Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 10, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

MANIPULATING INTELLIGENCE....Paul Pillar, the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, has an article today in Foreign Affairs about the politicization of intelligence in the runup to the Iraq war. It's fairly weak on the subject of WMD, which he admits everyone in the intelligence community believed in, but much stronger on the administration's cynical manipulation of supposed ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda:

In the shadowy world of international terrorism, almost anyone can be "linked" to almost anyone else if enough effort is made to find evidence of casual contacts, the mentioning of names in the same breath, or indications of common travels or experiences. Even the most minimal and circumstantial data can be adduced as evidence of a "relationship," ignoring the important question of whether a given regime actually supports a given terrorist group and the fact that relationships can be competitive or distrustful rather than cooperative.

.... The Bush team approached the community again and again and pushed it to look harder at the supposed Saddam-al Qaeda relationship....The process did not involve intelligence work designed to find dangers not yet discovered or to inform decisions not yet made. Instead, it involved research to find evidence in support of a specific line of argument that Saddam was cooperating with al Qaeda which in turn was being used to justify a specific policy decision.

....The issue became even more time-consuming as the conflict between intelligence officials and policymakers escalated into a battle, with the intelligence community struggling to maintain its objectivity even as policymakers pressed the Saddam-al Qaeda connection. The administration's rejection of the intelligence community's judgments became especially clear with the formation of a special Pentagon unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. The unit, which reported to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, was dedicated to finding every possible link between Saddam and al Qaeda, and its briefings accused the intelligence community of faulty analysis for failing to see the supposed alliance.

I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one. As I've noted before, there's no question that the administration manipulated the WMD intelligence. At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons. (Not nukes, though. The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.)

But the Saddam-al-Qaeda connection is entirely different. Not only did the Bush administration manipulate the intelligence, but I don't think they even believed in it themselves. It was pure pretense from start to finish.

Kevin Drum 4:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (114)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You go to war with the lies you have, not the facts you wish you had.

--
HRlaughed

Posted by: HRlaughed on February 10, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

CLICK THE LINK. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK. It says...

Wait, it says just what Kevin says it says: that the political arm of the administration was trying to manipulate intelligence to associate Saddam and Al-Qaeda. God, Bush was lying to me all along! I've been such a fool.

Posted by: Al on February 10, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, yet another veteran of government service who's gone off the reservation. How long before "weird things" are found in his personal life?

On another, related topic, I'd like to use the Republican standard for "linking" people to terrorism and accuse Jeb Bush of harboring the 9/11 hijackers. After all, they lived right there in Florida for some time. (Remember how, according to the Right, Saddam was supposed to have "harbored" an al-Qaeda guy -- Zarqawi? -- because the terrorist allegedly sought medical treatment in Iraq?)

Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 10, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently virtually everybody else believed Saddam had WMDs. Bill Clinton, Al Gore. Madeline Albright, Tony Blair. Hilary, John Edwards, Lieberman, the CIA. I could go on.

Drum's post is gratuitous garbage. And to say the Bush Administration itself didn't believe Saddam had WMDs has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

Posted by: BigRiver on February 10, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Aside from the nukes argument this was my other main basis for believing either Bush was knowingly lying or was being lied to by his subordinates in order to sell this war. That the Bush Administration was lying throughout I cannot see how anyone can dispute even if one wants to quibble about whether Bush himself knew he was lying or whether he was a mouthpiece/fool that was fed lies to sell as the truth because he knew no better. Either is a massive condemnation of GWB as a President though.

The AQ/Osama-Saddam links were something that were laughed out of everywhere in the Western world except for America and maybe some in the UK. Anyone that knew anything about the history of these two men as well as anything about the history of the region's conflicts between secularism and fundamentalism knew they were enemies. That each saw themselves as the leader of Arab resistance to the forces of the West. The idea that these two would ever work together was patent nonsense, and was the one element of the case argued prior to invasion that I never understood why it wasn't shown for the obvious nonsense it was. It is not like there wasn't already massive amounts of information out there in the public domain to underscore this, and if bloggers and such could find these so quickly back then, why was it so impossible for the media organizations (aside from Knight Ridder) in America to recognize this.

That more than anything else made clear just how much in the bag the American MSM was in regards to the war in Iraq. This was a war launched on lies and massive exaggerations to claim a real security threat existed when one clearly did not. Whatever the reasons this WH wanted this war it had nothing to do with any threat posed by Iraq to anyone, let alone America, despite their claims to the contrary. This is only the latest "revelation" of this reality, and one that was clear to all those that actually knew something about terrorism and the Middle East prior to the propaganda war launched in Sept 2002 (aka the product launch one does not start in August as one WH figure put it).

Posted by: Scotian on February 10, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

This kind of thing will be helpful 20, 30 years from now when historians are putting together what happened, but since the media is basically a GOP mouthpiece these days and the Democratic party is neutered, this story will probably have the impact all the other stories from former gov officials coming out saying the fix was in had...yeah.

Posted by: matt on February 10, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Al's post above had me laughing -- brilliant!

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 10, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons. (Not nukes, though. The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.)

Yeah, but.....the Al Qaeda connection and the nuclear capability were pretty much the deal makers with the American public, and those were the two things that the intelligence community repeatedly asserted were not true. That Hussein had some chemical gas capability is one thing, but if Hussein had an atom bomb and was co-operating with a group that would actually use it -- that is a drastically different thing.
I am a boomer, and "mushroom cloud" resonates with all of us who drilled "duck and cover" in grade school and had nightmares of atom bombs as children. These manipulative, lying freaks drove us into a stupid, costly, and what has at times been an immoral war with their lies.

Posted by: patrick on February 10, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey BigRiver -- did the Inspectors ON THE GROUND believe it?

LOL!

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 10, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

The issue of WMD is only "difficult" if you accepted the administration's position the UN inspectors were at best incompetent and at worst pro-Saddam. If you recall, the inspectors tried to find evidence that would support the administration's conclusions -- uranium ore, aluminum tubes, mobile labs, etc -- and every time found no reason to accept the conclusions. Hans Blix bent over backwards to give the administration's arguments room and they still never had weight, before and after Powell's UN speech.

The inspectors conclusions, coupled with Washington's campaign to damn them and the UN from the beginning, was what made my decision on WMDs anything but "difficult".

Posted by: paulo on February 10, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.

If by "just for show" you mean a deliberate lie meant to play on the worst fears of the American public in order to start a plainly unnecessary and disastrous war to satisfy the ego of a boy-President and his power mad henchmen, then yes, "just for show."

Posted by: Ugh on February 10, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

And to say the Bush Administration itself didn't believe Saddam had WMDs has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time

wow. you need to work on your irrational knee-jerk Kevin-hatred.

from the original post: "At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons"

Posted by: cleek on February 10, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

FWIW, my take on it is that the Bushies used the intel agencies as lawyers rather than investigators. "We decide, you support," vs. "you report, we decide."

They probably don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'm sure Bush himself doesn't; the guy apparently thinks he's hard-wired to God.

Power corrupts...

Posted by: bleh on February 10, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

KD says: it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons

Why, if there was this evidence of Saddam's WMD programs, was it NOT included in Blix's UN Reports in Febuary and March of 2003?

The Reports, which claimed Saddam was largely complying, did not include any of this new evidence in it's list of remaining, "outstanding issues". The issues which remained to be resolved were (largely, substantively) pertaining to the inability of Saddam to document the destruction of chemical and biological weapons stocks from the 1980's.

Sure, there's all this "everyone believed" stuff, but if there was any shred of HARD EVIDENCE, ANYWHERE, don't you think it would have somehow, eventually, made it's way to the UN, and they would have included it in their list of official grievances against Saddam?

It makes no sense that everyone was trying to make their best case against Iraq, but were witholding their best evidence of new, active weapons programs.

IOW, there was no substantial evidence (anybody, to this day, ever seen any of it?). And you're basically wrong about this issue MR. Drum.

Posted by: luci on February 10, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

It's fairly weak on the subject of WMD, which he admits everyone in the intelligence community believed in, . . .

This is not true. Not a single intelligence agency in the West could confirm WMD stockpiles or programs prior to the invasion. This is well documented.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 10, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

WMD Bull Hockey! Just like the rest of awol, 4D, rummy, wolfie BULL HOCKEY intel! cleve

Posted by: cleve on February 10, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

If the gov't used the same technique for everyone of linking people to Al Qaida, George W. Bush would be a resident of Guantanamo.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 10, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

As near as I can tell the intelligence agencies used a definition of WMD that was much looser than the public's. No analyst in the intelligence agencies was suggesting that Iraq's possible WMD research or "program" constituted a grave threat to Iraq's neighbors or the US. They basically said that they had the capability to produce a few nasty chemicals, they had done it before, and Iraq's insistence on secrecy made it possible they were doing it again.

The only chemicals we were sure they could produce were ones that wackos have proved adept at producing in their garages (sarin, cyanide, mustard gas, botulinum toxin, ricin). They were unable to account for all sorts of growth media and warheads that they had before the gulf war, but considering they had the shit blasted out of them in the intervening time and the shelf life of these chemicals without continuous refrigeration (how stable was their electrical grid in the 90's?) is quite short, I wasn't too worried about their inability to provide a complete inventory.

All evidence of nuclear advancement was bogus and there was absolutely no evidence that they had acquired smallpox (the vaccination of US soldiers was probably Cheney's idea of good domestic PR for the pending war), could generate more than an ampule of VX, or even knew how to air dry anthrax like that dispersed in the US in 2001. . . . and the mobile labs don't make the slightest bit of sense if you want to make sure the sarin or anthrax doesn't leak out a crack in your glassware.

As for the herbicides they found that tbrosz or fake tbrosz was worried about -- maybe we should limit the exports of such things.

Posted by: B on February 10, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Not a single intelligence agency in the West could confirm WMD stockpiles or programs prior to the invasion. This is well documented.

Along with the UN inspectors who were actually there right before the invasion, who found nothing.

Posted by: Ringo on February 10, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Drum's post is gratuitous garbage."

I know what your post is, but what is Kevin's?

Posted by: brewmn on February 10, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

On another, related topic, I'd like to use the Republican standard for "linking" people to terrorism and accuse Jeb Bush of harboring the 9/11 hijackers.

Brilliant.

Posted by: craigie on February 10, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

If it's that easily manipulatable, then "Intelligence" is not the word I'd use to describe it.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 10, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Since this person had been working in the intelligence community for decades, I would surmise that his capacity to understand the nuances of the strategies necessary for asymmetric warfare are quite limited. His claims are more a result of his archaic world view cultivated during the cold war than of any useful insights into the current situation. If I were a Democrat, I would not pin my hopes on dethroning the President just on Mr. Pillar's inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric disguised as scholarly work.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 10, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons.

Apart from the administration saying so, what exactly makes it "clear" that they believed Iraq had and was producing WMDs? Their history of honesty?

What's clear to me is that you believed it at the time; and you would not like to think now that you were taken in by their lies.

In the lead-up to the war, I never saw one bit of actual evidence that WMDs existed in Iraq. On the other hand, primarily from old inspections and those newly begun, there was a lot of evidence that they did not.

But, for the sake of confidence in our leader's assertions, even supposing Iraq did have WMDs, the discussion of the matter ignores the point that there was zero evidence that any plans were in place to use them. Thus, there were no legal grounds to invade the country.

WMDs do exist. And they are a genuine threat. There are vast stockpiles of them in the U.S.


Posted by: jayarbee on February 10, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK
I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one. As I've noted before, there's no question that the administration manipulated the WMD intelligence. At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons.

I don't see how that even begins to make the issue difficult. Congress decides under what conditions the US goes to war unless war arrives through no choice of the US as it did on 9/11. In order to make those decisions, they need the truth about not only what the executive believes to be true, but also the basis for that belief. Deliberately misrepresenting the evidence is not justified by an honest belief in the conclusions offered. There is no difficult issue there.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently virtually everybody else believed Saddam had WMDs. Bill Clinton, Al Gore. Madeline Albright, Tony Blair. Hilary, John Edwards, Lieberman, the CIA. I could go on.

And you know what? To the extent that their beliefs are important, they were all wrong. And none of those people actually went to war with Saddam based on their beliefs, did they? Most importantly, as has been noted already, the weapons inspectors who were actually in Iraq in 2003, looking for weapons, found none.

And the response from people like you at the time was that Hans Blix and his people were a bunch of clueless anti-American appeasing Euroweenies, coddling Saddam.

(And something else - if there had been some WMDs in Iraq, they would have had "Yours affectionately, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush" stamped on them.)

But, hey, guess what - Blix was RIGHT. Saddam had jack shit. But, eager for war, Bush shooed him out so he could get his war on.

Drum's post is gratuitous garbage. And to say the Bush Administration itself didn't believe Saddam had WMDs has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

As has also been pointed out, this is the opposite of what Kevin said.

I will give you credit for one thing, though: while your reading comprehension and thinking skills are lacking, you can at least spell and write complete sentences. Most of your mouth-breathing ideological brethren can't.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 10, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons.

Whatever anyone may or may not have suspected that Iraq was doing -- and there were numerous people back in 2002 who were outspokenly skeptical of the claim that Iraq had any active chemical or biological weapons programs remaining after the first Gulf War and years of sanctions and inspections and Clinton's 1998 bombing attacks, and there was plenty of evidence that the CIA was well aware of that no such programs survived -- it was very clear in early 2003, well before the US invasion, that the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq were finding no evidence of any such programs. On the contrary, all the evidence that they were uncovering supported the view that Iraq had no such weapons and no such programs.

Meanwhile Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell continued their stridently blaring claims that they KNEW -- not suspected, not thought, but KNEW from evidence that "left no doubt" -- that Iraq had such weapons programs, and moreover that they KNEW that Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, which Bush et al described in frightening and specific detail, and which Rumsfeld claimed to know the precise location of. This was all lies -- deliberate, elaborate, repeated lies.

Kevin: Not nukes, though. The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.

The "mushroom cloud talk" -- and the forged Niger documents, and the aluminum tubes, etc. -- was not "just for show". It was a deliberate, elaborate scheme to perpetrate a criminal fraud on the American people, the US Congress, the United Nations Security Council, the IAEA and the entire world.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and other principals of the Bush administration deliberately, repeatedly and elaborately LIED to the American people, the United States Congress, the United Nations Security Council and the entire world in order to lead the USA into an illegal war of unprovoked aggression and in order to terrify the American people into acquiescing to their criminal misuse of the US military for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for themselves, their families and their cronies and financial backers in the military-industrial-petroleum complex.

All of them should be removed from office, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for their grotesque treason against the United States of America and their heinous crimes against humanity.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 10, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

"I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one."

Yeah? Well I continue to believe that Colin Powell was correct when he said this in February, 2001:

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

http://tinyurl.com/otj4

The difference between your belief and mine is that my belief is borne out by the UN inspections, the Kay report, and the Duelfer report.

Posted by: Newton Minnow on February 10, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

His claims are more a result of his archaic world view cultivated during the cold war than of any useful insights into the current situation.
What a howler! We've had 3 years utterly useless insights on the current situation from the Bush admin and what has it brought us? 2471 dead coalition soldiers, 16,000+ wounded and Iraq on the brink of civil war.

Posted by: michaelw on February 10, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

, I would surmise that his capacity to understand the nuances of the strategies necessary for asymmetric warfare are quite limited.

surely, it must seem so, to someone with a mind as brilliant as your own.

Posted by: cleek on February 10, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum >"...It was pure pretense from start to finish."

Not any different than ANY thing else the ReThuglicans have done/are doing/will do

The lies go on

Folks might want to read this (quote below) for a little more understanding on how all this "spin" stuff works

"...In the first empirical work to examine both stated intentions and actual behavior, researchers argue that this sort of negative message evoking both fear and guilt is a far more effective deterrent to potentially harmful behavior than positive hopeful or feel-good messages.

"Making people feel good is less important than making people feel accountable when it comes to making wise decisions about self-protection,"..."

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

Posted by: daCascadian on February 10, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

I think they were big believers in the theory that Saddam was behind the 93 WTC bombing and the OK City bombing. Laurie Mylroie, that is the name. She wrote a book called "The War Against America" which claimed Saddam infiltrated Iraqi Intelligence people into Al Queda.

Foreword by R. James Woolsey, cover quotes from Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Ms. Mylroie co-wrote a book with Judith Miller.

Posted by: VOR on February 10, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

It looks like Kevin hit some buttons again.

If we 1) came up with a precise definition of WMD that excluded the can of bloated green beans in my basement and 2) distinguished between the concepts of "evidence" and "suspicion" we could all probably get past this.

Posted by: B on February 10, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

VOR, when Mylroie worked with Miller, did she wear kneepads too?

Posted by: marky on February 10, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK
Remember how, according to the Right, Saddam was supposed to have "harbored" an al-Qaeda guy -- Zarqawi? -- because the terrorist allegedly sought medical treatment in Iraq?

Supposedly, there was rock solid evidence he went there to have his leg amputated, though supposedly he was also, once the Iraq War was on, he was the terrorist shown in one video with, clearly, two intact and functional legs.

Which, I suppose, is worth considering if you think you trust the intelligence analysis capabilities of this administration to target, for electronic surveillance, American citizens with suspected "ties" to al-Qaeda.

I mean, if their certainties are this wrong, how bad must their mere suspicions be?

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I especially liked this part of the article:

"Pillar wrote that the first request he received from a Bush policymaker for an assessment of post-invasion Iraq was "not until a year into the war.""

A year?!?

Posted by: batavicus on February 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
A while ago you wrote a post about prewar intelligence propaganda, and one of assertions of this administrations untruths was the purposeful use of the term WMD to include chemical, biological and nuclear when clearly nuclear belonged in a class by itself. And yet, here you are a couple of months later co-mingling them yourself. The Nukes are the crux of the reason many people agreed to go war. The assertion that the administration really believed Hussein had WMD is only true if you look at chemical and biological weapons and say 2 out of 3 is good enough. However, they lied about the nukes and cover it by including all three categories of weapons in the term 'WMD'. Which I think you know if you read your own posts.

Posted by: patrick on February 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

marky >"...when Mylroie worked with Miller, did she wear kneepads too?"

I think they shared the same pair; swapping them as their "roles" changed back and forth

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

Posted by: daCascadian on February 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

I think they were big believers in the theory that Saddam was behind the 93 WTC bombing and the OK City bombing. Laurie Mylroie, that is the name. She wrote a book called "The War Against America" which claimed Saddam infiltrated Iraqi Intelligence people into Al Queda.

Foreword by R. James Woolsey, cover quotes from Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Ms. Mylroie co-wrote a book with Judith Miller.

Yes, precisely. It's a veritable all-star list of people who have been consistently, astoundingly, and disastrously wrong about foreign threats going back at least to the 1970s. A lot of these same geniuses (Woolsey, Perle, Wolfowitz) were the ones who vastly overestimated Soviet strength in the late 70s and early 80s.

It would take a novelist like Joseph Heller to come up with a crew as redolent of black comedy as this one. And the parody would seem too broad to be effective.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 10, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Sometimes around the start of the Iraq misadventure, the President explicitly stated that Saddam refused to let the inspectors in. It was a blatant lie, and for me the end of any doubt about my suspicion that these guys were lying about everything, WMDs of every kind included.

Posted by: lib on February 10, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

I am sick and tired of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction". It is only a ruse to link less effective chemical and biological weapons to truly horrendous city-incinerating nukes. WMD is an example of "framing" as expounded by Lakoff.

Posted by: Thormon Ellison on February 10, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Three cheers for Kevin, finally some interesting posts and comments. First the abortion post, now this.

Thought he might have been getting bored there or something.

Thanks, Kevin

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on February 10, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush administration's righteousness knows no bounds.

Posted by: Jon Karak on February 10, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Can we please try to distinguish between what "everyone" believed in 1998, or 2000, or even 2002, and what the people in a position to know anything believed in February 2003 after the UN inspectors had been working for some time?

I don't care what Clinton said years before the war. I care what the US government knew (or perhaps should have known but refused to accept) at the time it decided to invade Iraq.

Posted by: KCinDC on February 10, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

"It's fairly weak on the subject of WMD, which he admits everyone in the intelligence community believed in"

Can we now put the silly "bush lied people died" thing to rest?

Posted by: peanut on February 10, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

As was mentioned above, Bush told this lie with Kofi Annan sitting right beside him:

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"

He will say anything just to give his base something to rally behind. Truth is unimportant to people who "create their own reality."

Posted by: Newton Minnow on February 10, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Next, after ice skating, maybe toss a few comments about whether the dems should be strong about NS and terrorsm for Nov. Worked wonders on HuffPo yesterday.

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on February 10, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK
Can we please try to distinguish between what "everyone" believed in 1998, or 2000, or even 2002, and what the people in a position to know anything believed in February 2003 after the UN inspectors had been working for some time?

Heck, I'd settle for distinguishing between what "everyone" believed was probably true in February 2003 and what was generally believed, by the same group, to be certain and threatening enough to justify a massive invasion certain to result in a long and difficult stabilization even after displacing the existing regime in February 2003.

Because, you know its not exactly the same thing.

There is a difference degree of certainty required for "belief" used to justify a more muscular sanctions and inspections regime (that many countries support in February 2003), or "belief" used to justify a limited, narrowly targeted set of strikes like Desert Fox, or the "belief" required to justify a massive invasion and occupation.

This rather critical distinction seems to escape people capable of only the most primitive, binary thought.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK
Can we now put the silly "bush lied people died" thing to rest?

Well, given that Bush did, in fact, lie to sell the war and people did, in fact, die as a direct and predictable consequence of those lies, no.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

"It's fairly weak on the subject of WMD, which he admits everyone in the intelligence community believed in"

Can we now put the silly "bush lied people died" thing to rest? Posted by: peanut

No, we can't, asshole, because he did lie and everyone in the intelligence agencies knows he did.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 10, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

'the theory that Saddam was behind the 93 WTC bombing...'
--VOR

The Bush loyalists cling to two unrelated and easily dismissed factoids as linking al-Qaeda and Saddam:

(1) The terrorist Ramzi bin Yousef, who bomber the Twin Towers the first time in 1993, entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport in 1992. However, that passport was clearly a forgery and his motivation for using an Iraqi passport was that he could plead political asylum following the first Gulf war. His traveling companion was jailed immediately and in an extremely regrettable example of bureaucratic ineptitutde, Yousef was told to report back later to the INS, because they had no cells to hold him in. Of course he didn't.
(2) The other factoid, and one that right-wing mustache and professional liar Joseph Farah has used ad nauseum, is that there was supposedly an airplane fuselage sighted or found near Salman Pak in Iraq. The theory goes that the 9-11 hijackers used this fuselage to practice thier hijacking techniques, prior to 9-11. The rub is that there is ZERO evidence anyone connected with al-Qaeda was ever anywhere near Salman Pak, nor has anyone come forward to say that they saw this training going on there. Salman Pak could have been an airplane junkyard.

Oh yeah, the righties will say, "What about Abu Nidal living in Iraq?" (he was not part of al-Qaeda) or "What about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian terrorists?" (They aren't part of al-Qaeda either).

Their arguments to try to tie Saddam to al-Qaeda amount to a popcorn fart, in the final analysis.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 10, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, the Kurds believed Saddam had WMDs.

You want more evidence Saddam had WMDs? Look at the mass graves, look at the photos of the thousands who died after being gassed by Saddam.

Posted by: BigRiver on February 10, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

John McCain says it best: "The people who say Bush lied about WMDs are themselves lying."

Posted by: GOPGregory on February 10, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK
No, we can't, asshole, because he did lie and everyone in the intelligence agencies knows he did.

And, aside from everyone in the intelligence agencies, pretty much everyone else on the planet knows it, too, except for Bush cultists who know nothing but what FOX News tells them.

And even some of them are probably suspicious.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Bottom line: Saddam was never a threat to the US. Never. Therefore, there was no justification to invade and occupy Iraq. None.

Posted by: Joel on February 10, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Kevin. You can't blame the Bush administration for believing what they did and then waging a war that has cost 2,235 sets of parents their children. Shit can happen when freedom marches.

Posted by: coffeequeen on February 10, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

"I don't care what Clinton said years before the war. I care what the US government knew (or perhaps should have known but refused to accept) at the time it decided to invade Iraq."

This does seem like pretty important information, don't you think? It involves why we went to war and whether it could have been prevented. I would think that, especially knowing what the U.S. government knew at the time it decided to invade Iraq, would be pretty important to seeing that they were completely full of shit and we never should have done this.

Posted by: Noah on February 10, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK
By the way, the Kurds believed Saddam had WMDs.

You want more evidence Saddam had WMDs? Look at the mass graves, look at the photos of the thousands who died after being gassed by Saddam.

None of which relate to Saddam having WMD in 2003. They relate to him having them in the 1980s, and when that evidence became public, Reagan Administration special envoy Donald Rumsfeld rushed to Baghdad to assure Saddam that his known use of them wouldn't affect US support for Iraq agaisnt Iran. In fact, the Republican Administration of the time condemned Iran's refusal to accept anything short of regime change after Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Iran and subsequent use of chemical weapons during the war.

Suddenly deciding twenty years later that that act necessitates immediate invasion and regime change is, well, not credible, to say the least. Next excuse?


Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

there i was, idly reviewing the comments, noticing all the brilliant lines had been taken, and then the idiotic BigRiver comes back with the Saddam gassed his own people line.

yes, BigRiver, that's right, and what's more, Hitler gassed millions of Jews and others. let's invade germany right now.

how people as idiotic as BigRiver know enough to use a computer is beyond me....

Posted by: howard on February 10, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

The question is not whether anyone believed Iraq was producing chemical weapons, the question is whether they had any evidence, like they said they had. The answer to that was clearly no, months before the invasion.

Posted by: Boronx on February 10, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

boy, the stupid patrol is back out today. John McCain, a worthless sack of shit, comes up with an impossibly deranged line about wmds and gopgregory repeats it as though it had rational meaning.

although bush's speeches were very artfully constructed to minimize the untruths within them, they were, nonetheless, there.

and cheney, of course, didn't even bother to construct his speeches artfully. We "knew," according to Cheney, in August '02, that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.

if clowns like BigRiver and GopGregory still can't acknowledge what actually happened between February '02 (when we failed at Tora Bora because the backbone administration was distracted by iraq) and spring '03, they'll never learn, but you'd hope that they at least had enough of a sense of shame to stfu about it.

Posted by: howard on February 10, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

One of the most infuriating things about reading the otherwise excellent centrist blogs by the likes of Kevin is these bloogers' extreme reluctance to clearly state the conclusions that obviously follow from the evidence at hand. Perhaps this arises from their mortal fear of being grouped with the rabid partisans.

Sometimes, though, you do have to take a stand.

Posted by: lib on February 10, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

John McCain says it best: "The people who say Bush lied about WMDs are themselves lying."

Yeah, like the intel people who say that they consistently told the Bush administration that there was no tie to al-qaeda, which he completely ignored and told public that there were such ties. That's not a lie. That's the complete truth. I am so happy that this lie by Bush is going down in flames. I really think that this is the lie that Democrats should press and not the WMD issue. Bush has muddied the watter there by linking chem and bio weapons to nuclear ones. OTOH, Bush clearly lied about ties to al-qaeda and that lie is clear and distinct.

Noah

Posted by: Noah on February 10, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

For trolls with vision or reading comphrension problems:

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261915/

Posted by: Windhorse on February 10, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Alek Hidell wrote: A lot of these same geniuses (Woolsey, Perle, Wolfowitz) were the ones who vastly overestimated Soviet strength in the late 70s and early 80s.

Don't forget Gerald Ford's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and Ford's Chief of Staff Dick Cheney. And back then, just as in 2002, their "overestimate" of the alleged "threat" was not an error and was not the result of ideology or incompetence. It was a deliberate and elaborate criminal fraud perpetrated on the American people and the US Congress by a gang of career war profiteers.

Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
by Thom Hartmann
December 7, 2004
www.CommonDreams.org

Excerpt:

Richard Nixon, following in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union. Nixon worked out a truce with the Soviets, meeting their demands for safety as well as the US needs for security, and then announced to Americans that they need no longer be afraid.

In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "dtente." On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said, "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fearfor our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world."

But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War.

And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work.

[...]

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good [...] Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology.

[...]

Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration.

But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs.

Sound familiar? When I refer to Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al as "a gang of career war profiteers" I am choosing my words carefully. These guys have been at this game for a long, long time. And the game is called "playing the American people for suckers."


Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 10, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Saddam had poison gas - no doubt about it. We sold him the precursor chemicals to make it. We also sold him Bell helicopters with crop-spraying equipment, that he modified to use it on the Kurds. Do you know what the Reagan Administration reaction was when he used it on the Kurds? Diddley-squat. Reagan and his pirates didn't give a shit about dead Kurds or Iranian troops.

By the way, most reasonable arms experts don't include poison gases as a "WMD". They are too easily disipated by wind or atmospheric conditions to reliably kill mass numbers of people. Most reserve the acronym for nuclear weapons....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 10, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

"The people who say Bush lied about WMDs are themselves lying."

This statement so devoid of any falsifiable content that not only it's not right, it's not even wrong.

Perhaps Mr. McCain is trying to reach the depth of idiocy that seems to be the requirement for the GOP nomination.

Posted by: lib on February 10, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Shit can happen when freedom marches.

Freedom is no longer marching as much as it's stumbling around with its shoelaces tied together....

Posted by: Stefan on February 10, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK
Do you know what the Reagan Administration reaction was when he used it on the Kurds? Diddley-squat.

Oh, come on. Rushing Don Rumsfeld to Baghdad to assure Saddam that, whatever public comment we made about how bad the chemical weapons use was, he shouldn't worry that we would, you know, stop backing his war effort because of it isn't exactly "Diddley-squat".

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one.

I hate to yell at you, Kevin, but this is not a tough call. Not at all.

Think about this half a second. Let's imagine that Bush and his team (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.) (a) believed Saddam had WMDs that would constitute some sort of genuine threat if they fell into the hands of terrorists, and (b) thought they knew where the WMDs were likely to be found.

What sort of war plan would they have come up with?

One that made every effort to secure those prospective WMD sites, right?

Only as Bart Gellman reported in the WaPo, way way back on May 11, 2003, they did no such thing.

Gellman reports that when our front lines would reach those prospective WMD sites during the invasion, they didn't have enough troops to both secure the WMD sites and continue to drive on Baghdad. So they chose to secure the sites, right?

Wrong. They drove on Baghdad, left the sites unguarded, and by the time the WMD task force (Task Force 75) would arrive there a few days later, they'd find that the site had been looted to the ground.

Oopsie.

Not that Task Force 75 was equipped to secure the site either - it was just equipped to travel from one site to another, identifying bio and chem weapons if they were there.

And why did the front-line units have to choose between securing the sites and driving on Baghdad in the first place? Because, as Sy Hersh reported in March 2003 in the New Yorker, Rumsfeld made his generals cut troop strength for the invasion, over and over and over again. (No link, sorry - besides, everyone knows about this, right?)

So if Bush & Co. actually believed Saddam had genuinely threatening WMDs, then he wasn't just an idiot and a liar; he was a traitor - getting us into a war that would have done the very thing we supposedly fought to prevent, enabling terrorists to get their hands on WMDs.

Since if there were WMDs, the looters would have gotten them, and some of those looters would have surely been willing to sell them to the highest bidder in the (generic) Middle Eastern bazaar. And if the bidder wasn't a rep of al-Qaeda, he'd have been bidding on the assumption that he could resell to them.

So there you have it: either Bush lied about the WMDs, and never really regarded them as a threat - OR he was saved from betraying his own country only by the fact that there weren't any WMDs to begin with.

I hate to yell, but in the (online but non-blogsphere) places I made this argument back in the summer of 2003, this has long been accepted as the conventional wisdom by most posters. But despite posts in a number of places in the lefty blogsphere, this argument seems to have made no waves, and I'm getting a bit frustrated.

If it's a bad argument, feel free to explain why. But it's held up under some pretty decent scrutiny in a pretty good debate forum where partisans on both sides are well represented.

Posted by: RT on February 10, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

Regarding WMD, you make the following two comments:


"It's fairly weak on the subject of WMD, which he admits everyone in the intelligence community believed in", and later,

".. I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one. As I've noted before, there's no question that the administration manipulated the WMD intelligence. At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons."

I think you are wrong about dicounting the deceit on the part of the Bush administration about WMD for two reasons.

(1) Whatever the intelligence officials, previous administrations, and others had suspected about Iraqi WMD capacity, they had a chance to actually verify their suspicions during the UN inspections.

Every bit of information given to the UN inspectors after Saddam had let them back , turned out to be flat out wrong. Surprise Inspections, visiting Saddam's palaces, talking to scientists, etc. etc. - they got nothing. Even Hans Blix, lamented about the "lack of actionable intelligence from the US".

So, if the US war was about WMD, (given that Iraqi-Al Qaida connection was non-existent), not finding them should have set off alarm bells. At the very least, the inspections should have been continued. That did not happen. So, even if Clinton, and the rest of the world suspected that Iraq had WMD, here was an opportunity for Mr. Bush to dispel that doubt via inspections. Intelligence is dynamic business, and I am sure CIA had a checklist of things to look into if they had access to Iraqi facilities to find out about WMD. Their checklist essentially failied. That is actually a fairly strong evidence that Iraq did not have WMD.

(2) If the US really suspected that Iraq had WMD, during the initial invasion, only a small fraction of the invading force, had truly bio/chemical weapon protection. Why is that? It is simply because, while biological and chemical weapons are easy to produce them in crude form, weaponizing them actually requires a lot of work and technology. For example, they have to be in the powder form, and deploying them in the field with conventional munitions is more difficult. Iraq simply did not have that and many scientists and others pointed to this in the months before the leadup to the war.

These two reasons were quite evident in the months before the war.

This administration bamboozled everyone with this logic: Saddam with WMD -> Al Qaida -> Attack America. It turns out it was all hot air, and they knew it before the war..

Kari

Posted by: Kari on February 10, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK
Perhaps Mr. McCain is trying to reach the depth of idiocy that seems to be the requirement for the GOP nomination.

McCain is afraid if he doesn't suck up hard enough, he'll be the target of another smear campaign by the Bush goons.

He's probably right, too.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

someone please help me with this. ever since i became aware of the Office of Special Plans and this Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, i haven't been able to stop thinking this question:

doesn't the formation of an ad hoc group to reexamine intelligence already combed by professionals automatically imply intelligence manipulation?

Posted by: Dan-O on February 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

McCain is afraid if he doesn't suck up hard enough, he'll be the target of another smear campaign by the Bush goons.

And he want's to be the President?

Posted by: lib on February 10, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK
And he want's to be the President?

To be fair, its not like the Democratic Party hasn't had people who wanted to be President that were scared of the shadow of Karl Rove and his attack goons.

And, you know, maybe McCain's hoping if he sucks up really well, the attack goons will work for him next time, since Bush won't be in the race.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK
This administration bamboozled everyone with this logic: Saddam with WMD -> Al Qaida -> Attack America.

I'd like to point out that the administration certainly did not bamboozle everyone with that logic.

Though a lot of Democrats who supported the war initially like to paint it that way.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 10, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK


GOPGREGORY: John McCain says it best: "The people who say Bush lied about WMDs are themselves lying."

Finally, some evidence. I mean, there it is in black and white, impossible to refute. It's as if God has spoken. Anyway, I'm just rambling now because that says it all. It's definitive. It's bulletproof. It's profound and brilliant. I'm tearing up. It's like being delivered.

The only think left to do is to get McCain to make proclamations about every issue in order to settle them once and for all. Is the earth really round? Did Jesus walk on water? Who really killed OJ's wife? Is there money in heaven? Is GOPGregory's lobotomy reversible?


Posted by: jayarbee on February 10, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: Though a lot of Democrats who supported the war initially like to paint it that way.

Like, unfortunately, Mr. Kevin Drum, still pretending "that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one."

It's not difficult at all. Bush lied. Cheney lied. Rumsfeld lied. Powell lied. Rice lied. Wolfowitz lied. They all lied about Iraq's nonexistent WMD, from the very beginning, until well after the invasion when the Bush administration's own inspectors determined that there were no Iraqi WMD or WMD programs and there had been none for years.

And they continue to lie today about what the pre-war intelligence said.

And unfortunately, "sensible liberal centrist Democrats" like Kevin Drum, who just can't seem to admit to themselves that they were lied to and played for fools and fell for it, continue to enable the Bush administration's sickening lies by echoing Republican rubbish about what "everyone believed".

Well, let me echo some of the Bush bootlickers who are always offering "friendly" advice to Democrats on what they need to do to win elections.

Democrats need to stand up and say "Bush is a liar. Bush is a fraud. Bush lied to us all to take this country into a completely unnecessary and destructive war." Until Democrats are willing to do that, they will not win elections.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 10, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats need to stand up and say "Bush is a liar. ...

The most effective commerical in 1992 was one that showed the Senior Bush proclaiming 'read my lips, no new taxes' over and over again. I was hoping for one in similar vain from Kerry, but I overestimated the 2004 Democratic nominee.

Posted by: lib on February 10, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Kevin: "fixing the intelligence around the policy".

Posted by: Jimm on February 10, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons.

Yeah, but then Han Blix could NOT verify a single piece of evidence from Powell's little "show and tell", even as Powell told the UN not to let Saddam divide the UN. All time it Bush that wanted to divide the UN and then tell everyone including the UN how irrelevant the UN is to the US - isolationist that Bush has always been.

Kevin just keeps conveniently forgetting how things REALLY went in Bush's lead-up to war with Iraq. In fact the poll numbers show that Bush barely had half the nation thinking we should do something about Saddam even as Bush made up stories about aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds and ties to al Qaeda.

Even now - MOST Americans think Bush lied - now Kevin wants to protect Bush, or Clinton by say that Bush REALLY thought there were WMD.

But instead I think Bush thought that Iraq was swimming in oil and that the Iraqis would be happy enought just to hand it over since Bush dispatch Saddam for them. NOW the whole Mideast is having a difference of opinion. Freedom means the not having to let the US steal your oil.

Posted by: Cheryl on February 10, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

John McCain says it best: "The people who say Bush lied about WMDs are themselves lying."

So when Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are" and described where they were he wasn't lying? Even though they didn't exist?

McCain's an ass.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 10, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

>Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are"
I've always wondered that too. Rumsfeld always talked about knowing the exact locations of these weapons and facilities. They were under surviellance, we had air superiority and no fly zones to keep spy drones overhead, we had spy sats up in the heavens watching them. Then the US military wiped out the Iraqi Army in a week, and we lost track of these things. Somebody 'moved' them? under the watchful eye of the DOD. The choice remains-there never were WMD and the Bushies were lying about it to lead us to war, or they are the most catastrophicly inept admin in the history of the US and allowed these WMD that they knew they location of to disappear into the hands of 'evildoers'.
How anyone can defend either of these positions is beyond me, but hell, people still quote John Mccain and Rush Limbaugh

Posted by: virgil on February 10, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

"The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show."

no Kevin, it wasn't for show, it was for insidious manipulation of trusting voters, instilling them with fear that they did not need to have. It was to get elected inspite of a bankrupt plantform and faud to use the power of the people's government to abuse the people's hard earned taxes to enrich the already rich and payoff incompetent cronies.

Kevin, you toss it off as just some innocent politicing. But what you trivialize is people living in fear beyond what they needed to. It is dastardly, contemptable, vile, and BETRAYAL OF TRUST.

The people should have a right to be able to trust their president, their elected leaders and the personnel that those officiels select to run to government. They should not be duped and manipulated by their elected officials. What bush, cheney, rice, rumsfeld, powell, and wolfowitz did is as low as low can be - they are BETRAYORS OF THE PEOPLE'S TRUST!

Posted by: gak on February 10, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

TOTALLY DEMAGOGIC, REVERSE-ROVIAN DNC AD:

{slo-mo shot of plane crashing into WTC}

Voicover: Four years ago, America was dealt a devastating blow by our
most implacable enemies ...

{shot of jihad types rallying and burning American flag}

George Bush, our Commander-in-Chief, rallied our country in
a shared sense of purpose ...

{shot of W at Ground Zero, in the fireman helmet with the bullhorn}

We liberated Afghanistan from the religious tyranny of the Taliban

{shot of Taliban shooting women in a soccer stadium --
crosscut to feel-good footage of post-invasion
Afghanistan -- schools, grateful citizens voting, etc.}

And then, Bush turned his attention to Iraq ...

{music turns ominous; shot of Rumsfeld on Russert "We know where the
weapons of mass destruction are; they're somewhere around Tikrit."}

George Bush assured us that Saddam Hussein had nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons -- but none were found ...

{sbot of Charles Duelfer press conference " ...
no weapons of mass destruction ... "}

And Iraq now is costing us over a billion dollars a week

{feel-bad Iraq footage of bombings and chaos, sewage in streets}

Now Bush wants to wiretap the al Qaeda
masterminds to prevent another attack

{shot of Osama video}

And all Americans support him in this goal

{shot of Congress applauding during SOTU}

But Bush doesn't want to tell Congress, or a secret
national security court, anything about the program.

{freeze frame of Bush's face on an exasperated expression}

And so did another president, when questioned on surveillance

{morph Bush's face into Nixon's, with a simlar expression}

Today, the stakes are even higher. Tell your legislators
that you support the Bill of Rights for all American citizens.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Now where's my goddam consultant's fee? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 10, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm no longer as sure the WMD issue is so "difficult". What this latest testimony - from someone clearly "in the know" - demonstrates is that the administration was clearly eager and willing to create a patina of credibility around the information they themselves worked actively to stack into the most compelling case possible against Iraq. Combined with the suggestion that the 'evidence' was really little more than convenient window-dressing for a decision guided largely by other, ideological considerations, I think its increasingly clear the administration's agenda involved intentional, purposeful misdirection regarding WMD's. And really, given their record of respect for truth and honesty (e.g., http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com), who could be surprised?

Posted by: truth4achange on February 10, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Once again, Kevin is sadly stuck in CYA mode. There are some quite intelligent people out here in the USA who never believed FOR ONE MINUTE that Saddam had WMD's, and also never believed FOR ONE MINUTE that anything would stop Bush from invading Iraq.

And most of those intelligent people have heard of Scott Ritter, the one man who has been proven correct in EVERY SINGLE WAY, SHAPE and FORM since 2001. Saddam had bupkus. Scott was in a position to know. He offered to appear before Senate at pre-war hearings, and was rebuffed. He offered to debate anyone, anywhere, any time, and he was largely ignored. And he was totally vindicated, in the sadest, most tragic manner possible: by the Iraq war, the trail of death and destruction, and the (further) enrichment of the neo-conservative PNAC cabal who planned and executed this illegal and deadly venture.

Even if you'd only relied on Newsweek for your pre-war information on Iraq, you'd have known that we were being sold a bill of goods - they reported LONG BEFORE THE INVASION that the OSP was being set up to cherry-pick evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq; that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear use; that Powell's mobile labs were non-existent; and that we were being lied into a pointless and unnecessary war.

I still choke with anger every time I read these platitudes from liberals like Kevin and George Packer. You may have been wrong, but not everyone was.

And damn it, Scott Ritter's a fucking Republican.

- Steve

Posted by: Steve on February 10, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Remember how, according to the Right, Saddam was supposed to have "harbored" an al-Qaeda guy -- Zarqawi? -- because the terrorist allegedly sought medical treatment in Iraq?

Yeah, and remember how the Pentagon went to the idiots in this administration with the ability to take Zarqawi out THREE TIMES, and were refused THREE TIMES because Georgie and Dickie thought that if we killed the only terrorist in Iraq they wouldn't be able to sell their case for war?

Seriously, how did that story not get more play?

Posted by: Vladi G on February 10, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Steve:

Ritter's also supposed to be a sexual predator. Remember those stories that came out in the lead-up to war, when Ritter was all over the tube making his case against Saddam's WMDs?

All of a sudden it turns out that he hooked up with 14-year-old girls he met on the internet and masturbated in front of them ...

Next thing you know -- no more Scott Ritter on the tube!

Those stories always smelled highly convenient to me ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 10, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Those stories always smelled highly convenient to me ...

Yeah, imagine that. It's unheard of for stories like that to surface when someone goes public with knowledgeable views that contradict the White House.

Posted by: Steve on February 10, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

I think these two stories - from the New Yorker and NYT, respectively - cover almost all of these points. Sadly, they never got any traction with the talking heads on TV:

http://www.masonmcd.net/stovepipe.html
http://www.masonmcd.net/intel.html

Posted by: MasonMcD on February 10, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, and remember how the Pentagon went to the idiots in this administration with the ability to take Zarqawi out THREE TIMES, and were refused THREE TIMES because Georgie and Dickie thought that if we killed the only terrorist in Iraq they wouldn't be able to sell their case for war? Seriously, how did that story not get more play?

Funny, I've written to Josh a couple of times about this, and also to Laura Rozen. She actually wrote back, and told me that Michael Scheuer ("Anonymous") told her that the US had been eager to get the support of European allies for the invasion of Iraq, and those countries had opposed killing Zarqawi before the war, so the US had held back.

Now, I don't actually buy that story for one moment. It smells a little pescatore to me...

FYI, here's the email that I originally sent to Laura and Josh:

"For about two years I've been baffled as to why nobody has made much of the fact that the Bush White House, on three occasions, refused to allow the Pentagon to kill Al Zarqawi at his Ansar Al-Islam base in Northern Iraq (per NBCNews).

John Kerry missed the opportunity during the Presidential debates last year, when it would have been so easy for him to bring it up.

Now, with all of the debates about the phony war finally hitting the MSM, it seems to me that SOMEONE should be giving this the attention that it has always deserved. If my memory serves me correctly, Ansar Al-Islam was probably the only terrorist group operating in Iraq prior to the illegal invasion and war - and they were actually in northern Iraq, in an area outside of Saddam's control, in the no-fly zone.

The Pentagon knew Al Zarqawi was there, and needed an OK from the White House to attack. Bush refused to give the OK, because he needed at least one group of known terrorists to be operating out of Iraq as he made his phony case for war. Well, he did indeed use Ansar Al-Islam as part of his 'rationale', and damned if Al Zarqawi didn't go on to become Public Enemy #1, blamed for almost every terror attack around the world over the last eighteen months.

Surely all of the blood that is on (or allegedly on) Al Zarqawi's
hands is also on Bush's? Why does no-one hold his hand to the flame over this? Every time I hear Bush or one of his cronies talk about Al Zarqawi I want to ring his scrawny faux-Texan neck.

If story is true - and I have seen or heard anyone debunk it - then WE COULD HAVE KILLED HIM and saved hundreds of lives, but we let him live and become a terrorist mastermind because Bush needed him alive for propaganda reasons. Damn him.

So my question is: isn't it time for you and Josh and Kos and Jane Hamsher and Kevin Drum and everyone else to bring this up?"

Posted by: Steve on February 10, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin still seems to believe that the US had a perfect right to invade Iraq.

If so, he must agree with George Bush's stance that the US has the right to attack any country we deem a threat, whether or not they have done anything to us. That's not the kind of America I want to live in, and that's not the kind of Democrat I want to be.

Kevin, the WMD evidence Bush presented was laughable. Even if it had been credible, Iraq was still no threat to us. Please stop pretending you were right all along.

Posted by: No Preference on February 10, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

Every time I read this "everybody thought so" garbage, I have to post this.

It may be true that when the president sought congressional approval for the use of force that there was consensus that Iraq had WMD (although Pillar disputes this). That consensus was based on extrapolation from 1998, the last time that inspectors were permitted on the ground in Iraq. However, in March of 2002, before the invasion, the inspection team made it absolutely clear in their report to the UN that:

1 There was no threat to the US from Iraq

2 There was no threat to the region from Iraq

3 There was no nuclear program

4 There was no link to al qaeda

5 There was no link to 9/11

6 There had been no weapons of mass destruction of any kind found anywhere, including the places the US had assured the UN they would be found.

7 There was every possibility that there were none to be found. Blix proposed an inspection regime to prove that negative.

This notion that there was a general agreement that Iraq was a threat stemmed from ignorance. Once the inspectors returned, their work made it very clear, before the US told them to leave, that there was absolutely no threat from Iraq. In fact, the US embarking on their invasion, despite not having received basing permission from Turkey for a substantial fraction of the invasion forces illustrates the fact that Bush feared his pretext was collapsing.

Posted by: JayAckroyd on February 10, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

The WMD arguement against Iraq is such BS. US controlled the skies and were bombing daily prior to the war, there were inspectors on the ground and ya gotta think that they could of gotten some scientist to talk with the promise of a green card- I can't believe that all the scientists were true Sadam belivers. This was not the black hole North Korea us. Get over thinking his was a difficult issue. Plus Sadam was a thug, he only cared about himself and knew if he did anything extramurally it would be his end.

Posted by: DAS on February 10, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Since this person had been working in the intelligence community for decades, I would surmise that his capacity to understand the nuances of the strategies necessary for asymmetric warfare are quite limited. His claims are more a result of his archaic world view cultivated during the cold war than of any useful insights into the current situation. If I were a Democrat, I would not pin my hopes on dethroning the President just on Mr. Pillar's inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric disguised as scholarly work.

I love the fake tbrosz's attempt to use Big Words. The strenuous effort is so obvious I suspect he needs to go lie down for a while after one of these posts.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 10, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

And most of those intelligent people have heard of Scott Ritter, the one man who has been proven correct in EVERY SINGLE WAY, SHAPE and FORM since 2001.

Good thing you stuck that "since 2001" in there.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 10, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Good thing you stuck that "since 2001" in there.
Posted by: tbrosz

I am truly honoured to be trolled by The Legend, always fighting for truth, justic and the American way. But I'm laid up in bed sick, and in my delirium I can't quite tease out the (talking) point that is presumably lurking like a shark beneath the calm surface of your painfully succinct post.

(I was wondering, do you do this for fun, or does someone pay you?)

I remember arguing about the WMD before the war with a student of mine. His father was allegedly in the CIA, so he knew SO MUCH MORE than a mere mortal like me could ever hope to know about the menace that was Saddam Hussein. We had a lengthy correspondence about the pros (him) and the (neo-) cons (me) of the forthcoming assault on Iraq, and he assured me that Scott Ritter knew NOTHING about the massive, steaming piles of red hot WMD littering the Iraqi landscape. I begged to differ, and the rest, as they say, is the reality-based version of history.

So, ummm, tbrosz, what exactly was your point?

Posted by: Steve on February 11, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

I don't see how this is a difficult issue at all. As I was saying before the war: The lie isn't about what they believed; it was about their statements of proof. While we might have believed that Saddam had WMD's, we didn't have the proof of it. And that's what the Bush Admin lied about, as they clearly acted as if our evidence was far stronger than it is.

For example: I could argue that Kevin Drum is naked and covered in kinky snake oil. And it's possibly true (though I'd rather not want to know). And maybe I believe it to be true. But I don't have any evidence of it. And so if I state that I have no evidence and that this is an unproven belief, we don't really have a problem. But if I pretend that I do have evidence, then I'm lying; because I have none. But, even if Kevin IS oiled and naked; I'm still lying, because I have no proof of it. And it's not about what I believe, but about what I say I have.

And so that's what this was all about. I find it unlikely that the Bush Admin didn't think there would be some WMD's in Iraq. But they had no good evidence. And so the statements they made about it were lies. Not because they believed the statements to be false, but because they pretended to have evidence that they didn't have. And they were lying, whether or not Iraq had WMD's. Because again, the lie wasn't about what Iraq had; but about the level of proof that we had. And had they been honest and stated that the WMD's intel was guesswork (which it was); they would not have been liars. But they also would have been far less likely to get the war they wanted.

And to be honest, I don't see how I haven't made this case here before. I think that Kevin is being a bit obtuse.

Posted by: Doctor Biobrain on February 11, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: ...it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing [WMDs]...

At the same time, they really refused to look at evidence to the contrary, they really actively set up the OSP to "certify" previously discredited "evidence", and they really did accept forgeries.....

So, are you saying it's like if your cab driver is on a bridge and veers off the side, because he really really really held onto his vision that he could fly the cab, well... that's not really something bad or wrong there then? Kevin, when confronted with deliberate and intentional wrong-doing, there's neither justice nor mercy in scraping for possible extenuating circumstances.

BigRiver: Apparently virtually everybody else believed Saddam had WMDs. Bill Clinton, Al Gore. Madeline Albright, Tony Blair. Hilary, John Edwards, Lieberman, the CIA. I could go on.

Maybe you could go on, but your list can't possibly include France--Chirac on CNN and C-Span saying he's seen no actual evidence, Germany, Russia, China, India, all his Arab neighbors, including mortal enemy Iran...in fact a majority of the security council which is why Bush didn't go back for authorization, remember?

Also, the people on your list include several conscious bamboozlers, the Brits in particular are shown in released minutes to be concerned about their legal liability because they have NO evidence of WMD though Tenet has assured them that intelligence will be "fixed" (and it means the same in all versions of English), and then the rest are the bamboozled. And no Saddam did not develop WMD to kill Americans, and then when Americans came to kill him, he decided to not use it on Americans to save his own life, but smuggled the stuff to his political enemy in Syria....


Posted by: jim p on February 11, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz is so full himself that if I did not exist I would have to be invented.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 11, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

Bullshit, Kevin. The question isn't whether they believed Iraq had WMD. The question is whether they had the evidence they said they did, which they did not.

Its the biggest hoax in American history - even Colin Powell's Chief of Staff calls it a hoax.

Don't help them escape accountability.

Posted by: The Fool on February 11, 2006 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK

'You want more evidence Saddam had WMDs? Look at the mass graves, look at the photos of the thousands who died after being gassed by Saddam.
--BigRiver

Not to put too fine a point on it, but most of those mass graves were filled with people killed by conventional bullets - Halabja excepted.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 11, 2006 at 6:49 AM | PERMALINK

Apparently virtually everybody else believed Saddam had WMDs. Bill Clinton, Al Gore. Madeline Albright, Tony Blair. Hilary, John Edwards, Lieberman, the CIA. I could go on.


Not me. I never believed it because he never used them, which he surely would have done against Israel to rally the Arab world to him.

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 11, 2006 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

The "Straight Talk Express" is always afraid of being sideswiped by a landROVEr from the side or a Predator from above.

Posted by: stupid git on February 11, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone catch DeRoy Murdock on WJ yesterday, I think?...he left me with the impression that the "secret stash of Hussein's tapes" contains info that FOR SURE there were WMD's and FOR SURE they were moved to Syria...He's at least one HUGE believer in the connection between Hussein and Al Queda and thinks this administration "dropped the ball" on pushing it MORE! Course I heard another "expert" on MSM this morning saying that those thousands of tapes should be released to the internet cause they require a TON of translation...guess Murdock just got lucky to fing the ONE that supported his claims already translated!

Posted by: Dancer on February 11, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

BUSH'S ACTIONS SO CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL AND THUS LEGAL REGARDLESS OF FISA:

[Via Powerline]

One of the important federal court decisions recognizing the president's inherent authority to order warrantless foreign intelligenc surveillance is the Truong case, discussed in John's analysis of the legality of the NSA surveillance program. John noted that the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong in 1980 and that the case involved a criminal prosecution arising out of the defendants spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branchs inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:

"The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truongs phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs."

The court agreed with the governments position:

"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."

The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators, and the search is conducted primarily for foreign intelligence reasons.

In his performance at Mrs. King's funeral this week, the execrable Jimmy Carter obviously chided President Bush by reference to the "secret government wiretapping" of Martin Luther King. In today's Washington Times, Charles Hurt recalls that it was of course Jimmy Carter himself (and Attorney General Bell) who authorized the warrantless surveillance involved in the Truong case.

JIMMY CARTER'S PROVING WHY HE WAS SUCH A FAILURE, I.E., THAT UNIQUELY INEFFECTIVE COMBINATION OF ARROGANCE AND INCOMPETENCE THAT WHEN HAD IN A LEADER IS A DISASTER FOR THOSE LED.

All the federal court precedents point to the same thing, the Commander-in-Chief has the constitutional (i.e., cannot be taken away by Congressional statute like FISA) power to conduct warrantless surveillance on U.S. persons if the purpose is foreign intelligence gathering. Bush is 100% in the right.

STOP TRYING TO "FRAME" AMERICA.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on February 11, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I think you and your friend will talk 'true secrets' to each other if you don't know that I am listening.

I think you and your friend will set me up and pass lies to me if you know I am listening but I still think you don't know I am listening. I am arrogant and will believe what I hear and act on it as a 'true secret'.

I think the NeoCons brought their friends Mr. Plato and Mr. Machiavelli to the table when they found out that the NSA was secretly dragnetting worldwide communications. What really got them going though was knowing that the whole thing was being controlled by marshall Cheney a few elite deputies AND that there would no oversite or accountability. Focused like a laser beam Machiavelli knew that no oversite meant yes overthrow and that no accountability meant yes to raiding government bank accounts.

I think Mr. Machiavelli knew that he could easily undermind an arrogant and incompetent government who wanted to find justifying intellegence for something they were already predisposed to do. Two Italians friends made a timely communication of an old and otherwise debunked Niger/Yellowcake/Iraq connection.
Oops, the NSA scoopped it and it must be a 'true secret' because the two Italian friends had no idea that their communication was eavesdropped.

I think agent Plato was dispatched to the State Department where he somehow managed to take demonic posession of Colin Powell for one day in Febuary 2003 and Powell put several 'true secrets' before the world.

"marshall Cheney!...Marshall Cheney!".
"What is it Chester"
"Thurs a big ruckus over to Doug Feith's office. He's got this hombre thur named Chalabi. That Chalabi hombre knows the 'true secret' to the meaning of life to itself. You gotta go talk to him marshall".


Posted by: johnnytrumpet on February 11, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

How can we wage war on the pretext that our enemy has WMD?

The USA is in the process of spending billions on the next generation of nuclear weapons.

There's talk that we might even use them on a country like Iran if they don't behave.

How little does a nuclear bomb have to be to make it okay to use?

The Iraq war is about money. Look at the stocks for major defense/security firms since 2003.

Any further questions?

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on February 11, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

it is, apparently, my mission in life these days to note how full of crap the moronic objective historian is with his every posting. i swear the guy/gal is getting stupider and stupider.

"inherent" authority is not "endless" authority, and all the bleatings in the world by the powerline doofuses and their little followers like objective historians don't change that. even gonzalez didn't try to run a line that foolish.

i mean: advancing arguments that gonzalez wouldn't try. you don't get much lower than that.

Posted by: howard on February 11, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

If so, he must agree with George Bush's stance that the US has the right to attack any country we deem a threat, whether or not they have done anything to us. That's not the kind of America I want to live in, and that's not the kind of Democrat I want to be.

Which also implies, necessarily, that any country that feels the US is a threat to them has the right to attack the US pre-emptively. That's a whole lot of countries we're giving carte blanche to to attack us.

Posted by: Stefan on February 11, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

They didn't believe the weapons part, either. Otherwise they'd have guarded the known weapons depots during and after the invasion.

Posted by: Nell on February 11, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

笔记本电脑维修
sony笔记本维修
ibm笔记本维修
dell笔记本维修
笔记本维修
联想笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修 南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修-笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本回收|南京二手笔记本
南京笔记本电脑维修
东芝TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京租房
东海水晶网
东海水晶
联想笔记本维修
康柏笔记本维修
三星笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京租房
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修-南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修|笔记本电脑维修|南京万力泰科技
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
IMB笔记本维修|南京笔记本维修
南京租房
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修|
东芝笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修|IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修|笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本维修中心
南京笔记本维修|专业维修笔记本电脑
SONY笔记本维修
笔记本维修
SONY笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本电脑维修配件|东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|TOSHIBA笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|南京万力泰
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
 南京笔记本维修欢迎你
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修|IBM笔记本维修|DELL笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修|IBM笔记本维修|DELL笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修|东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修
SONY笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
联想笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修中心
IBM笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
南京租房
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修

Posted by: 12376544 on February 12, 2006 at 5:44 AM | PERMALINK

make money internet gambling internet gambling reviews http://pidorovtut.net/internet_gambling/ban_internet_gambling.html impacts of internet gambling internet gambling scams http://pidorovtut.net/internet_gambling/gambling_internet_pharmacy.html and .... caribbean island considered the hub of internet gambling internet gambling in http://pidorovtut.net/internet_gambling/should_internet_gambling_be_legalized.html is internet gambling legal internet gambling statistics http://pidorovtut.net/internet_gambling/internet_gambling_enforcement.html gambling internet sites gambling casino internet http://pidorovtut.net/internet_gambling/sports_gambling_internet.html .Thanks.

Posted by: internet gambling prohibition act on February 13, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly