717

This is sad. The fact that many Democrats believed this does not mean that Republicans did not. Just because some Democrats lied does not mean that Republicans did not (All politicians lie!). Eric, your argument relies on an affirmative conclusion stemming from a negative premise. It has no merit.

In my opinion, a more reasonable argument here would be something like, ‘you can’t just blame Bush and the Republicans for lying to people about WMDs, Iraq, etc.; many Democrats are to blame as well.’

Also, Dave, Saying that most people are on your side does not prove your argument true. This point is ad populum and has no merit either.

Posted by: dbpitt at November 14, 2005 11:08 AM
Comment #92718

tomh,

Everything you’re quoting as ‘fact’ is unsubstantiated noise put out by BushCo and his proxy liars. Saddam wanted to be legitimate and had no use for international terrorism. He was not even a real threat anymore, much less imminent anything, other than to his own people.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 11:11 AM
Comment #92719

Dave
If he did not want to international, then why was Mr. Khan exporting nuclear material and product on the black market? Why did he go to war with Iran and Kuwait? And more!!!!!

Posted by: tomh at November 14, 2005 11:15 AM
Comment #92720

dbpitt,

The majority may not be right, but it certainly doesn’t make Jack right. I’m very confident in my conclusions and believe that they will be substantiated by time. All you have to do is open your mind and your eyes to see what’s going on.
As far as Democrats being wrong, who gives a crap? It has nothing to do with what the President did and that is what matters.

tomh,

Again, that is all a load of irrelevent untruth.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 11:17 AM
Comment #92721

Dave
I try as much as possible use info that the opposition has to substantiate the info that I already have. BushCo was not the source of WMD’s. That information was common knowledge. He used WMD’s on his own people. He had them!!!!!

Posted by: tomh at November 14, 2005 11:18 AM
Comment #92725

Jack,

I think the evidence was cherry picked and I think most democrats voted for war to cover their political A$$es. Does that make it right? I suppose missery loves company and that’s why you wish to prove to us that the democrats lied too. I agree with you on the point. When intelligence is manipulated or “cherry picked” its akin to a “white lie”. A lie is a lie. Both parties are guilty as charged.

Before taking our young men and women to war and sacrificing their lives we should be damn certain we have ALL of the facts, not just the “tailored” truth. Yes, I hold this administration accountable AND this entire congress. How many of these folks have children serving on the front lines in Iraq? I’m serious, I would like to know.

Posted by: Tom L at November 14, 2005 11:27 AM
Comment #92727

Jack,

You also recall that a majority of the voter elected George Bush.

IIRC, not in 2000. Supreme Court did.


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #92728

Dave

A recent study at Factcheck.org">http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html”>Factcheck.org explains better than I could about what the President (and almost everyone else) thought about Iraq.

Tom L

Bush and the Dems who voted for the war made a decision based on the information available. They picked the evidence they thought was most salient. Natural. All decision making is selection.

If you think they cherry picked to sell the war, you have to answer the question about what Bush and the Democrats who voted for the war wanted to achieve by their selections. If so many people on so many sides of issues misled “us”, why?

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #92729

Dave
What is unrelevant and untruth about Mr. Khan selling nuclear product on the black market or Saddam going to war with his neighbors? It is certainly relevant and truthful that he wanted to expand his boundaries and one of his henchmen selling nuclear materials was certainly a threat to all mankind.

Posted by: tomh at November 14, 2005 11:41 AM
Comment #92730

Just a few quotes to bring into the discussion:

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

“Here’s what — we’ve discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions.”
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).

“We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents.”
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 11:43 AM
Comment #92731

Sorry

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

Fact check does not love Bush. The article is not favorable toward Bush in many ways. It just indicates that he didn’t lie.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 11:43 AM
Comment #92732

Senate Intelligence

There’s an oxymoron for you.

I don’t think Bush was lying any more than Clinton was when he bombed sand hills to make himself look good.
One simple fact about intelligents that most don’t realize is that it aint.
When I was in Vietnam we recieved intellignece reports about the area we were flying into just before every mission. The one most reported piece of ‘intelligents’ that we got was ‘There’s no enemy activity in the area’. We would almost always recieve enemy ground fire when we reached our objective. Usually we were going after an aircrew that had been shot down. I asked one ‘intelligents?’ officer if there’e no activity in the area who in the hell shot the plane down?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 14, 2005 11:49 AM
Comment #92737

Jack,

Again, so what? The article is clear that a single advertisement exagerated the circumstances of 6 quotes.
In the real world Bush43 used the political capital of 9-11 to go to war. A war Wolfowicz, Cheney, et. al. had planned for years before. A war that they had planned to implement from the day they entered office. A war that took precedence over the real world and the real threats.
There’s no doubt that BushCo is adept at plausible deniability.
There’s also no doubt that they walked an edge to make the people, who were depending upon the administration to lead them through a difficult period after 3k + of our fellow citizens were murdered, believe that Saddam was in league with the terrorists who had committed those murders.
There’s also no doubt that they are incompetent at doing the real work of running this country.

When is a lie not a lie? When it’s said by a Bush.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #92745

AP,

LOL! So it was the DEMOCRATS who lied to get us into this war! Now it all makes sense. Thanks Eric.

Here’s the problem, you are walking right past the truth. Did I say Democrats lied to get us into war? I’m just giving you some of the facts you don’t want to remember. Some of the facts that Democrats hoped no one would remember.

By March 2003, there’s no way anyone looking at the intelligence could come to that conclusion — but President Bush invaded anyways.

And this new conclusion was because… Saddam continued to refuse inspections and continued to play hide and seek? Or because you oppose Bush and that’s all that really matters?

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:16 PM
Comment #92747

Dave
your argument that the planning for the war had been going on for years before should be titled the seive factor. A seive has so many holes that anything can and will go thru it. If your argument had any truth to it, then you would have to implement the Clinton administrations and his cohorts also. Thankfully your argument has too many holes.

Posted by: tomh at November 14, 2005 12:18 PM
Comment #92754

The first step in being cured is to admit you have a problem. Once tomh, et. al. can admit to that, they can get better.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 12:27 PM
Comment #92756

tom, Dave, et al,

Did the Bush Admin cherry pick intelligence to support the foregone conclusion that war with Iraq was the best move, post 9/11? Of course they did! The Bush Admin hatched the idea, marketed it, an sold it.

Please, do as this article suggests, go to google, and type in “Clinton Iraq 1998.”

Here, I’ll do it for you.

Just go down the list and pick out some quotes like this one:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.

…Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. cnn

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:32 PM
Comment #92762

Eric,

The Republicans have had complete and total control of the White house, both Houses of Congress, and the court system for the last five years. But you’re blaming the Democrats. How silly, and how very Rovian of you.

Why are you so full of hate for your fellow Americans that you feel the need to make the Democrats’ actions the issue? Is it that you can’t defend your own party? Is it to distract everyone from the fact that the war in Iraq had little or nothing to do with the war on terror? Is it to distract everyone from the fact that President Bush’s multi-trillion dollar deficits are actually helping Osama bin Laden accomplish one of his stated goals (to bleed this country dry economically)? Is it to distract us from the fact that Bush ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks, including the under-reported Presidential Daily Briefing from August 2001 that specifically warned that al Qaeda was contemplating hijacking airplanes and was scouting out buildings in New York? Is it distract us from the fact that Bush had failed at the most fundamental task of government, to protect American citizens? Is it to distract us from the fact that the Bush administration’s incompetence (please pass the “freedom fries” and “torture is OK”) is isolating us from our allies and driving increasing numbers of otherwise uninvolved Muslims into the arms of our enemies, thereby making us weaker, our enemies stronger, making the world a MUCH more dangerous place, and making the war on terror increasingly difficult to win?

Make no mistake about it. We must win this war. But it’s the incompetence of the Bush Administration that’s the problem. The Dems are not the issue, Eric.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 12:50 PM
Comment #92764

Dave

Now you have given up the lie thing, although maybe you don’t know it.

You say Bush used his capital to push the war agenda. Maybe he did. Maybe he thought it was necessary. There were lots of good reasons to see Saddam as a threat and want to get rid of him. But that is different from lying to accomplish it.

Maybe all those Dems who voted for the war were not dishonest and were not misled by Bush. Maybe they just looked at the similar information and came to similar conclusions.

We all know that the outcome was not what was predicted by the intelligence. People can have different opinions about the effacacy of the war. These discussion don’t require deception on any American’s part. Why is it so important to you to assert that your president lied?

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #92765

esimonson,
Ummm, so what? Clinton did not go to war by ourselves. Bush43 did. Oh yeah, Reagan40 as well. Even Bush41, but we had allies back then.
Quite the trend your buddies are starting, eh?
Let’s take a poll:
(1) GOP = War
(2) DNC = Sex and funky cigar action with young interns.
I go with (2).

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #92767

dbpitt,

This is sad. The fact that many Democrats believed this does not mean that Republicans did not. Just because some Democrats lied does not mean that Republicans did not (All politicians lie!). Eric, your argument relies on an affirmative conclusion stemming from a negative premise. It has no merit.

Sorry, you lost me there. Your assumption then is that Bush knew there were no WMD’s and yet knowing that we would never find WMD in Iraq he invaded Iraq on the premise that there were WMD?

Knowing the depths of my own depravity, I imagine that if I were as diabolical to lie in such a way, I would definately take some WMD with me during the invasion to ‘find’. Don’t you think?

Oooohhhhhhhh, I get what you’re saying. Knowing that we would naturally assume that if you were going to lie about WMD you might plant WMD in Iraq to find as proof you weren’t lying, Bush and Rove purposely didn’t plant any WMD in Iraq so that after no WMD was found we would believe they didn’t lie after all!

They don’t call them evil masterminds for nothing!!

But if one were to anticipate such diabolicity, one might assume that just such a ruse would be attempted by Rove… perhaps then you would in fact plant WMD in order to make everyone believe that you were not far too clever in outwitting everyone, but was in fact telling the truth all along… hmm… Someone give Howard Dean a call… or no— better yet Noam Chomsky.

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #92769

Dave,

The first step in being cured is to admit you have a problem. Once tomh, et. al. can admit to that, they can get better.

You’re right, the first step is admitting you have a problem. There is a cure. You can beat this thing. I know you can. I believe in you.

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #92770

Jack,

Lying was never the thrust of the argument. Maybe he avoided explicitly lying, or, lied but managed to maintain a level of deniability. That’s relevent only in a political arena and at his trial.
The issue I have with Bush43, the reason why I absolutely despise what he stands for, is his perversion of 9/11 for the enabling of a lousy political agenda and then failing at it so miserably. We went to war with excuses that meant he could not legally be held accountable for starting an illegal war. Whether he lied or not is secondary to the fact he wanted to start the war and would have found an excuse.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #92772

1. If the word immanent is so important and so critical to democrats then why did they stand by the first time the world trade center was attacked as well as the US embassy bombings plus the USS Cole bombing? If they did not see those as a sign of an immanent threat then they are fools. In addition these attacks are proof that you can not stand by and wait for a warning.
2. You incompetent liberals keep making it sound like Bush wanted to go to war. Well then tell us why? And don’t you dare say it was for money, after all it’s the UN who seems to be getting that.
3. Nothing lasts for ever!! Rome, even with its might fell. Life is fragile the world is fragile and the US seems to be the only nation whom respects that. There for we just can not take the chance of loosing it. After all, would you want to be an Iraqi living under an evil dictator? The reason I ask is because it could easily happen to us.

Posted by: CLB at November 14, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #92773

esimonson;
I especially like “They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times — they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor. “
After all, we all know how biased and untruthful those MSM guys are. Unlike Fox, Gannon, Coulter, Rush, et. al.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 1:16 PM
Comment #92779

ElliotBay,

The Republicans have had complete and total control of the White house, both Houses of Congress, and the court system for the last five years. But you’re blaming the Democrats. How silly, and how very Rovian of you.

Complete control? Obviously that is a bit of a stretch. We are a divided country. A divided country at war. But what’s more important to democrats? Defeating Bush or winning the war? Can you put aside your desire for political revenge for the sake of the country? Or is calling your fellow Americans hate-filled and incompetent so that you can defeat them more important than winning the war on terror?

Why are you so full of hate for your fellow Americans that you feel the need to make the Democrats’ actions the issue? Is it that you can’t defend your own party?

It is unfortunate that Democrats have chosen to take all of our focus off of the war and instead have focused on defeating Republicans at all cost. I can’t fathom it. Are you claiming then that pointing out when someone is plainly and demonstrably lying is just a diversion?

Are you claiming that ‘defending your party’ is somehow wrong? Should all Republicans just be quite then no matter what the left says or claims?

Let me turn it around on you: Why would you rather make the President the issue?

Is it to distract everyone from the fact that the war in Iraq had little or nothing to do with the war on terror? Is it to distract everyone from the fact that President Bush’s multi-trillion dollar deficits are actually helping Osama bin Laden accomplish one of his stated goals (to bleed this country dry economically)? Is it to distract us from the fact that Bush ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks, including the under-reported Presidential Daily Briefing from August 2001 that specifically warned that al Qaeda was contemplating hijacking airplanes and was scouting out buildings in New York? Is it distract us from the fact that Bush had failed at the most fundamental task of government, to protect American citizens? Is it to distract us from the fact that the Bush administration’s incompetence (please pass the “freedom fries” and “torture is OK”) is isolating us from our allies and driving increasing numbers of otherwise uninvolved Muslims into the arms of our enemies, thereby making us weaker, our enemies stronger, making the world a MUCH more dangerous place, and making the war on terror increasingly difficult to win?

What we have is a difference of opinon. I don’t see any of these issues this way Elliot. 1) Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror. Or why should we care about removing dictators and planting democracies and freedom in the middle east? 2) Yes, Bush is responsible for this deficit, as is the Republican congress. But there are several factors contributing to this namely: 9/11 itself, an economic downturn that started before 9/11, additional spending due to the war, wasteful Federal entitlements and programs, and of course pure pork, which should be cut. 3) The PBD was not a warning of impending attack. We can get into this further (again) if you like. 3a) If you’re saying that Bush failed to protect American citizens from the 9/11 attack, good luck with your lawsuit, I don’t think it will get very far. 4) Liberating Iraq makes us stronger, not weaker. The only way the war on terror can be won is by changing the environment in the middle east.

Make no mistake about it. We must win this war. But it’s the incompetence of the Bush Administration that’s the problem. The Dems are not the issue, Eric.

I have no doubt that if Clinton or Gore had been President during 9/11 that many Democrats would be wanting to win this war, but since it is Bush I think that it is more important for them to defeat and embarass Bush at all costs.

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #92782

It’s important for the Democrats to emphasize and repeat that “Bush lied,” because if he lied that absolves them of responsibility for authorizing the war, which a significant number of their elected officials did, and on the basis of the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush did.

The truth is there was strong consensus within and without the US intelligence community that Iraq had WMD programs and capabilities before the invasion. This turned out to be largely wrong—programs yes, actual weapons, by and large, no.

There is an abuse of language here to say the weasel-worded charge that Bush misled the Americans, which is the most favored diction of Dean, Kerry, and other Democratic spokesmen. It’s frankly misleading to say Bush “misled” the American people. The words is meant to imply one thing—that he intentionally misled us—when in fact the evidence only shows he was mistaken. “Misled” has both meanings, as in, “The policemen misled us to believe it was only 3 miles to the next gas station. I guess he was mistaken,” versus “Why did you mislead me into believing we would continue to make love after we were married?”

The real question is whether Bush did so intentionally, that is, whether he actually lied. Most high profile Democrats have not crossed that line of accusing Bush of outright lies. Moreover, since a lot of intelligence services said what he said—recall Tenet’s “slam dunk” comment—Bush would have to have disbelieved these experts, for no particular reason, to have been proved to lie. Why? Because lying requries a present sense that one is not disclosing the truth.

It’s also a mistake to say that the war was preconditioned on some notion of imminence and that Bush’s case depended on such arguments. It was clear, and widely debated and in many cases criticized, that Bush was adopting a more aggressive policy in the wake of 9/11, the so-called policy of preemption. This policy may be good, bad, or indifferent, but it was hardly a secret. And the keystone of that policy, the thing that made it unique, was that threats in the past that would have been permitted to ripen to the state of “imminence” would now be dealt with aggressively before that stage had been reached. This was the essence of the case for the Iraq war: they are on the road to developing more dangerous WMDs and have not disclosed the state of their existing programs, so we should take him out before he does so, becausing failing to act aggressively and preemptively can lead to dire consequences, as we witnessed on 9/11.

There are many sound criticisms to be made of Bush, his administration, and its prosecution of the Iraq War. But, by getting bogged down in the unprovable and likely disprovable thesis that Bush lied, the Democrats demonstrate an obsession with party politics and personalities, as opposed to good policy.

Posted by: Roach at November 14, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #92785

So Dave -

You now don’t think Bush lied. You don’t like the war. That is a debate we could have logically and disagree logically. The lied part is just not needed.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 1:41 PM
Comment #92788

Esimonson; you’re the one who has come to a republican bolg to attack us. Yet you want to say that you can’t imagine the democrats accusing bush of lying for their own political gain.
One more thing we did not go in alone just because the UN did not go in does not define alone. Plus as I recall the UN lead the way into Vietnam and look at how it turned out.
Plus I do not think that an old cripple such as Clinton could have done a better job than bush. Remember black hawk down. As for Al Gore were talking about a man who wanted to abolish our constitution, because he believed it was out of date.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 1:49 PM
Comment #92790

Eric,
“The sad fact is that Democrats have only one issue here.”

This is a fallacy. There was not ‘one’ intelligence failure.

There were no two dozen SCUDs in the western Iraqi desert.

There were no mobile chem warfare labs.

There were no drones capable of delivering weapons.

And so on. It’s a long list.

The UN inspectors entered Iraq before the invasion and found no WMD’s.

The US presented its best case in the UN. None of the numerous allegations proved true.

This represents a consistent pattern.

It is not a matter of one mistake, or one lie. It is a pattern.

This pattern extends beyond the issue of WMD’s. For example, links between Saddam Hussein & Al Qaida remain, at best, unsubstantiated.

The information flowed from the CIA, to the Executive Branch, and then to Congress.

Congress can be faulted for believing lies, no question. And lying to Congress is an impeachable offense, for good reason.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #92796

phx8
“The information flowed from the CIA, to the Executive Branch, and then to Congress.”
So you admit that Bush did not lie because it was the CIA who lied to him

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #92798

Who says the CIA lied? They might have been wrong, negligent, careless, overeager, results oriented, reckless, reliant on disreputable sources, and all the rest. But that’s not lying. That’s just doing a bad job. The real scandal is the incompetent CIA director who failed in his duty and who led the President to war on the basis of faulty intelligence was not fired, but instead given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

That said, the CIA also has its own agenda, which is a bad thing. It should be neutral, not peddaling anti-administration rumors, lies, and leaks in order to discredit an administration policy that it disagrees with, particularly after the same organization fed that intel to the administration. We don’t need subordinate branches of government running around mucking up the policies of the elected branches.

Posted by: Roach at November 14, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #92801

Jack,

Now we may begin? As for not liking the war, why would anyone “like” a war?

(I did not say Bush didn’t lie, what I said was: “Maybe he avoided explicitly lying, or, lied but managed to maintain a level of deniability.” Personally, I think he lied, lies, and will keep on lying. It’s his lifestyle.)

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 2:18 PM
Comment #92802

Eric-
The sad thing about your argument is that it concedes instantly the fact that you guys were wrong. Wrong about the terrorists, wrong about the WMDs. You can’t avoid these concessions, because the evidence is so public and so widely believed that only the fringe tries to argue that weapons existed in sufficient number to justify the alarm.

Your arguments instead do three things: They drag down the Democrats with them, They claim the emphasis was greater on defeating a dictator and ending his tyranny, and they also try and maintain that there was no wrongdoing involved in the making of the case for war.

The problem with the first argument is that the Executive Branch, which was controlled by Bush, had unequal privilege to information. Congress was not provided with full information, and even in the cases where reports indicated to Democrats the truth of the matter, the classified nature of most of the material prevented them from explaining why to the public. The NIE itself, supposed to be the authoritative document, was rushed according to the Senate Committee on Iraq, performed in an unusually small amount of time, and the declassified version of the document ommitted important qualifications to data, qualifications that would have seriously watered down the assertion that there was an imminent threat. If the Senate and the House depend on, and distribute to Americans information that mainly comes from the executive branch, there’s no need for the legislature as a whole to have a separate or conspiratorial role in deceiving America. Congress merely becomes the first in a long line of folks conned by the bad information.

The funny thing about the Bush administrations refusal to admit that they asserted (or at least implied) an imminent threat, is that an imminent threat is the standard by which the justification of a pre-emptive strike is judged. If there wasn’t a gun to our head, why did we shoot first? This question has no satisfactory answer, so long as the president hides behind the argument that he never said or implied that the threat was that close to making our lives interesting.

It becomes very important why we went in. The second argument running has us going to war for regime change. That, I can say with no equivocation, is an outright lie. One only has to look up The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq to determine this.

Now, some of you will get caught up in the Whereas clauses of the authorization, but as a lawyer’s brother, I can tell you that the “Whereas” clauses merely explain the purpose of the resolution. They have no binding effect on what justifies the war.

The Resolution, in it’s main body, authorized the president to go to war to do two things

1)Defend our national security against the threat posed by Iraq

and

2)Enforce the UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.

There’s no pick and choose. He was supposed to use the armed forces to do both.

Bush, to get his war, had to submit a determination, a kind of report, to congress and the senate stating that he couldn’t do what this bill was authorizing him to do, and that doing this was consistent with the War on Terror, especially as far as al-Qaeda and its supporters were concerned.

I highlight the “and” because it again means that the president has to do both. Nowhere does it mention that the main point of this war is to take Saddam out of power. That, of course, was a given of any such campaign, but it wasn’t what the people of the United States, represented by their Legislators, agreed to.

This was meant to be a war to disarm Saddam of his WMDs. That is inherent in the call to enforce all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. It is implied in the defense of our national security, because without weapons, Saddam is not a threat.

The president had to prove that this somehow related to taking on terrorists. Seeing as how the only real terrorist group of concern to most Americans was al-Qaeda, it did matter whether Saddam really was involved with al-Qaeda, not merely acquainted with them.

Finally, we come to the last situation, which is the matter of wrongdoing. Nobody’s been charged yet, but there is all kinds of evidence of manipulation. I know that you will try and cite the Silbermann-Robb report, but that Commission had no mandate or clearance to pursue matters of whether the administration manipulated intelligence. It’s did not and could not investigate that issue.

There is, however, a great deal of information about administration officials fishing for raw reports to back their claims, of evidence being accepted for the case, knowing that it was faulty. I’m not going to repost it- just head through the archives on the Democrat and Third Party columns.

The Bush Administration has tried to scapegoat the CIA for this, but the politicizing of intelligence is obvious when the Vice president’s own Chief of Staff believes that an argument over the validity of documents supporting the case for war requires such a political response as leaking the CIA connection of the dissenter’s wife to smear him.

The fact of the matter is, This administration at least knew that there wasn’t enough evidence to convince the American people to go to war on. That is why George Tenet had to assure the president that case that he had called thin was in fact a Slam Dunk. That is why Libby and Stephen Hadley were asked to give it the trial lawyer’s treatment.

If they had been determining threats through a skeptical inquiry into the facts at hand, they would have likely chosen another course of action than a War in Iraq. The trouble is, they came in with an agenda, and because of that, we ended up in a war for politics-related reasons, not security related. Ironically, it has served neither Bush’s political situation, nor our security concerns that well.

This was not a war we should have started. America had worse enemies doing worse things at the time, and America should not overlook real security concerns for sake of a poorly thought out attempt to change the political structure of a region.

We needed a government with greater deliberation and patience, one that could build our security on a solid foundation of knowledge and intelligence, rather than the undependable soil of speculation and stubborn preconceptions of what needs to be done.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 2:21 PM
Comment #92805

From Bush-sycophant Bob Woodward’s “Plant of Attack” (emphasis mine):

As I had been interviewing various officials and sources during the buildup to war, three separate sources said confidentially that the intelligence on WMD was not as conclusive as the CIA and the administration had suggested. This was troubling, particularly on what seemed to be the eve of war. I spoke with Walter Pincus, a colleague at The Washington Post, who had written extensively about the weapons inspections and intelligence in Iraq. Pincus said that he had heard precisely the same thing from a number of his sources. So I drafted the following five paragraphs for a possible news story and hand carried a copy to Pincus and the national security editor at the Post.

“Some of the key U.S. intelligence that is the basis for the conclusion that Iraq has large caches of weapons of mass destruction looks increasingly circumstantial, and even shaky as it is further scrutinized, subjected to outside analysis and on-the-ground verification, according to informed sources.

“A senior Bush administration source briefed last month on the intelligence said it was ‘pretty thin’ and might be enough to reach the legal standard of ‘probably cause’ to bring an indictment but not enough for a conviction.”

I think it is clear that in October 2002, most people truly believed that Saddam had WMDs, Democrats and Republican alike. But I also think that it is clear that after numerous inspections were showing the sites that the CIA claimed to have WMD were coming up empty, on the day we went to war, the Bush administration knew it was more than likely that there were no WMD to be found - and yet they sent us to war regardless.


Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 2:23 PM
Comment #92806

clb
Both good and bad information flowed from the CIA to the Executive Office. The latter filtered the information. The Executive Office manipulated the information for political purposes, presenting information supporting their decision, and ignoring information which undercut their decision.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

By the way, people usually say ‘Bush lied’ as shorthand for ‘the Bush administration lied.’ Of course, when it comes to slogans, ‘Bush lied and people died’ sounds much snappier than ‘The Bush administration lied and people died.’

When it comes to war, a president must be held accountable. Mistakes in this field cannot be accepted.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 2:24 PM
Comment #92807

to Stephen Daugherty

Ohhh I see you think that the terrorist will send us a letter and say were going to attack.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #92808

phx8

What mistake?

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 2:29 PM
Comment #92809

Eric,

You folks on the Right are so obvious. When support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was high, you crowed about your overwhelming support, claiming a mandate. But now that the tide has turned and support for the Bush administration is eroding faster than a barrier island beach during a hurricane, you’re trying to share the blame.

Several of you folks have made the claim that “the Dems saw the same intelligence as the White House”. Since the burden of proof is on the accuser, let’s see some proof to back up that claim. Show us evidence that proves that the White House shared ALL the intelligence, not just SOME of the intelligence, with the Dems. Otherwise this claim is just bilge.

Why would you rather make the President the issue?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha he he ha ha ha ho ho ha ha ha ha he he ha ha ha ha haaa Thanks for such a great laugh - that’s one of the funniest things I’ve seen here! Who led us into Iraq? Who claimed that Saddam was such a threat that we couldn’t wait for the WMD inspections to finish? It was the President of the United States. Since when is he not the issue?
The only way the war on terror can be won is by changing the environment in the middle east.
Silly me. I thought the only way to win the war on terror was to find the terrorists and bring them to justice, not invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no operational links to the terrorists, thus giving the terrorists a training ground with easy access to conveniently-provided American targets. Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 2:31 PM
Comment #92810

The main point of the Authorization of Force was to put pressure on Saddam to become cooperative to inspections. And it worked. Saddam became as cooperative as he had ever been in history as he saw the seriousness of a united Congress. If the Democrats had not joined in that effort and helped to present a unified front, most of you on the right would be calling them traitors, appeasers, etc., etc.

Despite their votes for the Authorization of Force, many of them clearly stated that the military action should be a very last resort, because of the quagmire it could generate. Unfortunately, it was not a last resort, but for this President it was a forgone conclusion.

Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 2:33 PM
Comment #92812

Burt

A real man would stand for what he believes no matter what any one thought. According to you and your friends the democrats knew that this war was a bad idea yet they supported it any way for fear of criticism this means they a cowards.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 2:39 PM
Comment #92816

clb-
Since the terrorists aren’t mailing us letters about this, we would be well advised not to cloud intelligence issues with the stubborn preconceptions and arbitrary political agendas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #92817

clb,
What mistake? Take your pick.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 2:42 PM
Comment #92818

clb,

So, Hitler was a “real man”, wasn’t he?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 2:43 PM
Comment #92819

phx8

I find it funny that the link you provided could not be found.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 2:44 PM
Comment #92820

ElliottBay

Why do you liberal think that Hitler is the measure of all things.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 2:46 PM
Comment #92821

clb,
Did you know Bush was a cheerleader in college?

I’m just saying.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 2:47 PM
Comment #92822

Try this one.

I detect the scent of wild troll.

I tell you what, when you find the perfect world where the Democrats in congress could explain their actions to their constituents without revealing classified information, come back and talk to me. In this country, elected representatives have to explain their actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 2:48 PM
Comment #92824

Stephen Daugherty
The problem with your link is that it provides no credible information. After all if you’re going to use evidence you must provide proof that the evidence exists, and was not made up otherwise it is hear say.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 2:57 PM
Comment #92827

clb
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326

Stephen,
No point in responding to clb with more than two sentences. Maybe we can narrow it down to one sentence. Or even just one word.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #92830

clb-
These conclusions, are based on documentary evidence. If that’s not good enough for you, I don’t know what is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #92831

Great article.

Too many facts and quotes for the liberals - they won’t actually read them and all your hard work is wasted on them.

Facts don’t seem to be that important when they are so busy chanting, “Bush lied!” - of course “Rockafeller lied!” doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily.

Kudos for you for at least trying to inject logic, reason and fact.

Posted by: Ilsa at November 14, 2005 3:04 PM
Comment #92834

clb,
1. What makes you think I’m a liberal?
2. I don’t think that Hitler is the measure of all things any more than you think that being a “real man” is the measure of all things. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 3:12 PM
Comment #92847

Let’s stop with the Hitler thing. National Socialism existed from about 1920-1945. It was defeated decisively.

Liberal Americans are not Nazis. Conservative Americans are not Nazis. Even Nazis are not Nazis anymore. Those little pissants who parade around in brown shirts these days are just annoying and silly. And there are not many of them around.

The historical and social conditions that created National Socialism do not exist today and never existed in America. Talking about Hitler allows us all to avoid talking about real issues.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 3:27 PM
Comment #92848

Bush didn’t lied about Iraq threat imminency. Because nobody could have exactly estimated it with full accuracy. Not even Saddam.

However, he did lied about the lack of doubt of what he called an urgent threat. He said Iraq *was* posing a grave nuclear threat where it should have been “*may* pose (in the future, that is)”. He said (thru poor Powell) he knows were Saddam WMDs *are* where he should had said he *may* know where they *could* be. And so on…

The lie proof is that he was/still is doubtless, while we all now know that several intelligence sources had casted doubts and reported to him *before* his decisions… and speeches.

I never could trust doubtless people. Nor fearless, BTW.

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #92850

phx8 in respnse to your link athttp://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326

From your link
1.Bush went into Iraq with 39 nations by his side
2.Only union workers become disgruntled due to unemployment.
3.John Kaey was the one who voted against providing our troupes with armor remember the statement “I voted for it before I voted against it”
4.We have never had fewer casualties of war.
5.If the intelligence existed stating that their were no WMDs then why didn’t the Dems use it in the beginning. Ohh wait it didn’t exist at that time.
6.Dreading nation building during the 2000 debates. We weren’t in Iraq in 2000 and 9/11 had not yet accord. Even the Dems admit that we are now in a different world then we were then.
7.We were greeted as liberators did you not see the toppling of sudoms statue.
8.When did Bush predict that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
9.Underestimating the cost of the war is a silly argument. Secondly there is no price to high for our troops
10.Disbanding the Sunni Baathist. That ones funny. They were apart of sudams dictation.
11.The UN inspectors had 15 years to do their job and they failed.
12.Including discredited intelligence Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union. Clinton also used this. And according to the British it has not been discredited.
13.Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Bush announced the end of operation Iraqi Freedom not the end of Iraq’s restructuring.
14.Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food. Now this one is absolutely absurd. This accusation is just a liberal vendetta against capitalism, and completely based on Sheehan rhetoric.
15.As for failing to give the UN control of the post war restructuring, I say after what the put our solders through in Vietnam the UN is lucky I’m not the president.
The rest I’m not even going to waste my time on. Because they have already been disputed through this blog

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 3:39 PM
Comment #92852

phx8 in respnse to your link athttp://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326
Let me repost that one
From your link
1.Bush went into Iraq with 39 nations by his side
2.Only union workers become disgruntled due to unemployment.
3.John Kaery was the one who voted against providing our troupes with armor remember the statement “I voted for it before I voted against it⼢
4.We have never had fewer casualties of war.
5.If the intelligence existed stating that their were no WMDs then why didnt the Dems use it in the beginning. Ohh wait it didnt exist at that time.
6.Dreading nation building during the 2000 debates. We werent in Iraq in 2000 and 9/11 had not yet accord. Even the Dems admit that we are now in a different world then we were then.
7.We were greeted as liberators did you not see the toppling of sudoms statue.
8.When did Bush predict that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
9.Underestimating the cost of the war is a silly argument. Secondly there is no price to high for our troops
10.Disbanding the Sunni Baathist. That ones funny. They were apart of sudams dictation.
11.The UN inspectors had 15 years to do their job and they failed.
12.Including discredited intelligence Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union. Clinton also used this. And according to the British it has not been discredited.
13.Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Bush announced the end of operation Iraqi Freedom not the end of Iraq’s restructuring.
14.Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food. Now this one is absolutely absurd. This accusation is just a liberal vendetta against capitalism, and completely based on Sheehan rhetoric.
15.As for failing to give the UN control of the post war restructuring, I say after what they put our solders through in Vietnam the UN is lucky I’m not the president.
The rest I’m not even going to waste my time on. Because they have already been disputed through this blog


Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 3:45 PM
Comment #92853

Dave,

You act as if support for a war from a 9/11 traumatized public equates to the President speaking truthfully. Bush43 took advantage of our nation in the same way a pedophile takes advantage of runaway tweeners. And, to clarify, I hold him in the same esteem.

Wasn’t Hitler a pedophile too?

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #92856

If you do not believe that we were lied to by this administration to go to war you never will? The question I pose is: What are the sixty percent of the people that do believe we were lied to suppose to do? The people that lied to us are the one’s in power. If our democracy was even slightly functional we would have at the very least impeachment hearings going on at this very moment. Why is the Democratic Party not calling for impeachments? What the hell is going on. I almost believe that this administration has already destroyed this country and we are as red as Soviet Union. Habeus Corpus has been taken away. Republicans who find their beliefs so intertwined with tradition refuse to say anything about a law that has been in place in Western Civilization for 800 years. What the hell is going on? God help us.

Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 3:51 PM
Comment #92858

to wow
Were did you get that poll from?
It sounds to me like your the only one lying here.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 3:55 PM
Comment #92859
A real man would stand for what he believes no matter what any one thought. According to you and your friends the democrats knew that this war was a bad idea yet they supported it any way for fear of criticism this means they a cowards.

That’s not what I said at all. I said they back the Authorization of Force for what it meant at the time - a unified front presented to Saddam to get him to comply with the UN inspectors. They also strongly advised the President not to use mistake it as carte blanche to start a war with hard evidence of a threat or support from a true worldwide coalition.

Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 3:55 PM
Comment #92861

Burt this is what I was responding to
“If the Democrats had not joined in that effort and helped to present a unified front, most of you on the right would be calling them traitors, appeasers, etc., etc.”

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 4:03 PM
Comment #92862

clb

I’m sorry 57%.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr051111-1topline.pdf&id=2862

Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 4:04 PM
Comment #92869

Ilsa-
Oh, we read them. We understand them too! A miracle, I know. Despite what the more elitist of Republicans think, Democrats are actually able to think for themselves. We also know somthing about Logic, reason, and fact, and so we don’t fall so easily for fallacious arguments, emotional appeals, and incomplete or inaccurate data.

That, of course, wouldn’t be such a sexy bit of propaganda, though, so you folks stick to calling us illogical, unreasonable, and ignorant of the facts. It’s easier than actually answering the questions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 4:16 PM
Comment #92871

cbl,
So many inaccuracies, so little time. Most people know the toppling of Saddam’s statue was staged. Take a look:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #92873

phx

I have never seen that site before. That is a damn good website. It has everything. Thanks for the post.

Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 4:20 PM
Comment #92874

Phillipe

Often wrong, but never in doubt. It is not a joke re leadership. Conditions are always uncertain. You have to make decisions based on incomplete, misleading or totally lacking information. The consequences of doing something are serious, but so are the consequences of doing nothing. You make the best choice you can. The time for doubt is before you make the committment. Once you started the dive, there is not use in wavering.

One more metaphore. What is the difference between being involved and being commmitted? In a bacon and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved and the pig is committed. Once you ass is in that’s it.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 4:20 PM
Comment #92876

According to that poll Bush was hated by America before the election so how could he have won with a record breaking margin. Apparently there is fawlpley. As for that photo there are others that show a completly different story and are mush clearer.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 4:23 PM
Comment #92879


Wow,
Yes, good site, but careful. It’s from May 2004. Since then, more information has come to light on the Bush administration lies. Interestingly, nothing has arisen this past year to justify the Bush administration’s positions.

Even in this post, Eric is reduced to saying ‘Rockefeller believed the lies! We gave him bad information, and he believed it! So he’s a liar too!

Mmmmm.

A few will support Eric, such as Ilsa, but they avoid debate. Am I such a scary person?

cbl,

“4.We have never had fewer casualties of war.”

Remember Yugoslavia? Clinton overruled Wes Clark, and critics such as McCain, by refusing to put ‘boots on the ground’ into Yugoslavia. Instead, the US accomplished all of its goals through the use of air power alone. No US casualties. None.

That, cbl, is leadership.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #92880

clb

Your exactly what i was previously talking about. There is no changing your mind. Why are there so many people like you? When did it all of the sudden become such a bad thing to challenge the things you believe in? This is why our country is in trouble. We no longer learn from our mistakes and we think we are never wrong.

Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 4:34 PM
Comment #92882

The Problem I have with your remarks about mistakes is that there was no Mastak!!!

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 4:37 PM
Comment #92885

You must have run out of so called evidence to resort to that language. And to be so ashamed of it that you could not use your own name but stole mine.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 4:42 PM
Comment #92886

cbl

Actually it was an accident.

Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 4:45 PM
Comment #92887

clb,

1. If the word immanent is so important and so critical to democrats then why did they stand by the first time the world trade center was attacked as well as the US embassy bombings plus the USS Cole bombing? If they did not see those as a sign of an immanent threat then they are fools. In addition these attacks are proof that you can not stand by and wait for a warning.
The only thing the Clinton administration did following the 1st WTC attack was to catch, try, convict, and imprison those responsible. Maybe you could visit them in prison and ask them how that constitutes “standing by and waiting”. Furthermore, after the Cole attack in the fall of 1999, Clinton directed his administration to come up with a plan to defeat the terroritsts once and for all. Richard Clarke completed the plan later that year, and presented it to the incoming Bush administration when they took office in January 2000. You know what the Bush administartion did with that plan? They ignored it. Just like they ignored repeated and specific warnings about al Qaeda’s plans to hijack planes, and warnings that al Qaeda was scouting out buildings in New York City. And you know something else? The plan that the Bush administration implemented following 9/11 and takes credit for was the very plan developed by the Clinton administration. With the notable exception of the invasion of Iraq. So, the Bush administration not only “stood by”, they also IGNORED the multiple warnings.

Perhaps you’d prefer to respond the way President Reagan did when the Marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon in 1983. You know what Reagan did, don’t you? He ordered the complete withdrawal of the Marines. Of course he also ordered an invasion of a small Caribbean island to distract us. And to make the Caribbean safe for American medical students.

2. You incompetent liberals keep making it sound like Bush wanted to go to war. Well then tell us why? And donⴠyou dare say it was for money, after all itⳠthe UN who seems to be getting that.
First of all, the “incompetent liberals” line violates the policy of this blog, which is to critique the message, not the messanger. Second, it’s my opinion that Bush invaded Iraq solely to gain political capital as a wartime commander-in-chief, and to use that wartime political capital to achieve his agenda. He said exactly that during the 2000 campaign.
3. Nothing lasts for ever!! Rome, even with its might fell. Life is fragile the world is fragile and the US seems to be the only nation whom respects that. There for we just can not take the chance of loosing it. After all, would you want to be an Iraqi living under an evil dictator? The reason I ask is because it could easily happen to us.
Yes it could easily happen to us. Some of “us” worry that it is in fact happening now. In this country.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 4:47 PM
Comment #92889

Wow,
I’m not the Site Manager, but I’m sure you risk being banned from the site for violating the policy of critting the message, not the messenger. Not my call- just a friendly word.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 4:50 PM
Comment #92890

ElliottBay
If Clinton did something to then why did it happen again? That alone makes it obvious that he did not do enough which is why Bush did not make a mistake.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #92891

I am not a member and therefore can not be banned.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 4:54 PM
Comment #92892

phx8,

Seriously, I really didn’t think you were that far off of to that extreme to be buying into that kind of stuff.

Between watching the whole event unfold on live television to the report and how it is ‘edited’ on the link you provided, it’s a prime example of what is so wrong with what a lot of people call ‘journalism’. I’m not the biggest fan of news channels either, but at least there are times when you get unedited live coverage of something and can see it before someone with an agenda can ‘make their point’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 4:56 PM
Comment #92895

Over the weekend, President Bush took a hard line against critics of the Iraq invasion, insisting they’re rewriting history by pointing out that he misled America about Iraq. Unfortunately, President Bush’s defense is just as misleading as his insistence that Iraq had WMD and al Qaeda connections.

For whatever reason, the media is (to some extent) no longer in thrall to the Whitehouse and the Washington Post printed an accurate analysis of Bush’s speech.

Where Bush insists “a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs,” the Post says sure… BUT, “the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.”

That report also points out that the Whitehouse created “an environment that did not encourage skepticism” about WMD claims in the intelligence community.

And to imply that Congress had the same intelligence the President had is also misleading. As the Post makes clear, “Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material.”

President Bush handed Congress a bunch of guesswork packaged as facts. Here’s a good example from last year when an al Qaeda source recanted his story that Iraq trained al Qaeda operatives,

The Senate report says that a highly classified report prepared by the C.I.A. in September 2002 on “Iraqi Ties to Terrorism” described the claims that Iraq had provided “training in poisons and gases” to Qaeda members, but that it cautioned that the information had come from “sources of varying reliability.”
By contrast, it noted that unclassified testimony to Congress in February 2003 from George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, had not included any caveats and thus “could have led the recipients of that testimony to interpret that the C.I.A. believed the training had definitely occurred.”

Most public statements by Mr. Bush and other administration officials on the matter described the assertions as matters of fact.


Subsequently, we found out that the administration had been alerted to the fact that the guy was probably lying. So President Bush and other administration officials knowingly lied to us when they passed off the stooge’s claims as fact.

President Bush made misleading statements to rally support for the invasion of Iraq, and he misled those soldiers at the Tobyhanna Army Depot last Friday.

Posted by: Matt at November 14, 2005 5:04 PM
Comment #92896
The only thing the Clinton administration did following the 1st WTC attack was to catch, try, convict, and imprison those responsible.

You should put the word ‘SOME’ in there… You know, the ones we were meant to catch? Seriously, trying to get the deposit back on the truck? You’d think the guy was Oswald…

Perhaps you’d prefer to respond the way President Reagan did when the Marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon in 1983. You know what Reagan did, don’t you? He ordered the complete withdrawal of the Marines.

And we know Clinton would never pull out of a ‘hot zone’ after US Marines were killed like that jerk Reagan.

Please, before we start trying to say that Reagan and Bush I and II were horrible on terrorism and Clinton was the bomb, let’s be realistic and admit that all administrations, starting with Carter when we were first forced to deal with the issue, have failed the United States and stop making political points?

Al Qaeda was in the US for years before Bush took office and Clinton did not act on the ‘nebulous’ information that was countered with plausable other information just as Bush didn’t. And when we were attacked we started trying to ‘connect the dots’ so we didn’t fail at that again and now many condemn Bush for doing just that and turning out to be wrong. It’s all political, he didn’t care about the dead and possible death of tens of thousands more americans.

I understand you’re in a heated debate with someone who has a very very tiny grasp of sensibility and reality but it’s best to take an evenhanded view of this and examine our failures honestly and not try to make political hay out of them or we will not better ourselves at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 5:07 PM
Comment #92899

Stephen,

No one can deny that the intelligence was wrong. We did not find any significant quanties of WMD to say Saddam had stockpiles. However, that does not negate the fact that they were there at one time, they were never fully accounted for and Saddam went to a lot of trouble to hide what was apparently nothing.

What we are talking about are slanderous political charges that are demonstrably false. It is ludicrous to say, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bush lied to take us to war.

Your arguments instead do three things: [1] They drag down the Democrats with them, [2] They claim the emphasis was greater on defeating a dictator and ending his tyranny, and [3] they also try and maintain that there was no wrongdoing involved in the making of the case for war.

1) What my arguments are intended to do is disprove these false charges, scurrilously broght forth in an effort to sling mud. Or would you prefer (as a proponent of truth and justice) to perpetuate obvious lies in order to gain some political advantage?

2) In fact, I do not claim a greater emphasis for liberating the Iraqi people, I claim an equal emphasis. Despite the attempt, by you and the left, to try to disregard this truth, Bush has made defeating tyranny in the middle east the central doctrine of the Bush war on terror. How hard is that to admit? You don’t have to agree with it, but you have to agree that Bush has made it clear.

Whether you believe in it or not the Bush Doctrine is that removing dicatators in the Middle East and creating democracy and freedom for Muslims in their own lands is the war on terror as well as killing and capturing terrorists. WMD is not the only case for war, but it was one of the central reasons for invading Iraq. Saddam was threat as Clinton himself recognized, and in the same way.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.

…Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. cnn

After 9/11 the situation with Saddam becomes more imperative to deal with because he was funding palestinian terrorists!! Clinton did the right thing when he bombed the hell out of Saddam’s facilities in 1998, Saddam was also reeling from sanctions (for which the Iraqi people bore the brunt of the pain by the way) but then we had something called the Oil-for-Food program which enabled Saddam to reconstitute a steady cash flow.

Once again, Ladies and Gentleman, Jay Rockefeller:

We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States. http://rockefeller.senate.gov/

3) You are substituting characterizations for truth. For all that’s worth, you can also characterize Mother Theresa as a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud if you wanted to.

There was no rush to war, and no rushed intelligence, this is more than a twelve year ordeal with Saddam. There is history of our participation including using force to remove him from Kuwait and sanctions on Iraq for 12 years that killed far more civilians.

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #92898

Matt,

Why are you cutting and pasting American Pundit’s post from the Democrats column in the comments here? If you want others to read them it would be better to link to them, not post them as if they are your own words.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #92902

esimonson,

Don’t forget that Russia had also warned the US that Iraq planned to attack US interests with terrorism after 9/11 befor we invaded.

Neverminding that Iraq *DID* have cells here, they were Iraqi Intelligence and were doing a pretty good job of terrorising former Iraqi citizens into keeping quiet about anything they knew.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 5:12 PM
Comment #92903

Stephen,

No one can deny that the intelligence was wrong. We did not find any significant quanties of WMD to say Saddam had stockpiles. However, that does not negate the fact that they were there at one time, they were never fully accounted for and Saddam went to a lot of trouble to hide what was apparently nothing.

What we are talking about are slanderous political charges that are demonstrably false. It is ludicrous to say, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bush lied to take us to war.

Your arguments instead do three things: [1] They drag down the Democrats with them, [2] They claim the emphasis was greater on defeating a dictator and ending his tyranny, and [3] they also try and maintain that there was no wrongdoing involved in the making of the case for war.

1) What my arguments are intended to do is disprove these false charges, scurrilously broght forth in an effort to sling mud. Or would you prefer (as a proponent of truth and justice) to perpetuate obvious lies in order to gain some political advantage?

2) In fact, I do not claim a greater emphasis for liberating the Iraqi people, I claim an equal emphasis. Despite the attempt, by you and the left, to try to disregard this truth, Bush has made defeating tyranny in the middle east the central doctrine of the Bush war on terror. How hard is that to admit? You don’t have to agree with it, but you have to agree that Bush has made it clear.

Whether you believe in it or not the Bush Doctrine is that removing dicatators in the Middle East and creating democracy and freedom for Muslims in their own lands is the war on terror as well as killing and capturing terrorists. WMD is not the only case for war, but it was one of the central reasons for invading Iraq. Saddam was threat as Clinton himself recognized, and in the same way.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.

…Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. cnn

After 9/11 the situation with Saddam becomes more imperative to deal with because he was funding palestinian terrorists!! Clinton did the right thing when he bombed the hell out of Saddam’s facilities in 1998, Saddam was also reeling from sanctions (for which the Iraqi people bore the brunt of the pain by the way) but then we had something called the Oil-for-Food program which enabled Saddam to reconstitute a steady cash flow.

Once again, Ladies and Gentleman, Jay Rockefeller:

We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States. http://rockefeller.senate.gov/

3) You are substituting characterizations for truth. For all that’s worth, you can also characterize Mother Theresa as a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud if you wanted to.

There was no rush to war, and no rushed intelligence, this is more than a twelve year ordeal with Saddam. There is history of our participation including using force to remove him from Kuwait and sanctions on Iraq for 12 years that killed far more civilians.

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 5:12 PM
Comment #92904

Rhinehold,
Why, extremism in the pursuit of truth is no vice!

On the toppling of Saddam’s statue:

“Jul 3, 2004 - An internal Army study of the war in Iraq has confirmed that the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment.

At one point during the stunt Marines draped the statue of Saddam Hussein with an American flag. When the crowd reacted negatively to that gesture, the US flag was replaced…”

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641

This story was originally reported by the LA Times. Sorry, Rhinehold. It was just a Psy-Ops operation.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 5:13 PM
Comment #92909

Interesting, phx8, because when I go to the LA Times to look up the story, it isn’t there. When I search their archives, I don’t see the story. When I search on the word ‘psy-ops’ I see two articles, neither one mentioning the statue.

Can you show me the original article and some link to the report other than a few ‘questionable’ news sources? Why would that article no longer be available from the LA Times archive?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 5:22 PM
Comment #92910

Rhinehold,

I agree with most of what you said, especially that hindsight is always 20/20. There is more than enough blame to go around. But when I hear lies such as ‘9/11 was Clinton’s fault’, and ‘it’s the Dems’ fault that the war isn’t going well’, then I won’t them go unchallenged.

Eric,

However, that does not negate the fact that they were there at one time
Brillian logic. Using that justification, we should pre-emptively attack Japan because because of what they did in 1941.


And I’m still waiting for you folks who claimed that the Dems saw the same intelligence as the White house to back it up. And don’t say that it’s unreasonable to prove a negative, because that is exactly what the Bush administration demanded from Iraq.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #92913

And yes, I remember the ‘american draped flag’ as well as the Iraqi flag that was up before and afterwards (the Iraq flag was first, then someone put an american flag up and was quickly pulled because, well I think it was obvious why, and replaced with another Iraqi flag. How do I know? I was watching the event live on television…)

I also remember seeing Iraqi citizens first trying to get the statue down and climbing on it. Then the military, at least 30 - 45 minutes after people started climbing on and trying to pull down the statue themselves with a rope, come in and try to help.

I’m not saying that the military didn’t ‘help them along’, but I watched many Iraqis, showing their anger at Saddam by destroying the statue. Pulling his head through the streets, hitting his face with their shoes, etc.

Or are you trying to pretend that the Iraqis liked Saddam and wanted him to remain in power?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 5:28 PM
Comment #92917

Rhinehold,
Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue
David Zucchino; Los Angeles Times; Jul 3, 2004; A.28

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 5:35 PM
Comment #92920

Jack,

Often wrong, but never in doubt. It is not a joke re leadership. Conditions are always uncertain. You have to make decisions based on incomplete, misleading or totally lacking information.

Agreed.

The consequences of doing something are serious, but so are the consequences of doing nothing. You make the best choice you can. The time for doubt is before you make the committment.

Thanks, that’s exactly why I always though Bush decision was taken way before late 2002: he never show any doubt, he was committed to going to war against Iraq from day one (aka election day).
IIRC, Paul O’Neil think so too, right?

It was so obvious from foreign point of view. At first it was taken as Bush arrogance due to his new doctrine. But in fact it was just the no doubt/commited attitude of a governement that had taken decision long before 2002 diplomatic efforts started… and failed, go figure why?! ;-)

Once you started the dive, there is not use in wavering.

Let hope the bottom is not too far.

One more metaphore. What is the difference between being involved and being commmitted? In a bacon and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved and the pig is committed.

Good one. Except that the egg come first before chicken, as everybody knows ;-)
Back from metaphores, I think nobody denied that Bush is a commited president. The goals just shift at time…

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #92921

ElliotBay,

And don’t say that it’s unreasonable to prove a negative, because that is exactly what the Bush administration demanded from Iraq.

Actually, this is not true.

The agreement that Iraq agreed to demanded that they show proof or destruction or have the UN destroy their WMD stockpiles. It was suppose to be done within 90 days of the agreement. They blocked and refused inspections and for the most part hindered as much as possible for many years afterwards.

Finally frustrated, Clinton called the inspectors out and bombed them (to some, bombing a country is ok but sending in troops is wrong) for several days, trying to destroy the hiding spaces where they felt the remaining WMDs were in addition to places where they felt that Saddam was reconstituting his programs. They stopped bombing because they didn’t see how they could do any more damage to the programs and stores, they felt optimitically that they were able to destroy 85% of it.

However, after the bombing Saddam would not let inspectors back in. It took Bush and Blair to get the inspectors back in, something that they didn’t have to do if they wanted to ‘just invade’ IMO, and were credited with that because it was Saddam’s belief that if he didn’t he would be out then. When Blix reported that they were still not fully and immediately complying with inspections, the US and UK decided to act. They couldn’t get the German, Russian or French to agree so they decided to grab who they could get and go in themselves. They felt it was important.

Iraq was suppose to destroy or show proof of destruction. That was the requirement they were under and agreed to. To say later that ‘well, we just don’t know where it all could have gotten to’ isn’t very good. Of course, they couldn’t say that they had XXX in the places that Clinton bombed because then they would have been admitting that they were lying to the UN for 8 years. And let his neighbors know he was impotent and that the ‘West’ had truely beaten him which he would never admit to. So he kept playing games.

The problem? There was no way, short of invasion or fully and immediate compliance to the inspectors, to know FOR SURE that there was or wasn’t any WMD to be used for later use. If there had been, the sanctions would have been lifted immediately, something Saddam wanted desperately.

People forget that even Blix said that he would not be suprised at all if they found a whole bunch of WMD because they could never get full cooperation from the Iraqi government in their inspections.

So, we could have given Blix more time to investigate, but how long would that have been? 6 months? 2 years? There was no way to know because he wasn’t getting the coopration from the Iraqi government that was required in order to know FOR SURE.

And, as has been evident in this comment section, we know that if we had waited and THOUGHT we had it all and then they did attack as Russia had warned, Bush would be left to the guilt of allowing that attack AND would be burned at the stake by the very people who are now burning him for going with flawed intelligence, the same type of intelligence he ‘ignored’ before 9/11. So, Bush failed on the side of getting rid of Saddam, removing a threat, knowing ‘FOR SURE’ about the state of WMD and finally putting an end to the debacle that the Iraq sanctions and no-fly zone enforcement had become in addition to removing another country that was involved in international terrorism (which we are fighting a war against) and one of the worst human rights violators running a country at the time.

I don’t fault him his decisions, however wrong they turned out to be, because no one has been able to convince me that he cared more about his political butt than the butts of tens of thousands of Americans.

There are those that believe that, and that’s fine for them to believe. But it seems far easier to me, using Occam’s Razor, to accept that Bush’s motives were not sinister but motivated by guilt, regret and concern for the people he was entrusted for protecting.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 5:46 PM
Comment #92922

No war supporters here care to comment on Woodward’s assertion that Bush administration officials were telling reporters WMD evidence was weak before the war began? Any comeback? I’m dying to know.

Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 5:46 PM
Comment #92923
I am not a member and therefore can not be banned.

O yeah ya can, just ask Eric G.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 14, 2005 5:47 PM
Comment #92925

Rhinehold,

There is a reason why so many democrats voted for the war, and it wasn’t Bush’s amazing ability to succesfully deceive democrats. Although that is an impressive ability.

Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #92928
Rhinehold, Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue David Zucchino; Los Angeles Times; Jul 3, 2004; A.28

Ah, thanks Phx8. I was able to get a copy of the actual article with that information.

And, as I suspected, it’s not quite the same as the link you first posted with the preplanned staging using chalabi’s men to do the dirty work, etc.

From the article, it appears that a US Army Officer used a bullhorn to spur the Iraqi’s to topple the statue. As I suggested was probably the case.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 5:54 PM
Comment #92930

Eric & Rhinehold,

Here are the Senators who voted against the Iraq resolution. It’s roll call of honor; Liberal Democrats and one Independent.

Note the lack of Republicans voting against this horrendous mistake.

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 5:55 PM
Comment #92932

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #92938

It’s just incrusting how liberals always pull out the scar tactics when thy loose the upper hand. That’s why you threatened to have me band.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #92939
People forget that even Blix said that he would not be suprised at all if they found a whole bunch of WMD because they could never get full cooperation from the Iraqi government in their inspections.

I guess I did forget, because I don’t recall him saying anything of the kind - at least not in the testimony he gave closest to the start of the war. On March 7, 2003 he actually called Iraqi cooperation “proactive”.

So, we could have given Blix more time to investigate, but how long would that have been? 6 months? 2 years? There was no way to know because he wasn’t getting the coopration from the Iraqi government that was required in order to know FOR SURE.

Actually, there was a way to know how long it would take. By opening your ears and listening to Blix:

“How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever.”

Are you saying you’d prefer 4 years of war in Iraq to 6 months of inspections? If so, we have nothing further to discuss.

Listen Rhinehold, you and I have been over this in the past, and you still continue to repeat the fiction that Blix’s report actually helped make Bush’s case. It did not.

Please read this and tell me where your justification for war is.

And since you are so interested in Mr. Blix’s comments, let’s hear what he has to say about the pre-war intelligence in question:

JIM LEHRER: The prime minister elect of Spain said on Monday that the United States and Britain organized the war on Iraq with lies. From the standpoint of weapons of mass destruction, do you agree with that?

HANS BLIX: Well, they certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time. We had heard in the autumn of 2002 that the alleged aluminum tubes, for instance, which were thought, alleged to be for making the centrifuges, were probably more likely to be for making a rocket. And in January 2003, we had performed quite a lot of inspections to sites which were given by intelligence and they had not shown any weapons of mass destruction, so we began to be doubtful.

And among the 700 inspections that we performed, none brought us any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I warned the Security Council about that. Yet, there might have been other evidence and Colin Powell came before the Security Council and he brought some evidence, which we could not check. And I think that by now most of the evidence has fallen apart.

Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #92944

Is this the same Blix who is involved in the UN’s oil for food scandel?

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 6:17 PM
Comment #92951

clb,
Relax. It’s a misunderstanding. I was hinting to Wow, no you, that his comments directed towards you probably violated the site’s policy. I’m not a manager, I’m just a participant.

“It’s just incrusting how liberals always pull out the scar tactics when thy loose the upper hand. That’s why you threatened to have me band.”

‘Incrusting’? I’m concerned. Is there a way I can help you become uncrusted without scarring? Does this require a loose upper hand?

Come on. Everyone makes mistakes, but…

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 6:40 PM
Comment #92961

Rhinehold,
The Bush administration demanded that Iraq prove that it didn’t have WMD, which is asking it to prove a negative.

clb,
You’re new here, so you may not know it, but Ron Brown is a conservative. When he tells you you’re at risk of getting banned, it isn’t because he disagrees with you. It would be a wise thing to pay attention.

You said “liberals always pull out the scar tactics when thy loose the upper hand”. So that would totally different from the Department of Homeland Security raising the threat level ten times for no apparent reason during the 2004 campaign, right? I mean you wouldn’t wanna scare people and prove that you’ve lost the upper hand…

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 6:57 PM
Comment #92967
Is this the same Blix who is involved in the UN’s oil for food scandel?

Apparently not, since I’m not aware of any connection between Hans Blix and Oil-For-Food.

Can you cite some evidence in a 1 sentence response?

Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 7:06 PM
Comment #92976

God damn, I can’t even read Eric’s articles any more. I’d rather watch Laura Bush give oral sex to a horse while Ann Coulter bangs it up the ass wearing her strap-on. What a train wreck.

Posted by: Taylor at November 14, 2005 7:32 PM
Comment #92979
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons…”?

Actually, Bush never said that, the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, Democrat and Senator for the past 18 years said it.

Typical trick of the left. Make a statement, then if it looks like it might come back and bite you in the ass, start saying your opponents said it. Of course the liberial media will pick it up and run with it. And sense the only counter to the liberial media is FOX News (which is questionable in my book) and most people don’t watch it, the general public hears only the libs side and then beleives it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 14, 2005 7:44 PM
Comment #92983

taylor
your over the top, dude. I don’t think anybody likes that kind of response here.

Posted by: tomh at November 14, 2005 7:59 PM
Comment #92984

All this talk is pointless and irrelevant. What is important is that Osama Bin Ladin is FREE. While I am sure Republicans are happy with incompetents hiring people who write psychotic christmas cards to him, I for one expect leadership when it counts. I say bring on the fellatio!!! It has to be better than the present moron.

Posted by: Aldous at November 14, 2005 8:02 PM
Comment #92987
People forget that even Blix said that he would not be suprised at all if they found a whole bunch of WMD because they could never get full cooperation from the Iraqi government in their inspections.

I guess I did forget, because I don’t recall him saying anything of the kind - at least not in the testimony he gave closest to the start of the war. On March 7, 2003 he actually called Iraqi cooperation “proactive”.

Well, a simple search of CNN shows this…

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/06/sprj.irq.blix.wmd/

Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 1133 GMT ( 7:33 PM HKT) LONDON, England — Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

Blix is the consummate UN politician. If *he* wouldn’t be surprised then he obviously couldn’t say ‘FOR SURE’ that there were no WMD or he would have been very surprised to find them there.

Actually, there was a way to know how long it would take. By opening your ears and listening to Blix:

“How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever.”

Are you saying you’d prefer 4 years of war in Iraq to 6 months of inspections? If so, we have nothing further to discuss.

Months could mean 24, or 12, or 15, or 3. A typical spin by Blix to not pin anything down with a timeline, which got us into the position in the first place, trying to enforce an initial agreement that was suppose to be completed 90 days after the end of the Gulf War.

As for what I would prefer, you are equating two different things and putting words in my mouth. I’ve been very critical of the administration’s handling of this war, they should have been gone 6 months to a year after the mission accomplished, that’s no joke. But an incompetent running of a war doesn’t mean the war wasn’t necessary or even understandable if you disagree with it, at least have the guts to admit that those who did are not idiots as I don’t think that those who opposed it are either.

Listen Rhinehold, you and I have been over this in the past, and you still continue to repeat the fiction that Blix’s report actually helped make Bush’s case. It did not.

Please read this and tell me where your justification for war is.

Ok, right after the ‘proactive’ line you like to quote:

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

They were required by 1441 to be full and immediate compliance. While they were doing better in some aspects, Blix admits here they they did not live up to the requirements of 1441.

I don’t know how much more simple to make it. *shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 8:05 PM
Comment #92988

btw… Iraq is a Republican War and only Republican Children should fight in it.

Posted by: Aldous at November 14, 2005 8:05 PM
Comment #92991

Taylor

I feel ya. lmao

Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 8:11 PM
Comment #92994
taylor your over the top, dude.

Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. I meant Ann Coulter bangin the horse, not bangin Laura. =)

Posted by: Taylor at November 14, 2005 8:19 PM
Comment #93004

Bush should be flattered. In liberal eyes he is not only bad, but he is so clever that he was able to put one over on all the liberals (except Kennedy and a few others). We will have to change Old Nick to Old George.


Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 08:55 AM
____________________________________-

You’re right Jack. In the first term, he was “too dumb to tie his own shoes”. Now in his second term, he’s “too damn smart and diabolical, that he fooled everyone to get us into war”.

It’s funny (as hell) watching these liberals squirm and freak out over Bush. His approval ratings are in the toilet; however, these libs are digging their own graves by voting for the war and now not taking responsibility for it. Blaming Bush isn’t going to work for too long.

Bush is playing them like a fiddle; he’ll bounce back, they won’t…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 14, 2005 9:28 PM
Comment #93009

Jack-
I make a distinction between those who unknowingly act on bad information, and those who know information is bad, yet choose a course of action anyways, using that info as justification. Yes, Bush could have been the victim of good old fashion human limits of perception. But that requires information be hidden from him, and in many of these cases, administration officials knew there were big question marks about their evidence.

If Bush knows what they know, then Bush is lying to the American people. If he doesn’t know, then his staff is keeping him in the dark, and our president is flying blind, and in no position to be making choices for the rest of us.

The fact that human beings are imperfect in their understanding in the world does not justify being oblivious (or worse, dishonest) about the matters most important to us.

clb-
The poll was held this month, a full year after Bush’s slim victory. Bush did get the highest number of votes ever cast for a presidential candidate. Unfortunately, his rival is a close second for that same category.

At the same time, Bush only got 52% of the popular vote, and only won the electoral college because he won Ohio by 100,000 votes.

As for banning, you should know that Liberals and Conservatives alike have their privileges revoked, and commentors are the last ones to claim immunity. It’s not a scare tactic, and you don’t have the upper hand. You didn’t even have the timing of the poll straight. It’s your choice whether you want to insult and deride, or whether you want to debate. This site favors debaters.

Rhinehold-
Bush did not put in a good faith effort to make sure the information he presented to the American people, much less that he acted on, was right. That is the distinction. You assume this is about being wrong. In reality, it’s about somebody being wrong, knowing it, yet concealing the truth for the sake of expedience.

The Downing Street Memos demonstrated that the call for UN inspections was just for show, to enable the Brits to get involved without making them seem like breakers of international law. They were discussing what their options were for being turned down.

The fact of the matter is, you can’t hide stuff forever. People make mistakes, slip up. This is how most of Saddam’s weapons ended up destroyed.

Fact of the matter is, we don’t know what it was that Russia warned us of, who the source was, or whether the Warning was just Russia trying to get on Bush’s good side. Even a supporter like you doesn’t have specifics.

The War for Iraq was a case of consent being hung around a notion of what Iraq was doing, rather than a pre-existing ambient pattern suggesting something was up.

I believe with no problem that Saddam was yanking us around. What I have the problem with, is that in the absence of real WMDs, you’re making an uncooperative attitude the threshold for a pre-emptive war, not some actual threat.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #93014

Eric-
1)You are wrong, and want company. The obvious lie, repeated again and again was that Bush’s access and the legislatures were equal. Bush, though, controlled the flow of information, and there was much that they were not informed of. Many of the dissents, qualifications, and debunkings of the evidence were hidden from Legislators on both sides of the aisle.

2)There is no equal emphasis if there’s no mention in the binding sections of the authorization, much less an equal one. The Bush Doctrine was pre-emptive war to end states that harbor terrorists. I remember when he laid it out.

Iraq was not the logical target if you were wanting to deal with Palestinian terrorism. Try Lebanon. Try Libya. Try Syria. Hell, Try Iran. But Iraq was low on the list, for obvious reasons: Whens the last time you heard of Iraqi’s pulling of a spectacular act of terror. they couldn’t even get it right with a van full of explosives meant for Bush Sr. They got stopped because the damn thing got in an accident. This is your terrorist threat: What Richard Clarke called the Keystone Kops of the intelligence world.

3)Do you have any response that is not an appeal to disbelief? We got Bush officials stuffing the UN case for war with single source evidence, which Colin Powell was ripping it out page by page, eventually throwing the report across the table and calling it shit.

That’s just the beginning. You can bring out your standard, highly-praising spiel of what the Bush adminstration’s not, but few will believe with evidence of how wrong they got it, and more importantly, how consistently they got things wrong

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 10:22 PM
Comment #93018

I gotta hand it to you neocons: you stick to the party line like krazy-glue. You also have selective memory. For instance, you seem to forget a certain State of the Union Address. A certain speech in which our “leader” accused Saddam of trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. That accusation was proven false by - and I know how much you hate to read or hear this name - Joseph Wilson IV, who served under various administrations (Republican and Democrat alike). For more on the death of truth under the neocon administration, read my next blog! Or are you afraid?

Posted by: professor at November 14, 2005 10:47 PM
Comment #93019

Lets sum things up.
So far the conservatives and the liberals here agree that the dems supported the war to begin with.
The facts in this are they voted in support of it.
The disagreement is whether or not they were deceived.
Another agreement is that some times you must make a decision with limited information.
The disagreement is who had the least info.
Yet the overall disagreement is whether or not bush lied.
In America you are innocent until proven guilty.
Since no one has any proof of this, that would make it a mater of opinion.

Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 10:48 PM
Comment #93020

*sigh* Professor, you should really know what you’re taking about before trotting out left talking points and then complaining bout neocons doing the same thing…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 10:51 PM
Comment #93023

Stephen:

I make a distinction between those who unknowingly act on bad information, and those who know information is bad, yet choose a course of action anyways, using that info as justification. Yes, Bush could have been the victim of good old fashion human limits of perception. But that requires information be hidden from him, and in many of these cases, administration officials knew there were big question marks about their evidence.

You are wrong when you say “It requires information be hidden from him” It simply means the information was wrong. There is a pattern of wrong information. The CIA was wrong about the end of the cold war, (didn’t see it coming). Our intellegence was wrong about 9/11 (didn’t prevent it from happening). Connect the dots to it was wrong about WMD. If you are wrong about Bush, it is worse for the country because we can connect the dots one more time, and find that we could easily be attacked again because out intelligence is wrong a fourth time.

Bush did not put in a good faith effort to make sure the information he presented to the American people, much less that he acted on, was right.

I think you need to make historical judgments about this. How did Johnson and Nixon handle information about Vietnam, Carter about Iran, Reagan about Iran and Grenada. Bush about Iraq, Clinton about Iraq. In an historical context how does Bush measure up? And did Bush obey the war powers act?

I firmly believe Bush acted within his powers and did not intentionally mislead in a legal sense. Did he “sell the war”, Every president had better “sell” a war or we should never go to war. I believe this because of the behavior of the democrats. If Bush intentionally misled the congress in a rush to war, we would be in the middle if impeachment hearings. The Democrats who voted for the war would insist on it.

I believe the accusations from the left that Bush lied are based in the left’s need to have a villian and not fact. It is far easier to mobilize the base with a liar than with the truth that the intelligence community once again made a fundamental mistake.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 14, 2005 10:58 PM
Comment #93025

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida.”

“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

“Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites.”

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Courtesy of Buzzflash.com
for more info:
www.afterdowningstreet.org bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm www.alternet.org www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/scheer www.harpers.org/RevisionThing.html
any questions?

Posted by: professor at November 14, 2005 10:59 PM
Comment #93028

I don’t know how to put this so I’ll be blunt. I would like to see the CIA gone from our government. I’m no Constiutional scholar but I do believe our government is based on checks and balances of powers. There is no check on the CIA and nothing restrains its power. To me that is unconstitutional. I may be wrong but would like to know what everyone else thinks. Yes, even Eric…well kind of.

Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 11:14 PM
Comment #93033

Professor,

Tons, but simply parroting sites like ‘afterdowningstreet’ and ‘alternet’ isn’t going to get them answered and just bolster my assertion that you are just repeating the ‘party line’ while complaining that the ‘neocons’ are doing the same.

I would point you to factcheck.org but the sudden exposure to facts and reasoned discourse might be too much for your system I’m afraid.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 11:22 PM
Comment #93035

Rhinehold,

Well, a simple search of CNN shows this…

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/06/sprj.irq.blix.wmd/

Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 1133 GMT ( 7:33 PM HKT) LONDON, England — Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

A) That statement is after the war began and does not belong in a discussion of pre-war intelligence, no?

B) I see no where in that statement where Blix discusses Saddam’s cooperation, as you (mis)stated.

C) Wouldn’t be surprised? This is the level of assurance we need before starting a war? Come on.

Blix is the consummate UN politician. If *he* wouldn’t be surprised then he obviously couldn’t say ‘FOR SURE’ that there were no WMD or he would have been very surprised to find them there.

Of course he couldn’t say for sure, because Bush kicked out the inspectors before they had finished their job in a massive rush to war while there was still some sliver of doubt left of whether Iraq had WMDs.

Months could mean 24, or 12, or 15, or 3. A typical spin by Blix to not pin anything down with a timeline, which got us into the position in the first place

Know any other jackasses who won’t pin down their actions to a specific timeline? I’ll give you a hint. George Walker Bush.

But an incompetent running of a war doesn’t mean the war wasn’t necessary or even understandable if you disagree with it, at least have the guts to admit that those who did are not idiots as I don’t think that those who opposed it are either.

I don’t think the war supporters are idiots, nor do I think the war was necessary. Support for the war was understandable, but in my opinion it becomes increasingly less so as time goes on and we are more and more privy to the benefit of hindsight. Unfortunately, I also believe that stabilizing Iraq (aka winning the war) is an absolute necessity.

They were required by 1441 to be full and immediate compliance. While they were doing better in some aspects, Blix admits here they they did not live up to the requirements of 1441.

I don’t know how much more simple to make it. *shrug*

Well, one thing I gotta give you guys credit for - you like to keep it “simple”.

So your rationale for sending men and women to die for war is that Iraq took a few months before becoming 100% cooperative? Screw WMDs, forget regime change, nevermind democracy, freedom, blah, blah, blah. Thousands of young Americans are dead because you lost patience. Even though the Iraqis were actually cooperating fully before the war began, that didn’t matter because they didn’t get up to speed fast enough for your taste. Brilliant.

Listen, you’ve got plenty of good points to make. Just stop saying that Blix helped your case for war, because the truth is the direct opposite.

Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 11:28 PM
Comment #93044

Hans Blix became irrelevant because Bush would have invaded regardless of what he said. The UN Resolutions are irrelevant for the same reason. They are just excuses to do what Bush wanted to do in the first place. If they were relevant, Israel would have been invaded a long time ago due to its own UN Resolutions.

Posted by: Aldous at November 15, 2005 12:53 AM
Comment #93045

Really, Aldous?

How many Chapter VII resolutions does Israel have against it atm?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 1:14 AM
Comment #93046

Rhinehold:

Once again, you Republicans failed your History. Were you asleep when you were in highschool or did they finally cut the funding for History instead?

FYI. We WERE expecting the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941!!! Pearl Harbor went on alert many times before the actual attack happened. Hell, our Intelligence Boys knew the War had started before the Japanese Ambassador did!!!

Sheesh… do some research!!! The internet is more than just for porn!!!

Posted by: Aldous at November 15, 2005 1:15 AM
Comment #93047

A list of UN Resolutions against “Israel”

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”.
* Resolution 111: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.
* Resolution 127: ” … ‘recommends’ Israel suspends it’s ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.
* Resolution 162: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.
* Resolution 171: ” … determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.
* Resolution 228: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.
* Resolution 237: ” … ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.
* Resolution 248: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.
* Resolution 250: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.
* Resolution 251: ” … ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250”.
* Resolution 252: ” … ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.
* Resolution 256: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.
* Resolution 259: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.
* Resolution 262: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.
* Resolution 265: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”.
* Resolution 267: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.
*Resolution 270: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.
* Resolution 271: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.
* Resolution 279: ” … ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.
* Resolution 280: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.
* Resolution 285: ” … ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.
* Resolution 298: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.
* Resolution 313: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.
* Resolution 316: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.
* Resolution 317: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.
* Resolution 332: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.
* Resolution 337: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.
* Resolution 347: ” … ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.
* Resolution 425: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
* Resolution 427: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.
* Resolution 446: ” … ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious
obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
* Resolution 450: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.
* Resolution 452: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.
* Resolution 465: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.
* Resolution 467: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.
* Resolution 468: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.
* Resolution 469: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the
council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.
* Resolution 471: ” … ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
* Resolution 476: ” … ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.
* Resolution 478: ” … ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its
claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’”.
* Resolution 484: ” … ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors”.
* Resolution 487: ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s
nuclear facility”.
* Resolution 497: ” … ‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan
Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith”.
* Resolution 498: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.
* Resolution 501: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.
* Resolution 509: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.
* Resolution 515: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in”.
* Resolution 517: ” … ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.
* Resolution 518: ” … ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.
* Resolution 520: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.
* Resolution 573: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: ” … ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.
* Resolution 592: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.
* Resolution 605: ” … ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: ” … ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.
* Resolution 636: ” … ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: ” … ‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: ” … ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: ” … ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: “… ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

Posted by: Aldous at November 15, 2005 1:17 AM
Comment #93049

Nice.

Now, answer my question. How many Chapter 7 resolutions does Israel have against it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 1:18 AM
Comment #93051

Btw, since you will now probably avoid the whole topic, I quote the following:

The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules. […]

In the long and intractable conflict over Palestine, both sides consider themselves victims. The Palestinians say that their national rights were usurped by an intruder; the Israelis that the Palestinians never accepted the Jewish right to self-determination. The UN’s approach has been to recognise the complexity of these respective claims, lay down broad principles, and urge a negotiated peace. The case of Iraq could hardly be more different. That country is in conflict with the UN itself, having refused to comply with the clear instructions, under Chapter Seven, to give up its weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 1:23 AM
Comment #93055

Rhinehold:

So you are saying Israel has no Nucleur Weapons? Nice pot you are smoking!!!

Posted by: Aldous at November 15, 2005 2:06 AM
Comment #93059

Rhinehold,

There is at least 1 against Israel that I know of: Resolution 338. And they are in material breach.

Posted by: Burt at November 15, 2005 2:58 AM
Comment #93097

clb-
In America’s courts, you are innocent until proven guilty. In the Marketplace of ideas, it’s what people are willing to accept as proof. That can vary widely. My belief is that there are too many errors in our intelligence about the war for it to be some random trouble with getting the right information. The breakdown was systematic.

I don’t believe it was the CIA, because there is good evidence that there were people who had it right there, long before we went to war. I do believe it was this administration because they consistently pushed for one conclusion, even before their was evidence (however faulty) to back it up. They knew that not all the conclusions reached back them up. Their standard of evidence was whatever supported their drive for war.

At the very least, Bush has lied in defending his administration on the bad intelligence. If he lied about that, the chances increase that whatever he was dishonest about does not bear well the light of day.

This notion that everybody had the same intelligence is a bald face lie, because he made sure through changes in the way information was distributed to congressional legislators and senators that they did not have access to classified information. By definition, there could not have been the same information before the president and before our legislative branch.

That gradient of information becomes increasingly important as it becomes apparent that the information they knew said different things from the information they didn’t know. If the conclusions one could draw from the the secret evidence largely concurred with that of the openly distributed intelligence, then we could assume that this different access was not a problem for whether the American people were being given proper access.

However, since that barrier of secrecy hid open disputes and actual debunkings of that information, not to mention qualifiers that spoke to the immediacy and level of the threat, it is perfectly rational to suppose that deception was at play, and since all the breaks went for going to war here, to assume that deception was intended to get us into a war we otherwise would not have approved of.

It would also render invalid any implication that the bipartisan support for the war, largely based on the public perception of the threat posed by Iraq, meant that the Democrats were being inconsistent by reversing their position. If one is deceived it is rather the more inconsistent position to maintain the argument you made when you believed the information true. You should adjust your position to fit the facts, because any other position, by definition, is wrong.

That’s why I believe you and many folks on the Red Column are wrong about us. We don’t want absolute proof. We want a reliable system that corrects for its mistakes, rather than accumulates them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2005 9:24 AM
Comment #93105

Craig-
Information was available to the Bush administration which invalidated parts of the case they were offering to the American people. They knew of this information. If Bush was told of these things, he knew, and had a responsiblity to act accordingly.

Intelligence failures like this one inflict double damage, both occupying our resources to purpose that do not benefit our country, and by competition squeezing out the efforts and investigation that would be needed to deal with the real threats.

In terms of the presidents, the failures tend to cluster around supporting the wrong people, bubbling ourselves off from an accurate reading of the situation, making policy with more political ideology in mind than practical sensibility, and ultimately regarding ones image as superior to the interest of the country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2005 9:50 AM
Comment #93147

Woody,

If you are a Democrat I’m sure you are quite accustomed to being fooled by the people you vote for.

Posted by: JLP at November 15, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #93179

Stephen:


Craig-
Information was available to the Bush administration which invalidated parts of the case they were offering to the American people. They knew of this information. If Bush was told of these things, he knew, and had a responsiblity to act accordingly.

This is true for most intelligence a President must act on. Intelligence almost always comes with a mixed picture. What you are suggesting is the the President tell us the sky is blue.

You say “they knew” with an implication of dishonesty. Put the “they knew” in proper context. Every President “knows” intelligence is rarely 100% certain. Every President “knows” there are disenters and intelligence that leads to other conclusions. President Bush “knew” in the same sense that every other President has “known” the nature of intelligence.

Your comment seems to imply that you think this “knowing” is unique to Bush. It’s simply not true. There is nothing unique about it.

What I would ask of you, in this discussion is to show conclusively that Bush acted on intelligence in a manner totally out of the norm for a President. I would like you to show that the Bush team was uniquely different than other presidents. You can do that in two different ways. First you could show that intelligence usually is black and white, and clear. Secondly you could show how previous Presidents have said “some intelligence says this, others that, I believe this intelligence is correct.

Craig

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2005 2:38 PM
Comment #93184

A good example is the decision to bomb the al-shifa plant. There was intelligence saying that it was a harmless site, other intelligence (mainly related to taking soil samples from outside of the plant facilities) that showed that it was a chemical plant run by Iraq and al Qaeda.

Clinton listed to all sides and determined that it was, in fact, an al Qaeda/Iraq chemical plant and bombed it.

Was it? Maybe. Maybe not. But I can’t fault Clinton for acting on the intelligence as it was presented to him at the time.

Now, Bush does appear to have had a penchant of wanting to not believe the dissenters, mainly because of the environmnet so close to a post 9/11. Reading the discovery about the aluminum tubes and a CIA agent called ‘Joe/Mike’ leads me to believe that some running the investigations were predisposed to believe X over Y and those who believed Y were just ‘Iraq apologists’. Was this because of the mindset of the administration or the mindset of the intelligence community for longer than Bush was in office? I vote it was the same pre-Bush, many of the decisions that Clinton made can be seen to have used similar intelligence.

But, that’s just my opinion…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 2:53 PM
Comment #93186

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 2:57 PM
Comment #93201

Yes, of course he lied. He can try to say that he was relying on the CIA’s evidence, but we all know that President’s give them the “suggested” outcome of that evidence.

Posted by: political blog at November 15, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #93204

And your proof of this is?

Oh wait, it’s just your opinion.

Please understand that we might want to, I don’t know, make our own? And please don’t include me in the ‘we all know’ idiocy that you are trying to represent.

That’s the problem with liberals, they always think they know what’s best and everyone else should just accept that and let them do their thinking for us.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 3:37 PM
Comment #93205

(in the spirit of ‘fairness)

The problem with conservatives is that they think GOD knows what’s best and everyone should just not think at all and just do what the bible says.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 3:39 PM
Comment #93253

I don’t think Jay Rockefeller was lieing when he said on Sunday,

I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.


Jay Rockefeller Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee
gave Sadam and the Syrians almost a year to move the WMD out of Iraq into Syria.

Why would he do that? Why would he give up U.S. top secrets.
He said he KNEW Bush was going into Iraq.

Also
Moderator, Ban Taylor if you have not already.
Thanks.

Posted by: George at November 15, 2005 5:45 PM
Comment #93264

George,

Ya think it was top secret that Bush was planning to invade Iraq in 2002? Really? Then why did Bush himself talk about invading Iraq to his biographer during the 2000 presidential election? Ya think his biographer had a top secret clearance? Why were there newspaper accounts in 2002 that talked about what size the invasion force would be?

If you want to talk about giving away top secrets and going to jail, answer me this. Why isn’t Robert Novak in prison for disclosing Valerie Plame’s identity? Why is there no investigation into the release of information about the covert CIA prisons overseas now that Trent Lott has admitted that the source of the leak was a Republican? Why was Orrin Hatch never prosecuted for giving out Osama bin Laden’s name so soon after 9/11 that he incurred the wrath of Donald Rumsfeld?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 15, 2005 7:08 PM
Comment #93266

Elliot:


Ya think it was top secret that Bush was planning to invade Iraq in 2002? Really? Then why did Bush himself talk about invading Iraq to his biographer during the 2000 presidential election?

Because a war broke out between the two dates, and because Bush’s first comments were made as a candidate, and not as a war time president. Rockefeller revealed the thoughts of a war time president. Not good.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2005 7:31 PM
Comment #93267

Craig,

No offence meant, but the lead up to the invasion played like the movie “Duck Soup”. Everybody knew we were going to invade Iraq.

There was no BIG secret.

Posted by: Rocky at November 15, 2005 7:52 PM
Comment #93283

George-
Charles Duelfer not only did not did not conclude that WMD was moved out to Syria, He did not find one piece of evidence that such a movement of weapons ever took place

It’s one thing for there to be unclear evidence, ambiguous evidence. But what do you say to the absolute absence of evidence? It won’t discourage the true believers from saying any damn thing they want to. But it should discourage you from stating as a fact that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

As for keeping secrets, I don’t know whether or not that was really that big of a secret. After all, by this time or not too soon after that, I think we were bulking up the Kuwaiti landing areas, and that would have been hard to conceal. Besides, it was just his opinion. He wasn’t giving them the dates of the invasion. Another thing to consider- even if there were WMDs, and Saddam decided to move them, the worst thing in the world would be getting caught with them. That’s what any such movement risked, especially with the increated intelligence tasking of our satellites.

It sounds sexy, and it’s impossible to gainsay somebody who really wants to believe that the fog of war concealed such a movement. It’s just that we found no evidence whatsoever of any such movement.

Craig-
Many people tell you about the Pole Star. Telling you that it exists is no big deal. But what if I told you that Polaris wasn’t once star, but a system of at least six. What if I told you it’s barely in the top fifty brightest stars in the night sky, despite its importance? What if I told you than in 14,000 years, it would be supplanted in importance by Vega? Intelligence can be about the non-obvious things of obvious objects of interest, and it can undermine our expectations- That the pole star is permanent, bright, and singular.

What you’re arguing right now is that the president should be forgiven for getting things wrong because people are always getting things wrong in terms of intelligence.

The problem is, intelligence failures are rarely this systematic, and the breaks rarely are so favorable to one point of view. Whether it was intentional or not, the way this administration operated insured the slant of the information towards a forgone conclusion.

What leads me to believe that it was intentional, and therefore outside the bounds of simple human fallibility on intelligence, is that this administration not only didn’t admit mistakes, but spouted off talking points and executed strategies designed to convince people there were no errors, despite the overwhelming evidence of it.

At the very least, it indicates that their mind was not on dealing with the practical results of the errors, but instead saving face. That, at the very least, counts to me as a failure of leadership. If you appeal to human fallibility to excuse your actions, you are morally obligated to figure out what went wrong.

That was not done. Stay the Course, Bush said.

These people are going to get it wrong, but there are different kinds of wrong that take different kinds of weakness, and not all of these weaknesses are out of the control of those who have them. There are disciplines and practices in place to filter out bad intelligence. There is a strong indication that the Bush adminstration not only didn’t avail themselves of these techniques, but refused their use, knowing that allowing those processes to do their work would weaken their case.

And yes, it’s good to weaken a case, if it can be, because then you can see whether it’s right or wrong.

Rhinehold-
Clinton had conclusive, on-site evidence. The chemical found was a unique nerve gas precursor. It is not Clinton’s manner of decision (pre-emptive, admittedly) but rather his methods of coming to that decision which are important.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2005 10:31 PM
Comment #93284

Aldous wrote:
A list of UN Resolutions against “Israel”
_____________________________

So now it’s the Jews fault again?! Why can’t people stop ducking the main culprit and that’s muslim extremism?!! What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid to be right?!!

I mean, everytime there’s a Israel/Palestine agreement, it’s the Iraelis that do the negotiating and the palestinians don’t budge.

So, the Israelis build a wall that the UN thinks is “wrong”; the UN has been wrong (and corrupt and worthless) on a number of occasions. The Israelis are in the middle of a desert with hate surrounding them; their beliefs are just as strong (if not stronger than) the palestinians.

So, let’s stick to the matter at hand and that’s muslim extremist. What your plan?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 15, 2005 10:43 PM
Comment #93287
Rhinehold- Clinton had conclusive, on-site evidence. The chemical found was a unique nerve gas precursor. It is not Clinton’s manner of decision (pre-emptive, admittedly) but rather his methods of coming to that decision which are important.

And yet, it appears that he was wrong and that the evidence suggests that the intelligence was flawed.

Oopsie

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2005 11:28 PM
Comment #93296

Stephen:

What you’re arguing right now is that the president should be forgiven for getting things wrong because people are always getting things wrong in terms of intelligence.

I am arguing that our intelligence capabilities are limited. The intelligence community has made three major goofs in my lifetime. 1. The fall of communism. They didn’t see it coming. 2. They didn’t see 9/11 coming. 3. WMD and our going to war on wrong information.

I would also argue that Bush’s doctrine of premption is ill founded because of our poor intelligence capabilities.

What leads me to believe that it was intentional, and therefore outside the bounds of simple human fallibility on intelligence, is that this administration not only didn’t admit mistakes,

But you implant a different motive in this fact. If I were President I would be very careful about admiting mistakes in the middle of a war. After the war was over, I would be happy to. In making your point, I would ask you to debate from a position of comparing Bush to other wartime presidents. How much did Rosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Johnson admit while the war was underway as compared to Bush? That separates out the lefts need to regain power and gives a more rational basis for arguement. If you can show that Bush’s failure to admit mistakes is unusual for a wartime president than you might have a convert here.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 1:51 AM
Comment #93299

Craig,
You bring up a very good point and so here is my question to the Republicans and their Leadership. In the interest of National Security, I can make the argument that it was “Total Incompetence” of the Senior Administration to win the Political/Diplomatic Game of Chess as well as execute the war in Iraq.

However, due to the words and actions of Scooter Libby and others I can use the same evidence and the natural course of Human Events to show a pattern of political misdoings. Therefore, we owe it to our children to find out the truth so it will not happen again, correct? Did you here the lastest about Mr. Woodard? Just please tell me it is not another Watergate?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 16, 2005 4:40 AM
Comment #93305

Rhinehold-
The problem with your argument, is that nobody got to go in and inspect things, and the plant manager who claimed this was a baby-formula (or peaceful pesticide) factory was an associate of Bin Ladens. The plant itself was paid for by Sudan’s Military fund, and was near a artillery shell factory.

Now here’s the kicker: Clinton didn’t merely trust the human source, but sent some of our own people to do tests in the Plant’s soil and runoff. That’s where we find EMPTA. Now if you’ve ever argued that Bin Laden and Iraq had cooperated, here’s what your argument would be based on: EMPTA is unique to Iraqi chemical weapons manufacture. The Iraqi scientist, whether freelance or in Saddam’s employ, were likely working on behalf of Turabi, who was causing problems for a lot of Iraq’s enemies, but this is the essential link.

The Republicans jumped on the claims of that business owner, though, and Clinton’s people unfortunately failed to get in the way of the charges. Fact is, though, we had better reason to go after this chemical plant than to invade Iraq, because not once did the Bush administration, with our own people, go in and get evidence to find out whether the WMD program was ongoing. Is it oops? It’s “oops” that the Republican led legislature took the word of a terrorist associate and a harborer of terrorist over Clinton’s. It’s “oops” that when confronted on the matter, Clinton’s people failed to stand their ground on the matter.

Craig-
Which brings me to you. Some events occur because of a critical change within the society. Such events do not always lend themselves to predictability, because they do not always center themselves on obvious causes, or obvious efforts.

It’s not an implantation. It’s one thing to say, “we know what we did wrong” and move on from there, changing plans to suit, but to fail to take action even in the midst of growing public dissent about the war is not helping anything. People must believe the war is heading towards victory at some point. If such victory is perpetually put off for another day, people lose hope.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 8:13 AM
Comment #93311

It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power – a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America’s face.


I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone.

Senator Joe Lieberman November 15 2005

Posted by: Ace at November 16, 2005 8:46 AM
Comment #93323

Ace-
No matter what cover you believe that Democratic support of the War at the time grants you, it doesn’t answer the crucial question: what made it politically necessary to support the war…

…or more precisely, who.

We all work on partial information. That means, from time to time, our ignorance gets the best of us. However, it would be naive to assume that this ignorance is always the product of bad luck. Sometimes, it’s the result of laziness or cowardice in terms of following things up. Other times, we don’t know because people deliberately conceal things from us, so that we will act from an overall picture of things that supports their agenda.

Time and time again, it has been proven that this administration withheld evidence that would get in the way of waging the war they wanted to wage. You cannot argue equivalent culpability without an equivalent capability to determine the truth. The question is, who was waiting on whose information?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 10:14 AM
Comment #93325

Henry:

Therefore, we owe it to our children to find out the truth so it will not happen again, correct? Did you here the lastest about Mr. Woodard? Just please tell me it is not another Watergate?

It wont happen again. The next big thing will be a time when we should go to war, but we don’t because we do not want to make this mistake again. What I mean is that the intelligence community will have correct evividence that Americans are in grave danger, and Congress or the President wont act because of a lack of belief in the intelligence.

We can impeach Bush, but I don’t think that is going to solve the problem. The problem is poor intelligence.

I read Woodward’s comments. Nothing there surprized me. I would assume that discussions like that are going on while any country is heading toward starting a war.

War is messy. I try to think of what the world would be like if American had chosen to go to war. The status quo was falling apart. Bush I/Clinton policy had held together but was crumbling.

I didn’t trust the weapons instpectors. I didn’t think they were dishonest, I just thought that Iraqi’s were moving evidence in front of their inspections.

My own hindsite would have been to “strip search” Iraq. Invade the country and then call in the inspectors again, and then leave when no weapons were found.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 10:21 AM
Comment #93330

Stephen:


It’s not an implantation. It’s one thing to say, “we know what we did wrong” and move on from there, changing plans to suit, but to fail to take action even in the midst of growing public dissent about the war is not helping anything. People must believe the war is heading towards victory at some point. If such victory is perpetually put off for another day, people lose hope.

I will be where you are a year from now. We have elections in a few weeks. I have an expectation that starting next year, say late spring, after the new government is settled, there will be a distinct change in the air. My expectation is that the Iraqi government will step up and lead, so our troops can begin to come home.

I think we will be there for some time, but it should be in decreasing amounts, and certainly not as visable. I supported the war, and would probably do so again. That support does not mean an unending commitment. I support my children in college, but I don’t support them being a professional student. This needs to end.

My support for the war is based on the following.

1. The Bush I/Clinton policy on Iraq had served it’s time and was crumbling.

2. Terrorists had proven that they would hit us here in America.

3. Terrorists had stated that their motive was to removal of US Combat forces from Muslim lands.

4. We cannot move US Combat forces from Muslim lands because of the threat of Iraq.

5. At least with Sadaam gone there is a hope of returning to our pre 1990 policy of keeping troops on ships in the gulf.

6. This will remove the reason for OBL to strike.

7. My believe is that if we take out OBL and Al Qaeda, another will just rise, until our forces are off their land.

I do think we need to talk about the Clinton Policy in a nonblaming way. It is our troops on muslim soil that caused 9/11. We have to move away from that concept.

Secondly, the Bush policy of preemptive war, I have difficulty supporting again. You noticed my rationale for supporting the war did not mention WMD. I don’t trust out intelligence services to be accurate enough to base a decision to go to war on their recommendation.

Third, the UN needs to be rechartered for the war on terrorism. The UN Security Counsel makes no sense to me in terms of it’s composition. It reminds me of the bar scene on “Star Wars”. The UN needs to be “Impeached” so to speak in order to create a new world body that has more credibility, and more teeth in to be able to stand up against the worlds only superpower.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #93345

You liberals keep listing comments from UN officials as though they are the all wise and all knowing , while at the same time their honesty is in question, and even though we have more evidence of their corruption then you have of Bush’s you still want to trust them! After all it is a fact that they had more to loose if Sodom were toppled. You also keep speaking as though Iraq would never hid something from them, yet if the US were to investigate Halliburton and nothing were found you would say that they were not cooperating with investigators or that the investigators were corrupt.
Another thing for you naturalists out there you criticize us Christians for putting all our eggs in one basket yet you do the same thing with the UN, which is sinking fast. Your belief is as faith based as ours!

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 12:11 PM
Comment #93364

Craig

Rockefeller revealed the thoughts of a war time president
Two problems with that statement: (1) it assumes that Bush HAD thoughts (just kidding), and (2) Rockefeller was stating his OPINION. Did you read the quote? It said “in my view”. Last time I checked, stating your OPINION was protected by the 1st Amendment.

It’s so fun to watch the Right try to squirm out from under the FACT that this is your war. When it was popular you crowed about it, but now that support for it is under 40%, you’re trying to spread the blame.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 16, 2005 1:01 PM
Comment #93369

Craig-
It is not our troops on Muslim Soil that caused 9/11. It’s the fact that we intervened at all, and that the Saudi Royals sought our help, instead of betting on the home team.

Supporting the policy on the basis of removing an inflammatory presence makes sense, but this is one of those cases where the cure is worse than the disease. Here, we’ve traded the perception of an occupation by a few radicals for the reality of one, undeniable to anybody who has sight and can hear.

As for getting at Osama Bin Laden, that should have been our primary concern. One of my reasons for my intense dislike of Bush is that for all the efforts he made to get Saddam, the one who really struck at us first is still on the loose.

As for the resurgence of any such movement, I think al-Qaeda benefited from the fact that there had been none like it before. I think anybody who comes after them has to deal with a much different environment. If we succeed in destroying al-Qaeda, or at least seriously hindering its operation, the efforts and institutions put together to deal with one can be turned to the same use on the other.

clb-
Whose honesty? The officials themselves, or others in the organization? I think that unless you can speak to the specifics here, you’re just UN-baiting, which is your excuse for rejecting international approaches to this and other policies.

As for Halliburton, the army themselves have investigated and found serious cost overruns, waste and corruption among their members. Of course, for some strange reason, they still have the contract, and aren’t facing penalties. If we are to throw stones, it only looks like politics if we do so from a glass house.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 1:20 PM
Comment #93382

Number one it is the liberals who are complaining not the conservatives. You want to say that we are trying to spread the blame, yet the only ones placing blame are you liberals. You keep saying “Bush lied” and Iraq was the fault of the Republicans and not whiling to take part in the blame that you are placing on Bush. So how about we heir it from you, if it is true that Iraq is a failure then why don’t you stand up and admit that it was “your” liberal buddies who also supported this war to begin with. Oh no I forgot you are incapable, that’s why you have to say that Bush lied.
Secondly let’s get this straight we conservatives do not see Iraq as a failure or a mistake. Only you liberals who voted in support of it in the first place. As it has been said here before, the only reason that you say Bush lied is because your world view of “war is wrong no matter what” came under attack when your friends supported it and now the only way to keep from admitting that your world view was wrong is to say bush lied.
Thirdly if Bush did lie then where is the evidence, all that you have stated here are simply hear say or Sheehan propaganda. You also keep asking for proof that the senate saw the same intelligence as Bush did yet you can not your self show that Bush withheld info from the senate.
And finally to those of you who think that there was an alternative then what was it? And do not say that we should have given the UN more time because all I’ll say is that they had 13 years. And do not say that we should have passed more resolutions because I believe the list above covers that one.
And to you Stephen
That response says to me that you’re deaf, if the officials are corrupt then so is the UN.

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #93384

Look, Hussein WANTED to be a threat to the U.S., he actively pursued WMDs and does anyone doubt he would have used them when and if he got them? That alone justifies the war.

Posted by: Eric at November 16, 2005 2:20 PM
Comment #93399

Generally I would type more, but I don’t have time. However, I will leave you with this quote: “Fix the problem, not the blame.” - Japanese Proverb.

Posted by: cekryb at November 16, 2005 3:09 PM
Comment #93408

Fix the problem, alright.
Free Iraq
Free Afghanistan
Create a friendly democracy in the Middle East.
And declare Palestine a terrorist nation.
Two down two to go.

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 3:28 PM
Comment #93409

Elliotbay:


2) Rockefeller was stating his OPINION. Did you read the quote? It said “in my view”. Last time I checked, stating your OPINION was protected by the 1st Amendment.

Of course he is protected by the first amendment. And if he wants to resign from the Senate, then he can express it!! When he is overseas, he is viewed as a representative of our government that is at war. He is a part of the home team. An elected official on a US taxpayer paid trip expressing his first amendment rights when his country is at war???
Is that your point?

Loose lips sink ships

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 3:28 PM
Comment #93412

Stephen:

As for getting at Osama Bin Laden, that should have been our primary concern.

I disagree. Osama Bin Laden is not very important. Changing the political system so there is no reason for 9/11 if more important.

And yes 9/11 was caused by foreign combat troops on muslim soil. that is just about the only reason for suicide terrorism world wide.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #93414

Craig-
While this point neither justifies nor concedes the matter on Rockefeller, what of the episode in Plan of Attack where Bush administration officials showed Prince Bandar a map of our military strategy(marked explicitly as not to be shown to foreigners) and even allowed him to make drawings of it?

As for Bin Laden, I would think that not getting him has fed his legend and benefited his cause. It has emboldened the terrorists.

As for the reasons for suicide terrorism, it is a quick and easy way to glory, and it doesn’t leave people around to be interrogated, or to have second thoughts or remorse about their actions. It is also a way to get back at technologically superior forces in a way not easy to anticipate or guard against.

Eric-
Seeking or gaining WMDs doesn’t justify a war. Using or trying to use them does. There are many possessors of these weapons we leave alone. We deal with the actual threats before the potentials.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #93417

Craig Holmes
“And yes 9/11 was caused by foreign combat troops on muslim soil. that is just about the only reason for suicide terrorism world wide.”

Not according to Bin Laden

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 3:51 PM
Comment #93423

clb-
Two down is too optimistic on your part. If you haven’t noticed, we’re still up to our armpits in both campaigns, and we have defeated neither enemy. The Taliban and main al-Qaeda networks, along with the Iraqi Insurgency should be out of commission if it were two down.

The thing to understand about declaring the Palestinian territories a terrorist nation is that they are in reality illegally occupied parts of Jordan and Egypt.

As for creating a friendly democracy in the Middle East, why that’s the rub, isn’t it? How do you war-fight your way to a friendly Democracy? The answer is, you don’t. You get the war over, control asserted, and then, you gradually ease off and give people back their country. As for whether it’s friendly or not, you can’t just make them friendly, you have to earn their friendship.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 4:24 PM
Comment #93428

Let me ask you this who is in control of Afghanistan and Iraq

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #93448

Craig,
Bad Intel or the lack of real hard proof (i.e. photo) is a joke. While I can not say exactly what happened to Iraq’s WMD’s, I do know that Saddam clearly studied history. It was that information that lead me to ask the question “How do you defeat a lone superpower?”

It seems that the history of Israel gives us that answer. Years ago, a palastine lead army drew Israel into a war by talking trash only to have the leaders of Israel attack a group of women and children told to them to be an army ready to attack the Kingdom of Israel. Thus, proving that a much smaller country can defeat a superpower by calling into question the ethical and moral actions and destorying their reputation. This information was known for I actually got it aired on CNN oe day before the war. However, the Republican talking head refused to even listen to the idea saying that Saddam could not be the smart. Dumb answer giving today’s facts wouldn’t you say? For that reason and others, I was drawn not to support the President.

However, IMO what happened is that the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) took over and by the time they realized that the American Public would still demand hard proof before Congress, they changed the political game plan to force a vote for authorizing force before the 2002 election. Faced with running into the same problem at the U.N. and the second resolution WHIG convinced President Bush to say screw it and took us to war.

This action even dispite the fact that a 2nd U.N. resolution could of been worded that forced Saddam to disarm all of Iraq’s military, open country to over a milliom WMD’s Inspectors, and have his Inner Circle step down from power. In this manner, America and the World would of been covered as to even think a Leader like Saddam would disarm while looking down a double barrel shotgun (i.e. our Military) goes against Human Nature. For would you surrender your nation to that level of humiliation? Yet in the eyes of history what else could America do just short of leveling the entire country of Iraq? War/Peace than would of truely of been in the hands of the Iraq Citizens.

Therefore, was it a political/diplomatic game that felled due to the same “Total Incompetence” shown to Congress about the execution of the war or as more and more is known about the CIA Leak was something that was a direct result of someone in the senior administration misleading Congress and the American Public. What and Why happened will strentghen our Nation, but I do understand your concern about future attacks. Therefore, I feel that the lessons learned should make Congress and the future President even wiser.

It is also important for the war on terror to get to the bottom of this issue. For how can our Leaders stand up in the World rightously and say that we are a Civilization of Law if our own leaders want to use oppressive tactics against their citizens and operate above the law? Mr. Woodard’s statements and the doors that it opened may rock our foundation; however, unlike the 70’s, we actually have a group of citizens that know what has to be done in America as well as the Middle East.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 16, 2005 5:27 PM
Comment #93457

Craig,

Rockefeller gave away NOTHING. There were newspaper articles about the number of troops that would be needed to invade and occupy Iraq, there were all kinds of discussions going on all around the world about the expected invasion at the time he took his trip. He didn’t give any anything secret. He just stated his opinion. And last time I checked, EVERYONE in this country, even a US Senator, is allowed to state their opinion.

Are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to US Senators?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 16, 2005 6:06 PM
Comment #93486

clb-
That is the $64,000 dollar question. Who controls Iraq, when we can’t move between our bases and the airport without getting attacked? Who controls Iraq when we have to chase all over hell’s half acre after the insurgents, only to have them come back where we last defeated them? Who controls Afghanistan when The Taliban and al-Qaeda yet exist, virtually untouchable?

If we don’t control these places, how can we claim victory? What are we fighting for if we don’t determine the fate of our battlefield? Winning is more than killing the other guys or chasing them off. Winning is destroying their ability to fight, their ability to regroup. Winning is controlling that which you sought to gain control of.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 8:03 PM
Comment #93488

Winning is keeping the terrorist off our land and dividing theirs. The whole reason that they are in Iraq attacking our solders is because we control it. Which might I add is better than there ruling it.

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 8:25 PM
Comment #93490

Try taking a look at this link.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13471

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 8:41 PM
Comment #93494

clb-
I know about that. I know the shell is older than the gulf-war, that Kay was contradicted by Duelfer, who said there was no evidence of weapons transit to Syria.

By the way, these were estimates of weapons based on what was not documented as destroyed. The flaw in the logic here is that a weapon can be both destroyed and undocumented.

The question here is where is that big announcement on the WMDs? We didn’t find a trail leading to Syria, we didn’t find weapons, so we’re left to assume that one way or another, Saddam’s active stocks were destroyed. No WMDs.

As for them attacking us because we control it- no, that’s not necessary. I’m sure they’re happy to target us simply because we’re conveniently there, and they don’t like it. As for control, our lack of control is probably more encouraging. Control means they can’t operate effectively there anymore. By definition, that’s not a problem they have in their trouble spots.

The question really is, who’s getting the jump on who?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2005 9:01 PM
Comment #93495

In 2003 the question was how do you place enough troops into Iraq to ensure the smooth transaction between the removal of Saddam and a functional government. Due to what even Vice President Cheney has to agree upon was a diplomatic failure, we are now faced with the Rage of the Youth in the Middle East over their standard of living.

Yes, finding out what the hell was going on in the minds of “The Republican Insiders” in 2002 & 2003 is important; however, if we are going to win the war on terror our societal thinking is going to have to change. For besides oil what other products and goods are produce by the Citizens of the Middle East who are suppose to be living a simple productive life? In solving that question and the solutions that are at our finger tips, America and the rest of the World can begin to build an “Unlimited Global Economy which is Energy Free and Environmental sound.” In simple terms; the best policy for America in Iraq and the rest of the world is give a person a paid job which covers their simple productive life.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 16, 2005 9:08 PM
Comment #93498

LoL, Henry.

Give or provide an environment for them to create their own?

The answer to THAT question tells a lot about how you think and your policies, much like the “Beatles or Elvis” question.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 16, 2005 9:13 PM
Comment #93522

They have always said that the truth was stranger than fiction. I just want to see how they plan to spin the truth.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 16, 2005 10:19 PM
Comment #93543

If the definition of control is that there are no terrorist attacks. Then that would mean that all of Iraq except for a hand full of villages and a few road ways are under US control.
And on top of that our solders have been whipping up bin’s army like crazy in Afghanistan. I other words their on the run.
P.S I’m still waiting for you to admit that your liberal buddies were as much to blame for what you call a “mistake” as the republicans.

Posted by: clb at November 16, 2005 11:36 PM
Comment #93552

Elliott:

Are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to US Senators?

Not when they are on Government payroll acting in their elected office in a time of war. It could be an act of treason.

Do you think treason is a protected right?

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2005 11:52 PM
Comment #93566

clb,
That would be called “acceptable civil behanior” now how many troops is required to put a police force in every sqayre mile of Iraq? More important, how do we get it done.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 17, 2005 1:23 AM
Comment #93596

Craig,

“Not when they are on Government payroll acting in their elected office in a time of war. It could be an act of treason.

Do you think treason is a protected right?”

Under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.
I guess the question would be, has Congress declared war?

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

On Treason, from wikipedia;

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

“Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Did Rockefeller levy war against the US?
Did he give Aid and Comfort to Iraq?

Posted by: Rocky at November 17, 2005 7:52 AM
Comment #93625

False “Urgency”

From Merrriam Webster’s:

Urgent:

1a: calling for immediate attention: PRESSING b : conveying a sense of urgency
2: urging insistently: IMPORTUNATE

Regarding Rockefeller’s response from the interview cited above:

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?

Of course he is responsible for his vote. But what is deliberately misused here is that Rockefeller stated in the interview that he REGRETTED the vote, felt he was MISLEAD and would have not voted that way if he had the correct information about the degree and immediacy Of the threat from Iraq. (emphasis mine)

Bush & Co. railroaded the vote through very quickly in a breathless haze of contrived smoke and fear-laden “patriotic” albeit political fury citing the Iraqi nuclear threat as “urgent”.

That undeniable “urgency”, the centerpiece, the real core, the big lever in Bush’s false and irresponsible call to war, is, was, and always will be a complete misconstrual, ever unsupportable, and a fabrication:

Fabrication:

1: the act or process of fabricating
2: a product of fabrication; especially : LIE, FALSEHOOD (emphasis Merriam Webster’s)

And by the way, although I was not a Clinton supporter and did not vote for him, you will find no dialogue from him citing any similar trumped up “urgency”.

It is no wonder and equally unarguable that Bush’s support has steadily dwindled to about 30% nationwide.

Posted by: Blogical at November 17, 2005 9:58 AM
Comment #93627

Well said, Rocky.

Craig,
So if you think it’s treasonous to oppose a sitting president when there are troops in harms way, you would agree that Newt Gingrich and compnay should have been hung for their outspoken opposition to President Clinton when he committed US troops to Kosovo, right?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 17, 2005 10:09 AM
Comment #93660

Our solders have mot been attacked out side of those key sties and a small stretch of boarder in months. Secondly every time I see a bombing in Iraq it is the Iraqi police that are seen handling the situation not the US. Therefore all Iraq lakes is a competent army of there own. And I do not care what Kennedy thinks, it actually takes longer than a week to train our solders, and we have been working on our military for over 200yrs.
P.S I am still waiting for you to admit that the liberals were as much at fault for this war then the republicans.
And just as a reminder we do not believe this war was a mistake.

Posted by: clb at November 17, 2005 11:39 AM
Comment #93666

Stephen
“He also had no call to go to war unless he consulted with the UN, and went as far as possible with them as he could. He did not. It was about that time that the case started to crumble, and the support for the war started to soften. Had Bush’s intelligence been correct, we would not be having this conversation.”
Have you forgotten that the UN agreed to go to war with Iraq and then the French vetoed it?

Posted by: clb at November 17, 2005 11:48 AM
Comment #93704

clb,

Our solders have mot been attacked out side of those key sties
Iraq is full of sties? Why would there be pig sties in Iraq? They’re a Muslim country and don’t have anything to do with pigs. :-)

I am still waiting for you to admit that the liberals were as much at fault for this war then the republicans. And just as a reminder we do not believe this war was a mistake.
You claim that Iraq wasn’t a mistake, but you also say that liberals are “at fault” for it. You can’t have it both ways. Maybe you don’t understand what “at fault” means, so I’ll explain. The definition of “fault” is
responsibility for a bad situation or event
So in order for someone to be at fault, you must believe that Iraq is a bad situation or event. So, since you claim that Iraq wasn’t a mistake, are you saying that it was a GOOD IDEA to deliberately get us into a bad situation or event?

And the reason nobody will admit that liberals were at fault is because it was the President of the United States who led us into this bad situation or event. The responsibility (i.e. fault) for the (lack of) rationale, the (lack of) planning, and the (lack of) a means to pay for this bad situation or event belongs to the President of the United States and his administration. They dreamed it up. They wanted it. They sold it to us. It’s their responsibility.

It’s really amusing to watch you folks on the Right squirm and twist and spin, trying ANYTHING to get ANYONE to believe that this bad situation or event is someone else’s fault other than yours. I thought you conservatives always took responsibility for your actions? Why are you trying to worm your way out of this?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 17, 2005 1:17 PM
Comment #93710

ElliottBay
“You claim that Iraq wasn’t a mistake, but you also say that liberals are “at fault” for it. You can’t have it both ways. Maybe you don’t understand what “at fault” means, so I’ll explain.”

I do not believe that Iraq was a mistake
And it is you who can not have it both ways, for it is not I who is placing the blame on Bush and not accepting that my own voted in support of the war.

ElliottBay
“Iraq is full of sties? Why would there be pig sties in Iraq? They’re a Muslim country and don’t have anything to do with pigs. :-)”

Whether or not the cities are big is beside the point it is the fact that the attacks are not accruing any where but in a select few.
And secondly you have gone from accusing Bush of lying to saying that you agreed with the war to begin with and now because not every thing went perfectly you have changed your mind.
Well I have news for you every war in world history had its problems. The fact that you think bush should be different shows that you believe he is better then any other president simply because you hold him to a higher standard.

Posted by: clb at November 17, 2005 1:28 PM
Comment #93727

clb,
You said

you have gone from accusing Bush of lying to saying that you agreed with the war to begin with and now because not every thing went perfectly you have changed your mind.
Reality check, clb. I have done no such thing.

I have consistently had the same position, namely that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had little or nothing to do with the REAL war on teror, which I have consistently supported. And I think historians will remember the Bush administration as a disaster for this country.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 17, 2005 2:13 PM
Comment #93781

Can any of you Bush defenders aknowledge the facts about Bush distorting pre-war intelligence?

Bush said that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges after it was widely reported that they were for no such thing.

Bush and his friends indicated that Saddam attacked us on 9/11. Soldiers fought and died believing that lie.

Can any of you Bush defenders aknowledge the facts or are you limited to knee jerk attacks on Democrats?


Posted by: LouisXIV at November 17, 2005 04:50 PM

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 17, 2005 4:51 PM
Comment #93797
Craig, So if you think it’s treasonous to oppose a sitting president when there are troops in harms way, you would agree that Newt Gingrich and compnay should have been hung for their outspoken opposition to President Clinton when he committed US troops to Kosovo, right?

I didn’t say anything was treason. You were claiming a sitting US Senator on a trip paid for by taxpayers, working while on government payroll, was protected by his first amendment rights, and so Mr Rockefellor should not be criticized.

My response was to ask you if you felt treason was protected. I do not think Rockefellor committed treason, I just think he was foolish. No US Senator should be discussing plans of a sitting wartime president in the middle of a war.

I have no problem with a persons first amendment, but sharing company secrets is a whole nother thing.

Craig

Posted by: craig holmes at November 17, 2005 5:19 PM
Comment #93799

Rocky:


Did Rockefeller levy war against the US?
Did he give Aid and Comfort to Iraq?

Go back a couple more rounds. Elliot was making the point that a Mr Rockefellor was protected by the first amendment while discussing Bushes war plans overseas during a war. I don’t think that is a valid argument because a US Senator could be committing treason which is not protected under the first amendment.

I don’t think Rockefellor committed treason. I also don’t think US government employees (US Senators), overseas should be discussing a Wartime presidents war plans with foreign leaders, on company time, without permission from the president. It sounds like he was careless.

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 17, 2005 5:24 PM
Comment #93806

Craig,

Rockefeller gave away no state secrets. He did not discuss Bush’s plans. Rockefeller stated his opinion that Bush had already made up his mind to go to war, which is VERY different from giving away Bush’s plans.

If you think Rockefeller DID discuss Bush’s plans for the invasion, please show me the evidence.

And this whole discussion is based on the assumption that there were plans in the first place, other than “Yee hah, let’s go kick the shit outta Saddam”. We know there were no plans for post-invasion Iraq, or if there were any, they were ignored. In my opinion, this is a HUGE blunder, akin to the allies planning the D-Day landing, but making no plans for the time after that. This is INEXCUSABLE, and it has arguably led to hundreds of American deaths.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 17, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #93807


LouisXIV

Bush and his friends indicated that Saddam attacked us on 9/11. Soldiers fought and died believing that lie.

Can you give me the quote of Bush saying it was Sadaam that attacked us on 9/11? I do recall the administration saying that OBL and Iraq were linked. This intelligence was proven to be faulty. I remember Bush clearly saying we were attacked by Al Qaeda.

These distinctions are important, because often we commit the same things the left is accusing Bush of doing.

I have some questions of Congress.

1. What intelligence were you given.

2. Was this intelligence enough to justify your vote to vote either way.

3. Was this intelligence verifiable by Congress. In other words, does Congress have the means to check into the intelligence independent of the Whitehouse.

4. Why didn’t the Congress intependently verify the intelligence it was given.

Let me give you an example. I have mentioned here that I sat on a School Board for a number of years. I know this is a very tiny example, but stick with me here.

When the Superintendent recommends something, and gives it to the Board to vote on, I assume He was building his best case. I always looked under the hood. I always checked things out. I would be out in the community calling people , doing what I call “due dilligence” to independently confirm that the Superintendent’s recommendation was correct.

Why was this process not done? With all of the gapping holes that the Left can now see 20-20, where was the Congressional oversight in the process?

I understand holding Bush accountable. Even though I don’t think he lied, I am not opposed to an impeachment process. I think it will not happen because if you assume Bush is guilty, then you have to assume Congress is guilty of a lack of oversight or a rush to judgment as well.

I can hear the line of questioning.

Representative questioning Whitehouse: Why didn’t you look into this detail before presenting this to Congress?

Whitehouse Rep: All do respect sir, but you have the same ability the Whitehouse does, why didn’t you look into it after it was sent to Congress?

They are coequal institutions.

House member: I think the whitehouse was in a rush to judgment.

Whitehouse: Then why didn’t congress delay the vote?

Democrat Housemember: Because we are a minority.

Republican Housemember: If you felt this was so important, why didn’t you boycott? Why did so many Democrats vote for the resolution?

Just talking theory here, asside from the flame throwing. Can someone explain to me how if this gets serious, that if we move toward impeachment, Congress doesn’t get implicated in this whole thing??

Shouldn’t Congress be holding hearings on itself on what the term “oversight” means?

This next one is hard to admit but isn’t the broader implication what David Remer is telling us that we should be looking at impeaching most of the US Senate and US House of Reps?

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 17, 2005 6:16 PM
Comment #93809

Craig,

“I also don’t think US government employees (US Senators), overseas should be discussing a Wartime presidents war plans with foreign leaders, on company time, without permission from the president.”

Point taken. A bozo, but not a treasonus bozo.

Actually, my point was about whether or not we are in a declared war.
Quite a bit has been made about this “War on Terror”, and I just wanted to bring up a few things that have been ignored in many of these discussions.

From the “War Powers Resolution of 1973”

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

“REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.”

While Mr. Bush has the authority to take us into battle, so to speak, we are not in an actual all out war as the declaration of said war can only be done by Congress.

From wikipedia;

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

“Provisions
Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when “unavoidable military necessity” requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).”

Yes, Bush was authorized by Congress to fight the “War on Terror”, and obviously, Mr. Bush made the case to go into Iraq. However, that said, this is an undeclared war, and there is a time limit imposed by the “War Powers Resolution”, but most Presidents have ignored the act alltogether.

The UN charter which was ratified by Congress, which, BTW, makes it a binding law here, says if a country is attacked, it may act in self-defence against those that attacked.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm

“Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

When did Iraq attack America?

I would guess that my point is we are not actually at war, except only in the sense that, say, we have declared the “war on drugs”, and for instance, the resolution that declared America’s intent for regieme change in Iraq, was just that, a resolution.
Nixon, BTW, vetoed the “War Powers Resolution”, but Congress had enough votes to override his veto.


Posted by: Rocky at November 17, 2005 6:25 PM
Comment #93839

clb-
Take a look at this animation, and you will see the inaccuracy of your statement. Heck, look at the casualty rates.

I think you’re confused on the UN part. You say that France Vetoed an agreed upon war, but the reality is, we never gave them the chance. There was no second resolution, no agreement to go to war.

I do believe this war was a mistake, and that the Democrats bear some of the responsibility. But I understand the circumstances under which they took the vote, and I believe Bush’s dishonesty with them constitutes a major reason why the blame is less theirs than it is Bush’s.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2005 8:33 PM
Comment #93846

Elliot:


Rockefeller gave away no state secrets. He did not discuss Bush’s plans. Rockefeller stated his opinion that Bush had already made up his mind to go to war, which is VERY different from giving away Bush’s plans.

The only state secret he gave away was that Bush was planning to go to war.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 17, 2005 10:16 PM
Comment #93851

Hi Craig,

“Can you give me the quote of Bush saying it was Sadaam that attacked us on 9/11?”

Here’s one…there are more. I can provide a slew of quotes from Cheney as well indicating that Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

If I knew about the aluminum tubes Bush should have known. My intelligence sources (the media) surely were inferior to Bush’s sources.

Some 70% of the country thought that Saddam attacked us and Bush gets a fair amount of blame for that.

Soldiers fought and died thinking believing Bush’s lies about Saddam attacking us. Do you hold Bush accountable?

Your views seem reasoned. Many (most?) on the right refuse to aknowledge well documented examples of Bush misleading us leading up to the war.

The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of the Dawa party which is an Iranian anti-American terrorist group. Do you think it’s a good thing that our troops are supporting this fellow?




Posted by: LouisXIV at November 17, 2005 10:49 PM
Comment #93853

Hi Craig,

I forgot to comment on something else you said.

“Can someone explain to me how if this gets serious, that if we move toward impeachment, Congress doesn’t get implicated in this whole thing??”

There are many in Congress who should have known better than to support the war. I don’t recall anyone in Congress lying to me about the aluminum tubes and the unmanned drones as Bush did.

I hold people of both parties responsible but Bush and Cheney are the ones who are most responsible.


Posted by: LouisXIV at November 17, 2005 10:56 PM
Comment #93857


LouisXIV:

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

I remember him saying this. As a supporter of the war, I never once thought that Sadaam was involved in 9/11. Here is what I thought.

1. Both Sadaam and OBL are of the same ilk.

2. Sadaam probably has WMD.

3. We cannot take the risk of OBL and Sadaam linking up.

4. Sadaam has refused to accept UN resolutions, galor, it is time to kick him out of the pool.

5. I assumed Sadaam was not involved in 9/11 because 9/11 worked so well. OBL would need to be extemely secretive to pull it off. It would take a non government agency.

One of my basic reasons why I don’t think Bush lied about WMD is because we didn’t find any. If Bush had lied and misled congress the way he is portrayed, we certainly would have found some because Bush would have had them planted.

Bush had no motive to lie, unless he wanted to be impeached.

There is a book I would encourage you to read. It is written by a nonpartison, or even left leaning writer. It is called “Dying to win”, by Robert A Pape. In his book, he does research into every suicide bombing up to date. His conclusion instead of being a group of wacko fundamentalist, suicide bombers are strategic thinkers. They are in campaigns designed to rid their homeland of foreign occupying combat troops of a different faith.

The book made me look at this war through different eyes. Instead of trying to “pin” it on one party or another, I could see how American policy from Reagan to Bush II has brought us to where we are. All the way from our troops in Lebenon in the 1980’s to present. 9/11 was just the logic next step of our increased intrusion of our military onto muslim lands. In our political environoment and since I am a Republican, of course people assume I am blaming Clinton. Clinton is responsible for his eight years of this 25 year policy slide.

I support the answer of Democracy as the best long term solution I know of. I think 9/11 and Iraq are linked, but indirectly. If we had no troops on the ground on muslim lands, then there would of been no 9/11. Our troops were on the ground to support UN resolutions to protect oil fields from Iraq.

The ones on the left that have it the purest are blood for oil. If we didn’t need the oil from the area not one american would have died in New York or in the Iraqi war.

What Bush is doing is protection the free flow of oil and out way of life in the way he knows how. Get rid of Sadaam, set up a democracy, build that country’s military so we can get out of there.

I think the theory is the best one I know of. I don’t support the incompetancy. I don’t support bad intelligence. My son is a Naval Officer. Shoot clinton Blew up a pharmacy. We have terrible Intelligence.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 17, 2005 11:27 PM
Comment #93901

“Q. If a Senator makes a request for intelligence, what branch of the government determines what and how much intelligence to give him or her?
A. The Executive branch.”

Scuse me… Senators do not have to ask for Classified Intelligence information from the Executive Branch. They simply go to the “SkIFF” and get the whole story if they choose to read it all, which is very time consuming. The President gets a daily edited abbreviated version in the form of the National Intel Estimate (NIE).

(Note: SkIFF… not familiar? You know not of what you speak.)

I guess that is why John Kerry did not vote most of the time – he was busy reading Classified Intel reports… Riiiiiiiight.

Posted by: Chris at November 18, 2005 7:53 AM
Comment #93913

Chris-
Would this SkIFF be of any use to Senators and Representatives without classified document clearance, and how does it invalidate the claim that the Legislators are dependent on the executive branch for their information? I do assume that these reports supposedly available from this resource are coming from somewhere.

Do us a favor and don’t be coy about this source. If you want to convince us of your argument, I believe we will have to see for ourselves what this is all about. If you’re right, we may very well agree. If you’re wrong, it will give us all (yourself included) the opportunity to get the debate back on track.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2005 9:24 AM
Comment #93917

Chris-
Are you talking about a Sensititive Compartmented Information Facility? I think you have to be cleared for that kind of information in the first place. According to what I read from Tom Kean’s account of it, you can’t take notes, and you certainly can’t publically disseminate information you gain there, because it’s classified or higher by the nature of the facility.

So, most members of Congress and the Senate could do little with it, especially after Bush narrowed the number of folks who could access that information. Those that could, could learn as much as they please, but not disseminate it until it was declassified, which could mean never.

Now, this official is going to have to give an explanation to their constituents of why they didn’t vote the way the publically released information indicates they should vote, and they could not explain that. Politicians are politicians, so they will not typically take a controversial action they can’t explain to their voter’s satisfaction.

This is the trap Bush’s restriction of intelligence information and subsequent dishonest presentation of that intelligence put us in- even those who knew better could not speak up because it would constitute a breach of security that they would be liable for.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2005 9:55 AM
Comment #93933

Elliot:

I see you have withdrawn from your first amendment arguement.

I do not believe anyone on the US payroll should be talking to foreign heads of state about what a President may or may not do during wartime without clearance from the Whitehouse period. It is careless and can cost American lives.

You have used every angle in the book to allow Democratic Senators to push their agenda overseas during wartime from First Amendment rights to it wasn’t a secret. It all doesn’t matter. In wartime loose lips sink ships period.

You on the left want to go on and on and on, running down the commander in chief during war, that’s one issue. But when someone is being paid by tax dollars that were approved by congress, that is another. We are at war, and US Senators need to act like it when traveling abroad on our tax dollars.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 18, 2005 11:52 AM
Comment #93934

Stephen Daugherty,

Excellent. Your response to Chris was eloquent and spot on. Thanks for providing the link.

Chris,
Were you thinking of the same source that Stephen mentioned, or were you thinking of a different one? If you were thinking of a different one, please provide a link to your supporting evidence.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 18, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #93938

Elliot:

Here is the quote from Rockefellor on Fox news. This was in January of 2002 and he is a senior member of what committee? He is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, that is right.

“I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”

So you are actually defending a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee telling the heads of state, what a Commanders next big move is likely to be 4 months after 9/11. Why in the world would you put so much effort into defending his actions?

On the contrary, you should be outraged that a member of your party didn’t speak out and allowed this war to happen. (discussing this from your perspective). You should want his head!! If he knew what he claims to know, (That Bush was pushing for war with Iraq in January of 2002) Then why in the name of all that is sacred (again arguing from what I believe should be your perspective), wasn’t he screaming at the top of his lungs to stop the train from leaving the station? And when the information came out that was “misleading” Why did he not lamblast the President THEN!!!
And why didn’t Rockefellor do his homework and require additional information on WMD? Why why why why?
He had traveled “personally” to the mideast, and “spoken” to foreign heads of state. Why didn’t he use those great connections he was braging about to find out the truth about WMD.

His JOB is not to tell foreign head of state his opinion of what Bush may or may not do. His JOB as loyal opposition is to hold the administrations feet to the fire and make sure there homework is done. He failed on both accounts.

And why don’t you want his head??

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 18, 2005 12:12 PM
Comment #93947

Take a look at this. No one knows who really wrote it because some one wrongfully took credited for it. Yet I will say this, who ever it was is truly wise.

This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let’s examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way — their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us “infidels.” I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in that they can’y resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by “imploding.” That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal. It is because they just don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners — not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Romeburned — totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims — not just in theUnited States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being “arrogant.” That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can’t!

If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone — let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful Muslims”?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our “leaders” in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Posted by: clb at November 18, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #93953

Craig,
I find it amusing (and amazing) that you’ve changed your tune from “Rockefeller gave away state secrets” and “the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect US Senators” to “he wasn’t doing his job and he voted for the war!” Feel free to keep squirming.

These are the only reasons that I can think of for someone to have voted to authorize Bush to use force to overthrow Saddam:

1. They believed the intelligence that they were presented with (ignoring the issue of whether or not it had been “fixed” by the Bush administration) - that Saddam DID posess WMD and was a threat to this country. We know now that this wasn’t true, and we also know that Rumsfeld and Cheney (and possibly others, including Bush) lied about WMD and the threat.
2. They thought it was important to show solidarity with the President, and voted to authorize the use of violence because Bush had PUBLICLY assured them that he would only invade Iraq as a last resort. But we know now that Bush intended to invade Iraq all along.
3. They were Republicans and were voting on party lines. This doesn’t preclude them from believing the other things. I think a lot of people believed that Saddam was a threat because they WANTED to believe it.
4. The right wing scream machine was in especially full throat at the time, and ANYONE who objected to ANYTHING proposed by the Bush administration that was even REMOTELY connected to the war on terror would have been called a traitor, a coward, and worse. So any member of Congress who opposed Bush on Iraq was running a HUGE political risk. Depending on how you characterize it, this is either acknowledging political reality, or a lack of balls.

I think Rockefeller fell into category 4.

As I’ve said before, I think the overwhelming evidence now suggests that Bush WANTED to invade Irag before he was elected in 2000, and was just looking for an excuse. And 9/11 gave him the excuse he wanted.

I think Bush wanted to invade Iraq NOT because he saw it as a genuine threat, but because he cynically believed that it would improve his chances of being re-elcted in 2004. He knew that no sitting President has ever failed to be re-elected during a war. It’s my opinion that over 2,000 Americans have died in Iraq so that Bush could be re-elected. I hope God forgives him, because I won’t.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 18, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #93958

What overwhelming evidence?

Posted by: clb at November 18, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #93965

Elliot:

I think Bush wanted to invade Iraq NOT because he saw it as a genuine threat, but because he cynically believed that it would improve his chances of being re-elcted in 2004. He knew that no sitting President has ever failed to be re-elected during a war.

Grinning. Why did Bush lie about an issue that would certainly be found out?? Pretty crappy liar. Why did Bush “rush to judgement”. The left gives Rove so much credit. I am certain Rove would have planned the invasion for 2004.

4. The right wing scream machine was in especially full throat at the time, and ANYONE who objected to ANYTHING proposed by the Bush administration that was even REMOTELY connected to the war on terror would have been called a traitor, a coward, and worse. So any member of Congress who opposed Bush on Iraq was running a HUGE political risk. Depending on how you characterize it, this is either acknowledging political reality, or a lack of balls.

I think Rockefeller fell into category 4.


So your guy that you are defending sold his soul to the devil (lack of balls) in a time of war.

Now that the winds have shifted, and so has he, (rolling eyes)

And why are you defending this??

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 18, 2005 1:57 PM
Comment #93969

Elliottbay:

You think the following of me:

Feel free to keep squirming.

You describe the man you are defending this way:

or a lack of balls.

I think Rockefeller fell into category 4.

Why would I squirm when you are forced to defend men without balls? (your words not mine!!)

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 18, 2005 2:21 PM
Comment #93977

Craig Holmes
Preach it brother

Posted by: clb at November 18, 2005 2:45 PM
Comment #93998

Craig-
Do you want the heads of Senior White House Officials who showed Prince Bandar a map of our battle plans, one marked as not to be shown to foreigners? (The source for this is Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.)

I think Harry Reid’s position at the time meant that his input might have been significant, but not overwhelming. Besides, I doubt Bush would be working his plans without significant talks with folks in the region, so Reid may not have been alone in telegraphing the President’s intentions. In fact, improvements done on Kuwaiti ports may have made it a very short term secret to keep. You don’t put on a tux to sit around a house.

As for screaming at the top of his lungs to keep the train from coming out of the station? Politics. It’s not admirable, but that’s the game the president played. If you’re outraged at the signalling of the president’s intentions, how would you be responding to Reid’s revelation of classified information.

clb-
You assume a level of naivete a serious, good faith observation of Democrat writings and philosophy would hardly support.

We know this war’s for real. That’s why we take Bush’s screw-ups seriously. Real wars can be punishing on real bad mistakes.

We can lose, being united. We can go wrong, do wrong. Germany’s unitedness (hell, if you consider the Anschluss, over-unitedness) did little to keep them from the dark path they tread, and in fact did much to quicken their steps down it.

Our country is built, in fact, on the usefulness of division and faction to a government. If we’re not all thinking and doing the same things, we’re not all making the same mistakes, and when it becomes apparent that one group is mistaken, another can come along and at least suggest a different course… or more usefully, they can put together a novel, improved course of action with the others through original thought and consideration of the facts.

For 200 years, this system has done much to counteract the abuses of government, and make our system a fairer one. It is only those possessed by the fear of their fellow American who feel the need to surpress other points of view, to call for unity where it has not been earned or given spontaneously.

The unity after 9/11 was a gift that Bush threw away by not trusting the American people to make the right judgment given the evidence at hand. The right course of action that Bush should have taken, when he found out there was little compelling evidence to send us into Iraq, would have beed to put whatever agenda he had on the backburner, and say “we’re holding off on pushing this any longer until we got something better than this.”

Unfortunately, his response was to get us into this mess and then enlist his supporters to zealously, jealously run interference for his poor judgment and its results.

In the end, It doesn’t matter whether one supports the war or dissent of it, because that was never the most important factor here. The question is, did this war deserve its support?

Why does it deserve our support, if it was begun under false pretenses? Why does it deserve our support if the only defense of this war are attacks on its critics? Why does it deserve our support when it’s sapping our will and our strength to fight our worst enemies?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2005 3:50 PM
Comment #94010

Stephen:

Do you want the heads of Senior White House Officials who showed Prince Bandar a map of our battle plans, one marked as not to be shown to foreigners? (The source for this is Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward.)

Obviously this was authorized by the whitehouse. I don’t want people on the federal payroll, on foreign trips discussing in wartime, what our commander and chief may or maynot do without the presidents knowlege. It is careless.

Harry Reid’s

We were debating about Rockefeller. Rockefeller is a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Harry Reid’s job to me is to organize the Democratic response, and to represent Democratic Senators to the Majority Leader and the president. Rockefeller’s job would be to go to Reid and say “Houston we have a serious problem”. I don’t have an issue (that I know of) with Harry Reid’s performance on this vote.

What I have a problem with is Rockefeller on a government trip in January of 2002 telling foreign heads of state what he thought Bush was going to do. He would have to be thought to have an inside knowledge. He was “giving his opinion” (code language for shooting his mouth off). In that context he was out of line.

From the angle of the left, and pursuing the line that Bush lied, it would seem if anyone would have seen it ahead of time, it would of been Rockefeller. My question from the right, who does not think Bush lied, is why didn’t Rockefeller look into the matter more? In his speechs at the time, he went further than the President in his remarks. I would like to put him under a bright light through this:

1. He knew the president well enough to have an opinion strong enough to relay to foreign heads of state on foreign trips. (remember he was overseas). How did he form that opinion? What information did he have in January of 2002? (Remember his position)

2. What exact information did he have that made him conclude what he concluded in his vote for the war?

3. What methods did he use to verify the information he was given?

Stephen:

In the back of my mind, I am thinking down the road (visualizing) what impeachment hearings may look like. I would appreciate your thoughts on that. I see ugly. I see the Rockefeller’s on the hotseat right there next to Bush. I see a great big bright light shining in his eyes.

If Bush lied, hang him high. But I want to know why in the world this senior Senator sitting on the intelligence committee, was off on these trips shooting his mouth off in wartime instead of checking the intelligence reports for accuracy. He admitted (again from my position) giving opinions overseas he shouldn’t, and again an argument from ommission, that no one looked deep enough into the intelligence to find errors that were obviously there!! (Which is a part of the loyal oppositions job!!)

In the end, and back to politics, I am not sure we will see impeachment proceedings exactly because of the above. How do you impeach both houses at the same time?? As Americans what we have is a huge mess on our hands. My gut tells me is that instead of “dealing with the issue” what we will have is the current status quo. Democrats will move right up to this issue to maximize gains next fall in the election, but no move for impeachment because of the above. It would be just too ugly and take down too many Democrat careers along with Bush.

your thoughts?

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 18, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #94012

Craig and clb,

It’s really funny to watch you guys twist, squirm, and spin in such desperation, trying to do something - anything - to distract the country from the fact that this is Bush’s war.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 18, 2005 5:05 PM
Comment #94021

Craig,

“But I want to know why in the world this senior Senator sitting on the intelligence committee, was off on these trips shooting his mouth off in wartime instead of checking the intelligence reports for accuracy.”

January, 2002, we had only started bombing Afghanistan three months earlier, and were a year and a half away from any conflict with Iraq.
What wartime are you talking about?

As for regieme change in Iraq, this is from informationclearinghouse.info;

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

“William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03
The Project for the New American Century

…Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the
group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for
Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position
with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin….

…PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice in order to formulate a plan to “educate” the American populace about
the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to
support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed
Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to
22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which
he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his
Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the
Bush administration’s plans….”

So,,,. Do you really think that Rockefeller was saying anything that wasn’t already front page news?

Posted by: Rocky at November 18, 2005 6:03 PM
Comment #94025

Stephen
You need to read that article again because you missed the point.
The terrorist have been attacking us since 1981. We have been dealing with them in a peaceful manner ever since. Yet all those years of negotiations, UN resolutions, and the arrests of terrorist have not changed a thing.
We must put an end to the terrorist NOW, waiting all those years to respond to a growing threat left use with 9/11.

Posted by: clb at November 18, 2005 6:59 PM
Comment #94034

Read these
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 |
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Posted by: clb at November 18, 2005 7:32 PM
Comment #94036

clb,

“We must put an end to the terrorist NOW, waiting all those years to respond to a growing threat left use with 9/11.”

We cannot do this alone. We will need the help of the whole planet to do so, and we (America), are severly lacking in our diplomatic skills at the moment. Our “with me or against me” attitude, isn’t going to help in these matters either.
It has been suggested that we take on Iran next. Unless we have learned from the mistakes that we have made in the Iraqi campaign, and intend to do it right (assuming that we have the money to do so), I for one, am vehemently against such a venture.
We haven’t actually taken the time to finish the job in Afghanistan yet, and the end of our adventure in Iraq is probably still years away.

American prestige, with this administration’s help, has been put back decades.

I think it’s time for everybody to step back and take a deep breath.

Posted by: Rocky at November 18, 2005 7:44 PM
Comment #94057

Number one we are fighting the terrorist with 39 nations. Not alone!
Second when you say that “Bush has set use back decades” I assume you are speaking of how most of the world hates us. Well I have some news for you they have always hated us.
Thirdly we can not negotiate with terrorist, the world has tried and the world has failed. Therefore you ether support the terrorist or you are against them. These people want one thing and one thing only and that is the destruction of every civilized nation. They hate us all! These people are called the lawless they do not reason the way we do! They are living in a culture that has been sitting in a time apart from ours since the day of Mohamed. These are the least educated of the third world.
The UN does not see the seriousness of the problem the proof of that lisein that while we were under attack they were making money on Iraq.
Just because the UN does not support what we are doing does not mean that their members do not. After all when they tried to show sign of a back bone the French vetoed it. Bush tried to do them a favor he tried to give those lawless people a reason to take the UN seriously. But now we and our allies must stand at this task with out the UN because they have only shown them selves to be the protector of evil.

Posted by: clb at November 18, 2005 9:48 PM
Comment #94062

clb-
Lockerbie was the Libyans, Most of the Iran related stuff was Shia militants and secular arab socialists, and the remainder is al-Qaeda, which did not show up in Iraq until we let them in by our negligence in failing to secure the nation.

Go do some research on your own. Hell, read my entries. You’ll find that liberals in this country have no problem with the War on Terror. Hell, you’ll find that I want us to get the country secured before we even think of going.

Fact of the matter is, we keep on telling you how we honestly feel, but you folks are so arrogant about these matters, so jealously protective of your identity as the defenders of the realm, that you won’t admit that we are your peers on these matters, in both intent and love of our country. I don’t how you people can expect a unified country if you are oh so willing to shut us out, and keep your own counsel alone.

As for all those quotes? I know what my people said and why. I know the quotes from the Clinton era address why we commenced Desert Fox. Like me to dig up all those wonderful conservative quotes about “Wagging the Dog?”

The other ones can be dismissed because of the nature of the intelligence we got. This administration picked and chose items for how disturbing they would be. They hid qualifications, they took information that was undependably sourced, and used it even when others had rejected its usage on the grounds of unreliability. The Sixteen Words are an example. They left out the part about certain pieces of intelligence being controversial, like the Aluminum tubes, and left out dissenting views. This is not irrelevant detail, it’s a pattern of carefully executed deceptions and omissions. You don’t get this many things wrong on accident, or because of the vagaries of human fallibility. You get this many things wrong because you make a practice of not checking to see what’s right.

Craig-
My mistake. Thing to remember, though, is that It was Daschle who was senate minority leader, not Harry Reid, at the time of the war.

As for the map, Rumsfeld is quoted in the book as not wanting to give Bandar the map, and General Myers was saying that getting him a copy of it was above his pay grade. The Map was labelled “TOP SECRET NOFORN”, “classified material not to be seen by any foreign national”. This was to try and gain the Saudi’s cooperation. If I recall correctly, they did not participate with us.

As for Bush’s intentions in January of 2002, if they were so secret, why did the president go before the nation in his State of the Union Address and declare that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were all part of an Axis of Evil? The Axis are only the alliance we fought in WWII.

I think that’s a pretty obvious telegraphing of Bush’s intentions, especially given the fact he said it in terms of the War against Terror.

So, whatever he said, even if he said it prior to the president, didn’t remain secret for long. My memory is a bit hazy, though, and Bush, never a fan of subtle hints, might have said something of note before then.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2005 10:03 PM
Comment #94068

clb-
Go and do the research and see how many soldiers come from each of those countries. Hell, see how many are still with us.

You have yet to prove that we had any security reason to attack Iraq first, instead of waiting for them to violate the peace. The world is a much more complicated place than you allow yourself to understand.

You have yet to recognize that we are not without allies in the world, if we’re willing to do a little bargaining. With these allies, and their cooperation, we can make life more difficult for the terrorist, their projects more difficult to come to fruition. We only have sovereign control of a small portion of the world. The UN, whether or not its pure as the driven snow, can allow us to coordinate efforts with other interested parties, rather than having through each and every diplomatic missions arguing with each.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2005 10:37 PM
Comment #94070

Stephen
You do not realize that you are the only liberal on here that has not said that Bush lied and believes that this war is necessary. The rest keep making outrages clams that bush lied and tricked them into going to war. While others clame that the dems knew this was a bad idea, yet voted for it for fear of ridicule. Your views are not the same as the person I addressed above. There are even those liberals who say that we should leave Iraq immediately. People like that are the ones isolating you from those who want to protect this country. People who want to blame Bush instead of partaking in constructive criticism. They attack the president and not the ideas.

Posted by: clb at November 18, 2005 10:51 PM
Comment #94073

clb,

“Number one we are fighting the terrorist with 39 nations. Not alone!
Second when you say that “Bush has set use back decades” I assume you are speaking of how most of the world hates us. Well I have some news for you they have always hated us.”

Wow, 39, that many?
So let me see, out of 260 countries in the world,
http://www.countryreports.org/
that works out to 15% of the world’s countries backing us in the “war on terror”.
Were going a long way with that much backing!

Now as of 7/2004, Paul Wolfowitz stated that we had the backing of 31 countries in Iraq, with a few more also backing us in Afghanistan.

This from the Dept. of Defence;

“Remarks as delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Qwest Convention Center, Omaha, NE, Friday, July 9, 2004.

http://www.dod.mil/speeches/2004/sp20040709-depsecdef0561.html

“Thirty one nations—it used to be 34 before Madrid—31 nations, including 16 of our NATO allies, are fighting alongside Americans and Iraqis for a free Iraq; 120 of those soldiers have given their lives in that cause. This is much more than just window dressing.”

So out of all those countries, how many have a majority of Muslims in their population?

Oh, and BTW this poll from 10/17/2005;

From the Rasmussen Report;

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/War%20on%20Terror_Monthly_Update.htm

“October 17, 2005—Just 39% of Americans now believe the U.S. and its Allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s little changed from 40% last month and 38% the month before.

During Election 2004, roughly half of all voters believed the U.S. and its allies were winning.”

The war’s not playing well at home either.

Seems that the Administration needs to hone it’s “people skills” if this “war on terror” is to continue.

Posted by: Rocky at November 18, 2005 10:59 PM
Comment #94077

Rocky:

I don’t see that group as all that sinister and dirty. It was US policy to overthrough Sadaam at that time. The hawks were probably thinking Clinton wasn’t tough enough. No big deal. In addition, I would assume (an hope) that there are liberal groups right now doing the same thing in reverse. There better be some liberal think tanks “writing papers” and having discussions. Democrats may win in 2008, and they better have given some thought to what they would do.

Steven:

So, whatever he said, even if he said it prior to the president, didn’t remain secret for long.

If he were on the Ag committee I would be upset. The fact that he is on the Intelligence committee, that hopefully can keep a few secrets, troubles me more. And that he was over seas, and that we were at war etc etc.

If I were overseas and there were saber rattling, I would not know how to separate the real thing from propaganda trying to scare Sadaam into compliance. I just think he used poor judgement.

Craig.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 18, 2005 11:20 PM
Comment #94089

Craig,

“I don’t see that group as all that sinister and dirty. It was US policy to overthrough Sadaam at that time. The hawks were probably thinking Clinton wasn’t tough enough. No big deal.”

You missed the point.

1) Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al have wanted to be in the position to overthrow Saddam since the nineties. The PNAC’s objective only required an event like Sept. 11th, to put it’s plan into focus. Clinton couldn’t because of his pecadillos, and wag the dog.
It seems to me that these guys are for an American dominated world, that to me isn’t what America is all about.
2) It has been the worst kept secret that since the regime change resolution we have wanted to overthrow Saddam, alot of people were talking about the invasion of Iraq long before Rockefeller opened his yap.

Posted by: Rocky at November 19, 2005 12:07 AM
Comment #94146

Hi Craig,

“As a supporter of the war, I never once thought that Sadaam was involved in 9/11.”

As I said earlier, you seem to be a reasonable fellow. Do you hold Bush accountable for lying to soldiers about why they went to war? Does it bother you that soldiers have been fighting and dying believing Bush’s lies about Iraq attacking us on Sept 11th?

“Both Sadaam and OBL are of the same ilk.”

From a strategic point of view that was not at all true. Saddam was deterable and OBL was not. Iraq wasn’t a threat to us compared to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somolia, and several other countries. We put most of our military resources into a country that wasn’t a significant threat to us.

“We cannot take the risk of OBL and Sadaam linking up.”

That is an extremely stupid reason to put most of our military resources in Iraq. OBL had “linked up” with all sorts of countries. You don’t tie up most of your military resources based on something that has a small probability of occuring.

“One of my basic reasons why I don’t think Bush lied about WMD is because we didn’t find any.”

He lied about several specific matters relative to WMD’s such as the aluminum tubes and the unmanned drones. Republicans aren’t much on accountability these days. You guys are a bunch of moral relatavisists when it comes to the actions of the Bush administration.

“Bush had no motive to lie, unless he wanted to be impeached.”

That statement could be applied to every President and yet the overwhelming majority of Presidents we’ve had have lied. I don’t see why it is so difficult for Republicans to aknowledge extremely obvious facts these days.

“What Bush is doing is protection the free flow of oil and out way of life in the way he knows how.”

Oil is the only good strategic reason I’ve heard for occupying Iraq.

“We have terrible Intelligence.”

I had access to far better intelligence than Bush did leading up to the war. I knew that his aluminum tubes claims were bogus from reading newspapers….several months before Bush’s State of the Union speach it was clear that the aluminum tubes weren’t for what Bush said they were for.

I think, and have thought all along, that going into Iraq is going to be the worst strategic blunder in the history of this nation. We’ve got most of our military resources tied up in a country that wasn’t a threat to us.

We’ve got most of our military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and we’re not winning. We’ve got our military in a situation where the terrrorists have all the advantages and this was predictable.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 8:50 AM
Comment #94216

LouisXIV:

Do you hold Bush accountable for lying to soldiers about why they went to war?

I don’t believe Bush lied, and the quote you showed me before doesn’t indicate a lie to me.

I hold Bush and Congress accountable because obviouisly they didn’t look close enough into the intelligence.

From a strategic point of view that was not at all true. Saddam was deterable and OBL was not.

Saddam was no longer deterable. The Bush I/Clinton coalition had served it’s purpose and was falling apart. As evidence I would offer the oil for food scandal.

That is an extremely stupid reason to put most of our military resources in Iraq.

Not if you believed at the time that Sadaam had WMD.

He lied about several specific matters relative to WMD’s such as the aluminum tubes and the unmanned drones

The weakness of your argument, (I like this format by the way) seems to me, that you need to answer the question of “why would President Bush lie on matters that we were certain to discover?” There was no hope of concealment.

“Bush had no motive to lie, unless he wanted to be impeached.”

That statement could be applied to every President and yet the overwhelming majority of Presidents we’ve had have lied.

Not when there was 100% certainty of discovery of the truth over time.

I had access to far better intelligence than Bush did leading up to the war. I knew that his aluminum tubes claims were bogus from reading newspapers….several months before Bush’s State of the Union speach it was clear that the aluminum tubes weren’t for what Bush said they were for.

Here is Bush’s exact quote from the state of the union address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Bush should be able to produce documents showing that the British has informed our country concerning Niger, and be able to cough up the intelligence sourses that were speaking of aluminum tubes. If he can then he isn’t lying.

Oil is the only good strategic reason I’ve heard for occupying Iraq.

Here is how the left is a bit wrong. They say, Iraq was no threat to our country. Ok, then lets remove our armed forces from the middle east. What could happen? Well, Sadaam would rebuild his military and
take the oil fields. Without WMD, Iraq is not a direct threat to the US. Sadaam however was definitely an indirect threat. The proof of this is the war with Kuwait.

Because of Sadaam we had troops on the ground on Muslim lands. This is what causes suicide bombings. All suicide bombings (virtually every single one) is caused by foreign combat troops viewed as an occupying force. The occupiers need to be of another faith in order to justify it. So the Bush I/Clinton policy is what was generating the suicide bombings. If we continued the status quo from 1991 to 2005 we would continue to have suicide bombings against our interests nationwide.

There is only one answer out of this that I know of. The only answer that I know of that will stop the threat to our citizens is not capturing OBL. There will just be more of them.
The only answer I know of, is a stable Iraq, so we can remove ALL of our forces off of Muslim lands, and onto ships in the gulf. We have to find a way to protect the oil fields and waterways without being on the ground. That is the only way out.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 19, 2005 2:10 PM
Comment #94230

Hi Craig,

“I don’t believe Bush lied”

“President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.”
Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.” And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy “for a long period of time.”
All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.” —10.22.02, Washington Post

President Bush said definitively that Iraq “could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes” and that Iraq definitely “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” when, in fact, Bush’s own Defense Intelligence Agency said it had no proof to support these claims.

“They say, Iraq was no threat to our country.”

Compared to Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Somolia, and others Iraq wasn’t a threat.

“The only answer I know of, is a stable Iraq”

Iraq is far less stable now than it was before we went in. Iraq’s Prime Minister is a member of the Dawa party which is an Iranian anti-American terrorist organization.

Iraq is far more of a threat to us now than it was when we went in.

Posted by: LouisXIV at November 19, 2005 2:43 PM
Comment #94240

LouisXIV:

But where did Bush get that information? It sounds so much like what Clinton said in 1998:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

As usual Clinton did not go through the UN security Counsel.

My answer as to where Bush got his information was that he got the information the same place Clinton did. That is a pretty good answer.

In building an argument that Bush did not lie about the reason for the war, I would offer three arguments:

1. President Clinton used very similar terms to describe Iraq. President Clinton was advised by the same sources (CIA, Pentagon etc) that President Bush was.

2. Congress reviewed the intelligence before them, and concluded the same thing as Bush did concerning Iraq’s capabilities. Again the source of the information that Congress reviewed was arguably very close to what they reviewed during the Clinton Presidency.

3. Logic. Bush would have have been lying in an area that he would certainly be found out. He would have not hope of not being discovered.

I believe Bush was careless. He placed too much weight on the intelligence. He valued the intelligence information too highly

So what should be the consequence?

I think there should be hell to pay. Leading a country into war with wrong information is one of the biggest blunders in American history. There are a couple of options:

1. Bush lied.
2. The intelligence was just wrong. (which I believe).
3. Or that Bush was lied to. (This is partially true with the Iraqi’s who advised him).

If Bush lied then he should be impeached as well as
Cheney.
Lets say I am right, then what hell should be paid? Actually, a Democratic Congress. There needs to be a consequence.

Here is the problem I have with a Democratic congress. I’m a moderate conservative, but this issue goes beyond left or right. It goes to integrity. When I look at the Democratic congress, they look shameful to me. They don’t look like a group that could lead us out of anywhere. I don’t see voting Democratic as a plus. I also don’t think the Dems will retake anything in 06.

So what is the hell to pay? I think Bush’s low approval ratings and three more years of hearing the left scream, is going to be the hell. I think it will take the election of 08 for us to put this behind us.

So I think your screaming is the “hell” to pay. What I would encourage you is to not fight fire with fire. Bush “rushed to judgment”, don’t do the same. You don’t have to. Which ever it was, whether he lied are screwed up, both directly effect the worlds ability to trust him. My encouragement would be to back one click back and use the argument of trust. “We have a president we can’t trust”, instead of “he is a liar!!” As democrats it is a great argument to pick up seats.

Here is the main argument:

“We have a President who lead us into war based on wrong information. Some believe he lied, some believe he made an honest mistake. Vote Democratic, and we will keep a close watch on him for the next two years.”

And please Democrats start acting like leaders, instead of the keystone cops.

Craig


Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 19, 2005 4:24 PM
Comment #378243

Emporio Armani AR0100 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0101 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0106 Subdial Silver Bracelet Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0115 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Brick Link Bracelet Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0121 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0137 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0141 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0142 Men’s Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0148 Men’s Watch Men’s Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0257 Classic Black Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0154 Classic Rectangle Face Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0259 Men’s Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0264 Brown Leather Strap Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0266 Black/Brown Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0273 Classic Silver Dial Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0283 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0284 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0285 Classic Leather Strap Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0286 Mens Classic Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0292 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0293 Black And Gold Leather Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0294 Chronograph Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0297 Solid Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0298 Stainless Steel White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0299 Stainless Black Dial Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0308 Gold-tone Steel Black Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0310 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0311 Leather Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0315 Mens Stainless Steel Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0320 Mens Rose Gold Plated Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0321 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0168 Rose Gold Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0180 Men’s Classic Black Leather Band Watch
Emporio Armani AR0186 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0187 Classic Chronograph Men’s Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0203 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0206 Men’s Classic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0235 Tan Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0241 Stainless Mens Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0322 Classic Chronograph Rose Gold Men Wrist watch
Emporio Armani AR0333 Classic Chronograph Champagne Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0334 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0337 Men’s Classic Brown Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0362 Men’s Classic Black Dial Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0363 Men’s Black Crocodile Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0402 Classic Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0403 Men Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0405 Mens Black Dial Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0406 Men’s Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0407 Mens Analog Watch Brown Leather Band
Emporio Armani Men’s AR0409 Large Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0410 Men’s Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0412 Womens Brown Croc Leather Classic Watch
Emporio Armani AR0425 Classic Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0426 Brown Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0427 Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0428 Men’s Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0429 Men’s Classics Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0431 Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Band Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0433 Classic Silver Dial Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Classic Collection Men’s Quartz Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0455 Classic Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0456 Brown/Rose Gold Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0457 Classic Rectangular Watch Stainless Steel Case
Emporio Armani AR0458 Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0463 Men’s Classic Leather Quartz Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0464 Mens Classic All Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR0465 Mens Classic Black Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0466 Two Tone Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0470 Women’s Champagne Dial Gold Tone Ion Plated Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0472 Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0473 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0474 Chronograph Quartz Men’s Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0475 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0477 Classic Amber Dial Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR0478 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0479 Men’s Classic Chronograph Leather Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0480 Men’s Classic Chronograph Stainless Steel Blue Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0482 Gents Classic Watch Stainless Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0483 Classic Chronograph Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0484 Men’s Dress Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0486 Men’s Classic Silver Dial Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0487 Men’s Digital Silver Dial and Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0489 Men’s Classic Taupe Textured Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0490 Classic Mens Brown Leather Dress 30MM Watch
Emporio Armani AR0492 Men Large Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0493 Men’s Stainless Black dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0498 Classic Quartz White Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0499 Mens Classic Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0506 Men’s Black Dial Black Canvas Watch
Emporio Armani AR0508 Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0525 White Leather Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0526 Sport Analog Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0527 Black Mens Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0528 Sports Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0531 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Strap Quartz men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0532 Men’s Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0534 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0539 Classic Black Face Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0540 Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0547 Sports Style Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0552 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0548 Men’s Watch Men’s Rubber Strap
Emporio Armani AR0549 Black Rubber Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0555 Men’s Black Sport Watch
Emporio Armani AR0560 Black Dial Stainless Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0563 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0566 Mens Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0571 Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0572 Men’s Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0573 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0574 Rose Gold Mens Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0575 Watch Men’s Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0576 Gents Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0577 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0578 Leather Collection Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0580 stainless silver watch
Emporio Armani AR0581 Classic Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0582 Men’s White Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0583 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0584 Black GOLD Rubber Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0585 Men’s Classic Stainless steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0586 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0587 Quartz World Time Watch
Emporio Armani AR0588 Black Rubber Band Bold Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0589 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0590 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0591 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0592 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0593 Black Rubber Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0594 Men?s Chronograph Mango Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0595 mens sports style rubber strap designer watch
Emporio Armani AR0597 Men’s Sport Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0599 Mens Sport Rubber Strap Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0619 Leather Gents Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0624 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0627 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0628 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Movement Watch
Emporio Armani AR0629 Unisex Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0630 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0631 Men’s Sport Black Textured Dial Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0632 Classic Mens Designer Posh Watch
Emporio Armani AR0633 Sport Analogue Stainless Steel Bracelet Silver Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0634 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0635 Quartz Gunmetal Gray Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0643 Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0646 Classic Womens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0649 Sport Chronograph Blue Rubber Band Blue Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0653 Sport Analogue Black Rubber Strap Black Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0654 White Silicon Strap SPORT WATCH
Emporio Armani AR0655 Orange Rubber Strap Designer Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0656 Men’s Classic Silver Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0658 Mens Chronograph Rubber Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0660 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0661 Men’s Black/Grey Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0662 Mens Sports White Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Chronograph Watch Silver Dial Mens Quartz
Emporio Armani AR0665 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Mens Sports Chronograph Divers Watch
Emporio Armani AR0667 Men’s Gunmetal Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0668 Women’s Leather Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0671 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0677 Men’s Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0683 Rubber Sport Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0684 Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0685 Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0686 Grey Sport Strap Gunmetal Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0687 Sport Blue Man Watch
Emporio Armani AR0696 Classic White Leather 2-Hand Silver Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0926 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Steel Case Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0932 Stainless Silver Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0933 Classic Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0934 Mens Amber Brown Watch
Emporio Armani AR0936 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0937 wrist watch man black steel chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR1400 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1403 Men’s Ceramica White Dial Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR1404 Ceramic Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR1406 Mens Marco Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR1408 White Ceramic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1410 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1411 Women’s Ceramica Chrono Watch
Emporio Armani AR1412 Women’s Ceramic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1413 Sport Watch Quartz Chronograph Black Analog Mens
Emporio Armani AR1416 Quartz White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2006 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2007 Slim Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2008 Men’s Classic Roman Numerals Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2010 Men’s Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2011 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2012 Silver Strap Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2014 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2016 Men’s Classic Mesh Goldtone Mother-Of-Pearl Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2020 Round Case Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2022 Super Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2023 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2026 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2027 Men’s Classic Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2028 Gents Classic Watch Black Stainless Steel Mesh Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR2030 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2032 Men’s Rectangular Amber Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2034 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2036 Gents Stainless Steel Watch with White Dial
Emporio Armani AR2041 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2043 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2053 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2055 Super Slim Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2411 Men’s Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2413 Watch Men’s Brown Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2415 Mens Classic Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2417 Classic Silver Dial Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1700 Mens Black Valente Watch
Emporio Armani AR2421 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR2423 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Analog Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2425 Gold Plated Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2427 Classic Men’s Leather Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR2429 Men’s Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2430 Men’s Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2431 Men’s Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2432 Men’s Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2433 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2434 Classic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2435 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2436 Unisex Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2440 Men’s Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2442 Classic Leather Strap Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2444 Classic Black Leather Date Strap Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2447 Men’s Renato Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR2448 Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2452 Stainless Steel Pink Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR3151 Diamond Mother Of Pearl Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4200 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4201 Meccanico Automatic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4203 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4204 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4205 Mens Meccanico Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4206 Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4207 Mens Meccanico Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4208 Meccanico Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4209 Meccanico Small Seconds Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR4210 Brown Leather Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4213 Classic Chronograph Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4214 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4218 Mens MECCANICO Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4219 Mens Rose Gold Classic Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4224 Meccanico Open Heart Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4226 Black Rubber Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4228 Meccanico Automatic Black Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4229 Meccanico Automatic Brown Leather Yellow Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4231 Mens Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4601 Jungle Combat Mens Leather Wrist Watch
Emporio Armani AR4602 Black Leather Mens Designer Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4603 Men’s Watch Automatic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR4604 Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4606 MECCANICO Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4607 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4608 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4609 Mens Meccanico Automatic Dk Blue /Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4610 Meccanico Mens Stainless Steel Automatic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4611 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4612 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4613 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4619 Meccanico Men’s Automatic Rose Gold Watch
Emporio Armani AR4620 Men Meccanico Calendar Watch
Emporio Armani AR4625 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4627 Meccanico Mens Automatic Watch
Emporio Armani AR4628 Men’s Meccanico Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4630 Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4633 Gents Automatic Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4634 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4635 Meccanico Automatic Black Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4643 Men’s Meccanico Brown Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR4644 Men’s Meccanico Brown Leather Strap Silver Dial watch
Emporio Armani AR5300 Striking gents dress watch
Emporio Armani AR5316 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR5321 Black Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5324 Men’s Stainless Steel Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR5327 Stainless Large Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5328 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5329 Leather Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5330 Classic GMT Dual Time Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5331 Stainless Gents Watch

Posted by: burberry watch new stlye at May 8, 2014 8:32 AM
Comment #381273

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 5:25 AM
Post a comment