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

April 6, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SADDAM'S NUKES....When George Bush touted aluminum tubes and uranium from Africa as firm evidence of Iraqi nuclear ambitions in his 2003 State of the Union address, was he aware that the intelligence community had significant doubts about both of these items? Writing in the National Journal, Murray Waas claims there is documentary evidence that George Bush did know this and that Karl Rove was worried about the consequences if this ever became public.

In response, Greg Sargent lays out a sort of grand unified theory of the Valerie Plame affair that tries to explain a central question: why did Scooter Libby (and possibly others) lie to the grand jury about their role in outing Plame's identity to reporters? After all, what they did probably wasn't even illegal. So why take such a dangerous risk?

It is entirely plausible that Bush advisers calculated that if it came out that theyd outed Plame, Congress would have been forced by the resulting firestorm to run a far more aggressive investigation of Bushs pre-war deceptions....

White House officials, including Bush himself, withheld critical information it had about doubts over supposed evidence of Saddam's nuke ambitions in order to better make the case for war. Then they subsequently discovered that hard evidence existed of that duplicity. Then, anxious that this evidence might surface before the 2004 reelection, they engaged in a relentless campaign to cover up what really happened during the Iraq run-up and to prevent an aggressive congressional investigation until after the election.

Read the whole thing to get a better understanding of Greg's theory. I'm not sure if I buy it or not, but it does fit my own theory that Saddam's supposed nuke program was by far the most critical part of the prewar WMD argument and Bush's team was hyper-sensitive about keeping it credible. Back in 2004, even hardened Bush supporters probably would have turned on him if they had believed he consciously deceived them about this.

Kevin Drum 2:06 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (197)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Why do you even waste your and our time telling us you don't quite buy This. We know that already. Being offered Eternal Life would not get you to take a stand on something that shows the Evil Ones in a bad way!

Posted by: R.L. on April 6, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Good stuff, but they are covering up even more than that. And, in the process, are adding fuel to the fire to uncover all the scandals from Iran-Contra forward.

Posted by: Jimm on April 6, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

Being offered Eternal Life would not get you to take a stand on something that shows the Evil Ones in a bad way!
Posted by: R.L

it's comforting to know kevin has finally arrived mentally where intelligent americans had already reached in october 2002 ... eventually, he'll get there emotionally.

Posted by: Nads on April 6, 2006 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

Duh!!!!

Posted by: Malcolm on April 6, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, what do you think would happen if it turns out this was, in fact, what happened? Censure? A rout in 2006? Impeachment?

Posted by: Sigh on April 6, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

Bush Had Better Get Busy he has alot of Nations to Conquer for "Possibly" having WMD
of course this list Isn't complete.
-------------------------
* Canada Canada - Canada has a well developed nuclear technology base, large uranium reserves and markets reactors for civilian use. While Canada has the technological capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, there is no hard evidence it has done so, nor has Canada ever shown the intention to join the nuclear club outright. Canada has been an important contributor of both expertise and raw materials to the American program in the past, and had even helped with the Manhattan Project. In 1959, NATO proposed to Canada that the RCAF assume a nuclear strike role in Europe. Thus in 1962 six Canadian CF-104 squadrons based in Europe were formed into the RCAF Nuclear Strike Force armed with B28 nuclear bombs (originally Mk 28) under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program; the Force was disbanded in 1972 when Canada opted out of the nuclear strike role. Canada accepted having American W-40 nuclear warheads under dual key control on Canadian soil in 1963 to be used on the Canadian BOMARC missiles. The Canadian air force also maintained a stockpile of AIR-2 Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared Canada would be a nuclear weapon-free country in 1971, and the last American warheads were withdrawn in 1984.
* Germany Germany - While Germany is a signatory of the NPT, it has the means to easily equip itself rapidly with nuclear weapons. It has an advanced nuclear industry capable of manufacturing reactors, enriching uranium, fuel fabrication, and fuel reprocessing and it operates 19 power reactors producing one third of its total electrical needs. Since 1998, Germany has adopted a policy on eliminating nuclear power, although slow progress had been made.[35] On January 26, 2006, the former defence minister, Rupert Scholz, said that Germany may need to build its own nuclear weapons to counter terrorist threats.[36]
* Japan Japan - While Japan has no political will for the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the country does make extensive use of nuclear energy in nuclear reactors, generating a significant percentage of the electricity in Japan. Japan has the third largest nuclear energy production after the U.S. and France, and plans to produce over 40% of its electricity using nuclear power by 2010. Significant amounts of plutonium are created as a by-product of the energy production, and Japan had 4.7 tons of plutonium in December 1995. Experts believe Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and some analysts consider it a "de facto" nuclear state for this reason. Others have noted that Japan's most advanced space exploration rocket, the M-5 three-stage solid fuel rocket, is in fact a close copy of the U.S. LG-118A Peacekeeper ICBM. Japan has been quietly reconsidering its nuclear status because of the ongoing crisis over North Korean nuclear weapons.[37]
* Italy Italy - Italy has operated a number of nuclear reactors, both for power and for research. The country was also a base for the GLCM nuclear-armed ground-launched variant of the Tomahawk cruise missile during the 1980s, despite strong public outcry. While no evidence suggests that Italy intends to develop or deploy nuclear weapons, such a capability exists - estimates from as far back as the mid-80s show that Italy could begin and complete a nuclear weapons program in as little as 2 to 3 years.
* Lithuania Lithuania - Nuclear power reactors produce 77% of Lithuania's electricity and it has 2 of the world's most powerful reactors in its territory. However, one of these reactors was recently shut down. Lithuania has the means of legally acquiring fissile materials for power plants. Lithuania also has former launch sites for Soviet Union missiles. However, there is no political will at present to develop nuclear weapons in Lithuania.
* Netherlands Netherlands - Operates a power reactor at Borsele, producing 452 MW, which satisfies 5% of its electrical needs. Several Dutch companies are key participants in the tri-national Urenco uranium enrichment consortium. By the year 2000 the Netherlands had about 2 tonnes of separated reactor grade plutonium. There is no evidence for nuclear weapon programs in the Netherlands.
* Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia - In 2003 members of the government stated that due to the worsening relations with the USA, Saudi Arabia was being forced to consider the development of nuclear weapons. However, so far they have denied that they are making any attempt to produce them.[38] It has been rumored that Pakistan has transferred several nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, but this is unconfirmed.[39] In March 2006 the German magazine Cicero reported that Saudi Arabia had since 2003 received assistance from Pakistan to acquire a nuclear missiles and warheads. Satellite photos allegedly reveal an underground city and nuclear silos with Ghauri rockets south of the capital Riyadh.[40] Pakistan has denied aiding Saudi Arabia in any nuclear ambitions.[41]

Posted by: XB on April 6, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

I say we Attack Canada, I never much cared for Hockey anyway? Hockey STicks are WMD. Whaddya Yall Say?
Saudi has Got OIL, that's a no Brainer for Empire building and any excuse will do.

Now Italy, Hmm They Got some good Italian Food and say didn't they side with the Germans? Yeh, good enough for george it's good enough for me.

Japan might be a problem now.....

Posted by: XB on April 6, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Another question is: why would they go to such lengths to start the war in the first place? Why so much stretching so soon? Why are they working feverishly in 2002 to set up a case based on intelligence so shaky?

Posted by: gfw on April 6, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, Drum schmuck, Bush quoted British intelligence who, now this may, IS hard for you and your readers to understand, STILL STAND BY IT.
Also, the second in command of the Iraq air force says he flew WMD to Syria, but I guess Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan have more credibility.
Right?
Drum you really are a piece of shit.

Posted by: Chaufist on April 6, 2006 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINK

gfw >"...Why are they working feverishly in 2002 to set up a case based on intelligence so shaky?"

Few will take it seriously but the answer is control of oil resources

Years from now it will be obvious & accepted as fact

Open those eyes folks !

"Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat." - some Oil Executive

Posted by: daCascadian on April 6, 2006 at 3:30 AM | PERMALINK

"Few will take it seriously but the answer is control of oil resources"
Listen daCascadian, we withdrew after we forced Iraq out of Kuwait.
If it was about oil, we would have stayed in Iraq, or used it as an excuse to seize Iraq's oil fields or we would have not evicted and made a deal with Hussian for cheaper oil in exchange for recoginizing Iraq's terrotariol claims on Kuwait.
None of that happaned.
So your wrong dip shit, but you are a typical Drum believer.
You people are so pathetic. Real shit for brains.

Posted by: Chaufist on April 6, 2006 at 3:40 AM | PERMALINK

Back in 2004, even hardened Bush supporters probably would have turned on him if they had believed he consciously deceived them about this.

They NEVER turn on him. They just figure out a way to excuse the latest indication that he ain't the Texas straight-shooter they slobber over. And the rightwing media borg is usually all too happy to provide that excuse for them, whether or not the "excuse" seems ridiculous to those of us out in reality land.

That's why they're "hardened" Bush supporters and that's why the Bush administration gets away with all the crap they get away with.

Posted by: pjhawk on April 6, 2006 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

I still think it has more to do with George W's desire to be a "war President" and to reap the domestic political advantages available from demagoguing on the issue. That and an unhealthy obsession with Saddam Hussein that had nothing to do with any real threats he might have represented. Oil, and the chance for his buddies to make lots of money of contracting were useful but secondary bonuses.

Posted by: tanj on April 6, 2006 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINK

"What did the President know and when did he know it?" — Senator Howard Baker, member, Senate Watergate Committee, circa 1973

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on April 6, 2006 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

See Chaufist for the evidence on my previous post.

See, the Brits still "stand by" the intelligence.

Even if our guys say it's a load of bullbleep.

Chaufist is the perfect foul-mouthed representative of the "values" hypocrites and the true blue true idiot Bush base.

Posted by: pjhawk on April 6, 2006 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

I didn't mention any Values pjhawk. I just stated facts dip.
So why did you insuinate I did?
Case closed dinkle berry brain.

Posted by: Chaufist on April 6, 2006 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINK

pjhawk:couldn't get the links? Who is this Chaufist?

The only Brit who stands by anything said before March '03 is Blair. All the other debunked bullcrap has received more press there than it has here! What exactly is still believed? Yellow cake? Chemical or Biological weapons? 12 remaining missiles? al-Qaeda connection? Nuclear weapon capability? Its all been debunked. Heard about the Downing Street memo: was that August 2002 that MI6 informed the UK government that the US was heading to war whatever? Was that Jan 31, '03 that Blair was told by Bush that the war would start (probably) March 1oth, '03, whatever?

Has anyone noticed that every official who has been able or chosen to speak once they have left official positions pretty much backs up the "march to war" scenario. Read Gen. Tony Zinni; there's a waffling, dissembling liberal for you.

What is it Chaufist smokes? I don't want any, but someone should really tell him its fucked him good.

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 4:12 AM | PERMALINK

The more than 16 words that follow from the inoperative words are the ones that spell it out loud and clear that the cover up is real and the cover up is ongoing.
Read ' Judy's little tubes of terror' by James Moore and look at the state of ' phase 2' investigations.
All the presidents men are dying in the ditch to keep the cover -up of the century alive. The cover up is the crime even if it's also a crime to use the ' BIG LIE' method of waging aggressive illegal war.
That has been considered a capital crime btw ever since the Nuremberg precedent. Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Howard have a lot swinging on this cover up.
PS - follow the money still applies as well with all these falange leaders being neck deep in financial scandals.
This whole thing is better than watergate and has yet to fully blossom - follow your nose.

Posted by: professor rat on April 6, 2006 at 4:12 AM | PERMALINK

Hardened Bush supporters will never, ever, ever turn on Bush.

No matter what.

Because it would mean admitting they were wrong.

Posted by: RedDan on April 6, 2006 at 4:33 AM | PERMALINK
Back in 2004, even hardened Bush supporters probably would have turned on him if they had believed he consciously deceived them about this.

Bush supporters won't abandon Bush unless there's video of him in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

Honestly Kevin, you know better. I love your even-handed tone and analysis, but comments like this one suggest some of it must be contrived, or at least unconsciously reflexive.

Hard core Bush supporters have already been presented with plenty of evidence that they have been lied to, repeatedly, and yet they still support him, blindly. When confronted with information that contradicts the party line, they defensively hide behind whatever talking points they have been spoon-fed from the conservative media, e.g. like what a monster Saddam is.

Sorry, but the core Bush supporters support him with almostly completely blind faith. They place loyalty above facts, reason, morality, the constitution, human decency, the environment, compassion, the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, and even the bible (but they're told otherwise, so...), etc. etc.

Die-hard Bush supporters - the 35% who still support him now - are the barbarians INSIDE the gate.

You don't have to admit it in print if you don't want to, but why pretend the opposite is true? It's as though you're stuck in a similar kind of blind faith of their inherent decency or rationalism, when everything around you flatly contradicts it.

PS you're still my favorite political blogger, just so you know this is meant as friendly constructive criticism of style, not you. :)

Posted by: Augustus on April 6, 2006 at 4:35 AM | PERMALINK

Hardened Bush supporters now know for sure (the British memos are very clear) that he lied us into this war. In many ways, it's worse now than then, because not only did he lie us into a war, he lied us into a war that either he could not bring to a successful conclusion or even (my view) could not have been brought by anyone to a successful conclusion.

They haven't turned on him now. What makes you think they would have turned on him then?

Posted by: jayackroyd on April 6, 2006 at 5:03 AM | PERMALINK

Chaufist says: I didn't mention any Values pjhawk. I just stated facts dip. So why did you insuinate I did?

Chaufist honey, there's no need to insinuate your values.
You put them down in writing for all to see:
- Case closed dinkle berry brain.
- So your wrong dip shit, but you are a typical Drum believer.
- You people are so pathetic. Real shit for brains.

A true Family (values) Guy. Someone for all the kids to emulate. Following in the fine tradition of Dick "F**k You" Cheney, Tom "K-Street" Delay and Jack "Rip'em Off" Abramoff.

Posted by: fracas_futile on April 6, 2006 at 5:37 AM | PERMALINK

The Hadley memo should be Exhibit A in the Articles of Impeachment that, in a just world, should be drawn up against George W. Bush. This memo proves that there was "scienter" involved in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq - the intent to deceive. This is the basis for any prosecution of fraud, a high crime, which is the basis for Articles of Impeachment.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 6, 2006 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

A Congressional investigation of Bush? By two houses in the majority with an upcoming election and a war going on? Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.............

Posted by: steve duncan on April 6, 2006 at 6:20 AM | PERMALINK

I never considered the aluminum tubes as firm evidence. I don't think they were even presented that way. I thought people who did were willfully decieving themselves. It was just more mounting circumstancial evidence.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 6:26 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

How many times are we going to hash through this. It's old news, and the country doesn't care because it gave George W Bush a mandate in 2004. Only whiney little liberals care. That's why you're marginalized. The more you yap about it, the more marginalized you become.

Anyway, anyone who doesn't believe Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria, heh, give me some of what you're smoking.

Posted by: egbert on April 6, 2006 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK

That nation journal is a piece of work. Even opinions should be based on facts, especially when they are readily available.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 6:42 AM | PERMALINK

As aaron said about the aluminum tubes not being important the nuclear threat wasn't even important. Saddam could easily kill using anthrax or countless other biological and chemical agents. The problem was less that he had WMDs but that if he had them he would share them with terrorists. His choice was to cooperate fully with the UN. He did not. He clearly could not be trusted. He was too much of a risk in a post 9/11 world and he had to go.

There won't be an impeachment and by pushing it the Democrats will ensure they have no chance of taking over Congress. The most attention ther Looney Left recieves the better. The conservative blogs expose frauds like Dan Rather and John Kerry. The liberal blogs highlight the moonbats. This is perfect.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 6:50 AM | PERMALINK

Hardened Bush supporters now know for sure (the British memos are very clear) that he lied us into this war.

They do no such thing. The memos are nothing more than gossip and there won't be any impeachment.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 6:53 AM | PERMALINK

they defensively hide behind whatever talking points they have been spoon-fed from the conservative media

Augustus,

I take it Fox just crawls right up your ass. That had to be a bitter pill to swallow when Dan Rather was castrated over his comically inept forgeries I'm sure you still believe in. Too bad for Fox and Talk Radio and the blogs are here to stay and the Networks just get goofier every day. How perfect is it that CBS goes from Conkrite to Rather to Couric? Even they don't take themselves seriously anymore.

Walter of course would never have let the SBVs see the light of day. Yet in 2004 the Networks matter not at all. Quit your whinning and get used to it.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 7:02 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:The memos are nothing more than gossip ...

Smoke away. Not what anyone in the UK thinks. Not denied by the government and confirmed as bona fide documents. I can only guess that you want to maintain the lie.

On the other hand, you're quite happy to support any old idea for which there is no substantiated evidence. Exactly what risk was Saddam post 11th September? Which terrorists that Saddam wasn't talking to was he going to distribute the non-existent chemical/biological/nuclear weapons to? As it turns out, Saddam was telling the truth more than the President of the United States. It's a sad world.

But then, I wouldn't trust either of them myself. You seem to have no problem with self-delusion.

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK

I say we Attack Canada

Why attack Canada? They're destroying Kyoto for us with the help of American liberals. It's impossible to drill on US lands so all of the drilling and extraction is happening in Canada. Each barrel we can't get out of ANWR we're getting out of the Tar Sands. Just because its the dirtiest extraction method ever isn't a problem for liberals. It might cause massive pollution but it's Canadian pollution. It's a perfect trade. We get the oil. They get all of the pollution. It's one reason why emissions have been dropping in the USA and increasing in Canada.

Guess what happens when Canada gets a bill for tens of Billions under Kyoto agreements? They drop out! Forever! Thanks to Tar Sands production, ALL of which is destined for US markets, Meanwhile the USA will do better than a majority of the European signees. Kyoto is so dead. Also note that the Tar Sands have almost as much Oil as the Saudi's and Canada has as much Natural Gas. They're the perfect neighbors.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

Smoke away. Not what anyone in the UK thinks. Not denied by the government and confirmed as bona fide documents

The documents might very well be bona fide but they merely state one mans opinion. That's not proof of anything. It's mere gossip.

It does not matter what public opinion in the UK or the EU thinks. If you've noticed we've pulled over 90% of our troops out of NATO and are in the process of removing 90% of our diplomats from the EU. It's an economic entity with little military and even less diplomatic value. The post-WWII Era is ended. We've moved on. We may form coalitions of the willing but only with nations capable of adding something. The UK may fit but France and Germany rarely will. Our primary allies are Japan, Australia, South Korea, Italy, Poland and we're working on India, Malasia, Indonesia, etc.

Nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends. GWB has wisely recognized this and adjusted accordingly in the most dramatic realignment of US foreign policy assets since 1942.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 7:22 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: You're still smoking, aren't you?

Memo 1 was the considered evaluation by British Military Intelligence of what they considered the US policy going forward concerning Iraq was. They were right, as is shown by reams of supporting evidence. Memo 2 was a record of discussions between Bush and Blair with others chipping in. As I said, no denials yet.

This administration is only interested in allies that conform to their needs at the time. Pakistan is already finding out how highly we really value their help. Saudis have always known. Yesterday Condi was telling us how close an ally India is. Since when? It's too small a community to whore yourself around in. Everybody has caught on to this administration. "Our way or . . ." US, the world bully. This administration has already made a hash of 2 nation-building exercises. Are they going to make a habit of it?

There's been no realignment, just tipping over the whole apple cart for convenience, or is it neo-convenience's sake? If these guys have a plan, it's either as stupid as it looks or as evil.

Smoke on.

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

I still think it has more to do with George W's desire to be a "war President" and to reap the domestic political advantages available from demagoguing on the issue

Iraq isn't a war -- it's the most expensive campaign ad ever.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 6, 2006 at 8:04 AM | PERMALINK

What I want to know is, does Drum believe his own bullshit or does he just write for the satisfaction of entertaining his audience? Hes been lacking that glint of rationality and acknowledgement of reality that he used to have.

Why do people continue to purport that knowledge of dissenting opinions was relevant outside of the presidents office and that the president was obligated to present and focus on them? The president was making a case for the war, not facilitating a debate.

Maybe its my own cynicism, I never consider intelligence as the absolute truth, but I dont remember intelligence being presented as facts and absolutes. It was always likely possibilities. I thought we went into Iraq for strategic reasons and for what we didnt know, not what we did.

This memo nonsense, it's just that they aren't relevant to anything. There's just nothing important in them.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Getting a country to go to war does take some heavy propagandizing.

Given that the WH crowd really wanted to take out Saddam (must be like really wanting that fancy Italian shotgun I guess) then their public argument was a huge priority.

But fraud is fraud, whatever the PR goal: Ken Lay, Tom DeLay, and the Bush crowd are all criminals by my book.

Posted by: jerry on April 6, 2006 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINK


CHAUFIST: Okay, Drum schmuck, Bush quoted British intelligence who, now this may, IS hard for you and your readers to understand, STILL STAND BY IT.

Well, it had been hard to understand; but your illogic, peculiar wording, odd punctuation and caps-lock shrieking makes it ever so much easier.

That said about your irrelevant remarks as they relate to Bush's deception, they do contain one bit of truth: Kevin Drum is a schmuck. Apparently actually believing Bush is not served when his deception is debated, Kevin plays into his hands by examining fine points with skepticism.

From the beginning, for their diversionary benefit, Bush has welcomed criticism of his never supportable claims regarding Iraqi WMDs. He knew he would win that debate by simply making more claims and by taking advantage of the instilled fear in the public, the complicit media, a cowered opposition party and, finally, by simply asserting his will through action.

That action, of course, was the unprovoked attack on Iraq. In direct violation of the U.S. signed Nuremberg Principles and U.N. Charter, Bush launched an aggressive war against Iraq with his illegal invasion and occupation--which are, by definition, war crimes.

"25,000 liters of anthrax," "38,000 liters of botulinum toxin," "500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Those were a few of the false facts the president repeated over and over. "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," lied Bush--not attributing the claim to the British government while delivering the 2003 State of the Union, rather, with no mention of the British during an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati.

Yes, there were a lot of lies told. But don't forget that there were also a lot of truths untold. Foremost among them is that the U.S. had many times over 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. Also untold was the fact that the U.S., like Iraq, was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. But unlike Iraq, it had (and has) a fully constituted weapons program capable of destroying the planet many times over.

If you're a sports fan who grew up in Pittsburgh, you likely root for the Pirates and the Steelers. Raised in San Francisco, you probably cheer the Giants and the 49ers. Which teams are morally superior. If you're from the U.S. you're very likely Christian. But if you're from India, you probably practice Hinduism. Which one worships the true God? Inasmuch as it is initially bestowed by means of geographic happenstance and ingrained through repetition, nationalism is no different from your favorite ball team or your professed faith. Founded in genocide and slavery and always beset with gross inequities and other societal ills, there is no evidence that the U.S. is morally superior to the world's other nations. Any claim otherwise is supported entirely and exclusively by military might, just as, analogously, the best teams win the World Series and Super Bowl, and just as dominant religions are able to marginalize others.

Might does not make right. It does, however, often make winners. Absent overriding selfishness, propaganda and irrational emotion, people understand this instinctively. That instinct was never more evident than following WWII when its hideous toll became the shame of humanity. Many clear thinking victors saw themselves in the monsters they had defeated. Even as they tried and punished war criminals, they wanted to tie our own hands to prevent becoming them ourselves. Representing the U.S. at the Nuremberg Tribunal, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said, "Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions. Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.

We signed on to that, at the tribunal and again at the creation of the UN. "However objectionable it finds the status quo," it says. Does that mean like 25,000 liters of anthrax, for instance? So, yeah, it was bullshit. But most people know that now. They just quibble over the details, led by the never-ending denials of Bush, etc. It's the same diversion it ever was. Those who persist in making the case for Bush's lies without making the greater case for the criminality of his aggression are merely assisting Bush in the cover-up of his crimes. Because, revealing of his dishonesty as they are, the lies don't matter. They are irrelevant. Iraq could have had ten times 25,000 liters of anthrax, fifty times 38,000 liters of botulinum, and it wouldn't have changed the fact of Bush's war crimes. He is, by this country's own declaration and signature, no less a monster than those defeated in WWII and those tried at Nuremberg. Censured? Impeached? If we are ever again to have any small piece of the moral standing we lay claim to, he should be tried at the World Court and imprisoned for life upon his conviction.

But instead of taking a courageous stand, instead of analyzing the facts and coming to the obvious conclusion above, Kevin, the schmuck, as accidentally accurately described by the clueless Chaufist, prefers to cross "t"s and dot "i"s about the depth of Bush's lies and then move on to a discussion of . . . I don't know . . . the pros and cons of Bush's proposed health savings accounts? How do you feel about Hitler's tax cuts, Kevin? Kinda doesn't matter at this point, you know? Let the prosecutors sort through Bush's many deceptions and determine their relevancy to his criminality. For now, his thorough dishonesty notwithstanding, there is a mass murderer to bring to justice.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 6, 2006 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

Our trolls are getting desperate, and incredibly foul-mouthed. Family values? I suppose that since they also are enthusiastic about torture, I shouldn't be surprised. Anyone who cannot admit that the entire "WMD" case was nonexistent is living in a dream world. They didn't exist, and furthermore Bush knew full well that they didn't exist. He was creating an excuse to invade another country, period.

It'll be interesting to see what Bush's real floor of support is after a new Congress and some real investigations next year. I'd bet that he'll drop below 30%.

Posted by: Marc on April 6, 2006 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

Why postulate how hardcore Bush supporters would have reacted had the evidence of Bush's slanting of the facts come to light? Let's just ask Chaufist.

Chaufist, what would have been your reaction had you learned that Bush and his team were deliberately presenting only the intel that supported one point of view and were suppressing the intel that supported the opposing point of view, on an issue of such importance as taking the country to war? Would you have withdrawn your support? What would it take for you to withdraw your support of Bush and his team? Can you imagine a scenario in which you would consider them to have acted illegally and contrary to the best interests of the country? If so, what is it?

Posted by: tim on April 6, 2006 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

really are a piece of shit
shit for brains

so credible, so eloquent.
Clap harder, tink is DYING!!

Posted by: jerrywexler on April 6, 2006 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee, nice piece.
I'm going to try to pull it up, but I believe that prior to the invasion of Iraq both the UK Foreign Office lawyers and the Attorney General had written opinions that war would be illegal without a second UN resolution approving the action. Thses opinions have not, I think, entered the light of day but have been brought back into debate after the appearance of Memo 2.

Not sure what will come of that with Blair. Although he's hanging on like any politico ego-maniac, he can always hand over to Gordon Brown and walk into the sunset. Plenty of people in the UK mad as hell though, and they don't have this put-on-a-pedestal, god-like worship of PMs that some here in the US offer up to the President, so Blair can actually end up with near 0% support while Labour retains some.

Personally, given PANC and all the rest of it/them, I still can't decide if they're so incredibly stupid as to make such a hash of it, or if they're so incredibly stupid that this is deliberate and they thnk this is a good direction to take the middle east/world.

Someone help me out!

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

Only read the short postings.

Posted by: dave on April 6, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

So there was "disagreement" in the intelligence community about Saddam's nuclear program.

Whoop Tee Doo.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 6, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

why did Scooter Libby (and possibly others) lie to the grand jury about their role in outing Plame's identity to reporters? After all, what they did probably wasn't even illegal.

Kevin, that's an assertion that is not at all in evidence. "Probably wasn't even illegal?" Are you kidding? There's a possibility that the disclosures might not have been illegal, but Libby and Rove certainly knew that it was wrong. Sheesh.

Back in 2004, even hardened Bush supporters probably would have turned on him if they had believed he consciously deceived them about this.

Give me a break. Even now, hardcore Bush cultists defend Bush's deceptions, especially about his phony nuclear case, and support the war based on Bush's lies. What evidence is there that "even hardened Bush supporters ... would have turned on him?" And in an election year, yet? No, I'd say Waas and Sargent have it right -- in a close election race, the revelation that Bush did in gin up a phony nuclear threat could well have turned a crucial slice of independent voters, and that's all it would have taken.

Posted by: Gregory on April 6, 2006 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

Bush quoted British intelligence who

US intelligence said no. British intelligence said yes. Turns out, US was right.

US troops stuck in Iraq because Bush chose to believe the Brits over the US.

Sound like "cherry picking" to me.

Posted by: Stephen on April 6, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Memo 1 was the considered evaluation by British Military Intelligence of what they considered the US policy going forward concerning Iraq was. They were right, as is shown by reams of supporting evidence. Memo 2 was a record of discussions between Bush and Blair with others chipping in. As I said, no denials yet.

As I stated, the memo was pure opinion and gossip. Memo 1 as you agree is clearly opinion and Memo 2 as you state is clearly one man's recollection, clearly gossip.

Saddam was hardly telling the truth and it's debatable he would even know if he was telling the truth since his aides were lying to him constantly.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax "

"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin "

"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," Bush said, "Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions."

"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th."

"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "

Hardly definative statements. (from 2003 State of the Union and 2002 Cincinati speech).

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

After all, what they did probably wasn't even illegal.

Whaaaa? I take major issue with this carelessly and confidently delivered statement. It's possible that it wasn't illegal. While we wait to find out more, could we avoid carrying Rovian water for just one day?

But you're right that the cover-up's the thing, as has been discussed many times in comments here and elsewhere. It really bears repeating in posts like this: these boys had--have--a great deal to lose should the Wilson-Plame investigation start turning over too many rocks revealing the base deceptions behind the war. Wilson opened that door, and they wanted it slammed shut at all costs.

Posted by: shortstop on April 6, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like a tinfoil-hat sort of theory to me. The reason Libby lied because he was more concerned about the political fallout than the legal fallout. Another fine example of a Bush supplicant who fell on his sword. Simple as that.

Posted by: Jon Karak on April 6, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

There's been no realignment, just tipping over the whole apple cart for convenience, or is it neo-convenience's sake? If these guys have a plan, it's either as stupid as it looks or as evil.

This has been the most dramatic realignment of the past 60 tears. What makes it so cool is the MSM hasn't reported on it so liberals are totally unaware. By the time you get a clue it will be completed.

Rumsfeld has already removed over 90% of our troops from NATO bases in the EU and notified the host countrieds they are not coming back. More important is he's been presiding over an aggressive base closing process and returning long-term leases to the host country. Just a few weeks ago he closed a large positioning depot in Luxemberg returning the lease to their government. A large series of bases have been closed in Germany. All that will remain in Germany is a hospital, airport and supply base.

These bases cannot be re-opened without an act of Congress. Both ours and the potential host.

At the same time Condi Rice is doing the exact same thing at the State Dept. She gave a major speech at Georgetown a few months back announcing a major redeployment of 'assets' out of Europe into India and other Arab and Asian nations. She specifically revises the list of desirable languages for State Dept 'success'. Memo to ambitious young State Dept employees, College and high school students: Don't study French or German.

By the time GWB leaves office the permanent transfer of 90% of Defense departments and 80% of State Dept assets out of Western Europe will be complete.

It will be very cool to see the next Democratic President, after running on spending discipline, attempt to reopen all of these bases and diplomatic offices. Obviously they can't close the bases in Dubai and Bahrain. Or the diplomatic offices in India. Not after we settle the nuclear issues and being a massive trade and cultural exchange program.

Plus, just think about it. What possible reason is there for bases in Germany? Or a large diplomatic presence in France?

By the time Democrats get a chance to restore relations with the EU there won't be anything to restore nor any reason to incur the large expense.

This is permanent and there's no stopping it.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Bush quoted British intelligence who . . .

It wasn't even cherry picking. What Bush actually should have said is that "Blair said that the Britich intelligence said . . .." Not the same thing; just Blair enabling Bush from once removed. The yellow cake documents were an easily dissabused plant whose route seems to have been almost circular, coincidentally from Niger via Italy (Berlusconi being one of the few Bush supporters in Europe) through UK to US; wonder if that is where it started, too. The tubes were put in doubt by the IAEA as well as US intelligence analysis.

"Cherry picking" is far too benevolent a term.

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of Dear Leader; Drudge links to a story revealing Libby has testified that Bush ultimately provided the permission to out Plame! But Virtuous Loyal Americans know that Our Great Leader did this to protect us from Terrorists and homosexual atheists.

Posted by: Trolletarian on April 6, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

It's clear from what's emerged from the Bush-Blair memos that they were willing to do anything -- anything including lying -- to get the war underway. Many of us knew that then, without yet having the facts. Now the supporting facts are coming out. There's simply no question but that there were lies layered upon lies.

The problem is that the people who didn't know then or who "weren't convinced" are now so damn tired of Bush and Rove and Rummy and the false war and the endless lies that I believe the last thing they want is a complete and devastating outing of the Administration. "Just make them go away" is probably the prevailing feeling, certainly among all but the most tenacious supporters. The truth about the Plame affair begins to look like small change compared with the prospect of a new leaf being turned over, being allowed to forget about the past, getting the boys home, pretending we won, writing Bush off as a cute guy who meant well.

When I'd lived overseas for a long, long time and was about to return to the US, largely for professional reasons, a friend who had recently made the reverse journey said, "America will drive you crazy!" Why? "Because everyone is so forgiving." This was said ironically, of course. What she meant was, "People don't want to know. They just want to get on with their lives."
And so we can look forward to more administrations which bank on inattention, ennui, and our less than full commitment to citizenship.

Philippe Sands spoke eloquently about what Bush-Blair knew and did and said and lied about at the New America Foundation last week. You can listen to the audio there -- it's devastating -- or go to a transcript, via my website, of the talk and subsequent Q&A (coming shortly).

Posted by: PW on April 6, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

rdw,

What motive would any Democrat have to reopen bases in Germany? Have you heard a Democratic politician make an empassioned case for a continued US military presence in Europe? Please cite any example you have. If Rumsfeld is doing what you say most liberals would applaud that. In any case, I'm sure Putin is very happy about this. As am I. Let's see how much success Ukraine and the Baltic State will have now pulling out of the Russian orbit if NATO has been effectively neutered and Russia controls the flow of gas and oil to Western Europe. By the time Americans get a clue what Russia is up to it will be too late for you. Spasibo.

Posted by: Vanya on April 6, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

"Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base"

"As funding for the MIC and the IAEC increased after the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program, there was some growth in programs that involved former nuclear weapons scientists and engineers."

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

PW at 9:59: A really excellent post. Thanks.

Posted by: shortstop on April 6, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, I don't get it. What is excellent about PW's post? All he does is make a very weak assertion that is entirely unsubstansiated.

He does it real perdy like though.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

rdw sounds like Palpatine discussing his theories of taking over the galaxy...lotta folks in this thread have been playing too many war video games...

Posted by: An Interested Party on April 6, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Here it is in a few bullets.

1) It was all lies.

2) They knew they were lying.

3) Under Neocon philosophy lying is simply a necessary tool used by the masters to control the masses. They have written this in their books and glorified the principle.

4) The political hierarchy is loaded with pathological liars. They are very good at what they do.

5) A certain percentage of the population see through the lies and others are 'true believers'.

6) Under the principles of Cognitive Dissonance the 'true believers' are incapable of altering deeply held beliefs even when confronted with overwhelming contradictory evidence.

a) No WMD's found.
b) No drones.
c) No missiles.
d) No Nukes.
e) No Nothing.

7) The #6 folks are on a field trip here today.


Posted by: Buford on April 6, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

I do think he's right that we have a short attention spans and also that we usually "don't want to know" and would ofter rather just move-on.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

"I'm not sure if I buy it or not ..."

Kevin, having read your blog for several years now, I have to ask: Do you have issues with commitment? Because you frequently quote or cite others' theories about various things, then hedge your judgment. It feels a little bit like you're afraid to take a stand, because later evidence might undermine or contradict a particular argument. But, in all candor, I think your blog would be stronger, and better, if you more often said, in effect, "Damn the torpedoes! I'm on board with this!"

Posted by: Doofus on April 6, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

why not a peep about those DHS officers and the other charges? Why is the MSM not talking about that Wackiness? Bill Clinton had sex with a consenting Adult, There are TWO of these DHS cases!! WTF? Why Doesn't the MSM say hardly a thing about this?
Insted its Mckinney and a Cop?
DHS StoryMore child sex troubles at DHS.

Frank Figueroa, the former head of the Department of Homeland Securitys program to stop child predators (Operation Predator), today pleaded no contest to charges he exposed himself to a 16-year-old girl. According to the victim, Figueroa pulled up a leg of his shorts, exposed himself and masturbated for about 10 minutes in front of her. April 5, 2006 2:35 pm | Comment (98)

Posted by: XB on April 6, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Drum wants Bush to "cherry pick" the analysts that had doubts about Saddam's nuclear program.

Drum - you are an idiot.

Posted by: BigRiver on April 6, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

All intelligence estimates require taking selections from available information and assigning values to them.
As for the aluminum tubing, one scientist said it could have been uses as a component of a rocket, without explaining why a $200 precision machined high strength aluminum alloy would be used to replace a 59 cent steel tube that functioned quite adequately.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on April 6, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: memos 1 and 2 gossip, opinion, hearsay in the same way as intelligencew assessments or official records of international discussions are to the White House. Kind of stupidly dismissive except in a WH where truth is of no interest, hence real intelligence assessments carry no weight because they don't suit the plan. Make it up as you go along. Amother fine mess . . ..

Realignment? How old are you, rdw? The US has been moving forces out of Europe for decades, it just accelerated since '91. US is not wanted in Japan and we got ourselves thrown out of the Philippines; we're drawing down in S. Korea. The neo-cons recognize a major competitor in China but we're losing our flexibility in the China Sea area. We put bases into Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iraq (well, they think so), Saudi Arabia and so far the Middle East is becoming less stable or predictable, and is sucking at our armed forces. We spend a huge amount of money on the armed forces, we have a load of fancy toys, yet they are ill-equipped and trained to do the job that the administration doesn't even know they're asking them to do, and there are not enough of them. At the same time we ask our reservists and NG to give more than they ever bargained, for a reason noone in the administration is brave or honest enough to tell them.

And if the State Department is only now telling students to learn Arabic, Russian, Farsi, Mandarin, Cantonese. etc. now, they are so far behind the curve, its unbelievable. They were running around in a panic 5 years ago trying to employ Arabic speakers, then abusing them when they stepped up.

Realignment. You haven't got a clue. Just like the administration. I think tipping over the apple cart is pretty accurate. Bad premises. Bad decisions. Bad execution.

You're right on one thing. There's a hell of a mess to be sorted out by someone.

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK


AARON: Hardly definative statements.

"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

Please explain to me what it would take to be more definitive than "any given day." Then, for good measure, tell me about definitive knowledge that goes beyond "If we know . . . and we do."


Posted by: jayarbee on April 6, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Frank Figueroa, the former head of the Department of Homeland Securitys program to stop child predators (Operation Predator), today pleaded no contest to charges he exposed himself to a 16-year-old girl. According to the victim, Figueroa pulled up a leg of his shorts, exposed himself and masturbated for about 10 minutes in front of her.

Okay, that makes me want to throw up for about six weeks straight. The guy charged with stopping child predators is one. And I thought it was disgustingly ironic when the head of the EEOC sexually harassed his employee, Anita Hall.

Don't tell me. Figueroa is a big Bush donor?

Posted by: shortstop on April 6, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Hill. Anita HILL. Proofread, shorty, proofread.

Posted by: shortstop on April 6, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK
In response, Greg Sargent lays out a sort of grand unified theory of the Valerie Plame affair that tries to explain a central question: why did Scooter Libby (and possibly others) lie to the grand jury about their role in outing Plame's identity to reporters? After all, what they did probably wasn't even illegal.

Another day, another unsupported right-wing talking point casually accepted by Kevin Drum. And lest anyone think that Kevin is merely writing unclearly here and reporting uncritically Sargent's own acceptance of that talking point, note that even Sargent only says "Why would Libby or Rove deliberately mislead the grand jury, risking perjury charges when it wasnt clear the leak was a crime?" Now, of course, even that is a pretty big assumption -- while many of the facts that would make it clear whether or not it was a crime are not public, so it there remains some room for public doubt as to whether whether Libby's or Rove's actions were criminal, those facts were almost certainly not obscure to Libby, Rove, or their respective attorneys at the time they prepared for and gave their grand jury testimony.

Thus, the simplest explanation is that it was clear to Rove and Libby that their actual actions were, if not unequivocally criminal, close enough to that line that they faced substantial risk of criminal prosecution.

To assert, as Greg does, that it was not clear to them is to assume that they knew no more about what happened than we do, which is beyond idiocy.

But Kevin goes beyond Greg's position that it was merely not clear to Rove and Libby that their actions were criminal and states as if it were an indisputable fact that required no explanation or argument that it is unlikely that their actions were criminal. I don't understand this need to bend over backwards to casually validate right-wing talking points that lack any kind of support, but Kevin sure seems to do it a lot.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 6, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Congress would have been forced by the resulting firestorm to run a far more aggressive investigation of Bushs pre-war deceptions

You'd think so. Little did we know exactly how dishonest the Republican-held Congress would be.

Posted by: ckelly on April 6, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

US troops stuck in Iraq because Bush chose to believe the Brits over the US.

Why does George W. Bush hate America?

Posted by: cmdicely on April 6, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

OK so the "intelligence community" disputed the veracity of the Nigeria aluminum issue and Murray is saying that Bush should have known that and gone along with the intelligence community on their findings. However, it was that same intelligence community that found that Iraq more than likely harbored WMD and the left thinks that Bush should not have gone along with those findings. What a complete duplicitous crock of shit.

Let's talk about something that's really important and that is the racism of the Capitol Hill police force and that poor victim Cynthia McKinney. That's the issue the left should be talking about. Don't ya think?

Posted by: Jay on April 6, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, Drum schmuck, Bush quoted British intelligence who, now this may, IS hard for you and your readers to understand, STILL STAND BY IT.
Also, the second in command of the Iraq air force says he flew WMD to Syria, but I guess Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan have more credibility.
Right?
Drum you really are a piece of shit.
Posted by: Chaufist on April 6, 2006 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINK

Okay Lets follow your Logic Chaufist, If Bush used that Intelligence that the British Stick by why then Didn't Bush attack Syria? Hmmm?

Secondly the IRAQ "Freedom" was supposed to be "Freedom" and not War. Even if Saddam had had WMD he didn't us that to attack America did he? Further We can go back to FOIA documents and find that Indeed a Congressional Investigation did find that Both the Us [Reagan Bush Sr] and the British had Sold and Given Saddam WMD technology sometime ago. What YOU Chaufist and the other Pro-War Neo-Kooks seem to miss is that stuff Git blown up in Gulf I, remember the Gulf War Syndrome?

I wouldnt Cite or trust anything that Comes from Jack Straw or Tony Blair..or Rummy. Since the Neo-Cons LOVE to play word games, yes the Judge in the Moussaoui Case Ruled an Airplane was a WMD.

Technically Then the World is Full of "WMD"

Don't listen to Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Aipac/AEI/Kristol/Perle/Neo-Con Crap, because thats what it is

Posted by: XB on April 6, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Saddam could decide to reconstitute programs and supply terrorist any given day.

It was conventional wisdom that Saddam had WMD. Whether he had them or not, however, doesn't affect Bush's argument one bit.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Frank Figueroa, the former head of the Department of Homeland Securitys program to stop child predators (Operation Predator), today pleaded no contest to charges he exposed himself to a 16-year-old girl. According to the victim, Figueroa pulled up a leg of his shorts, exposed himself and masturbated for about 10 minutes in front of her.

Okay, that makes me want to throw up for about six weeks straight. The guy charged with stopping child predators is one. And I thought it was disgustingly ironic when the head of the EEOC sexually harassed his employee, Anita Hall.

Don't tell me. Figueroa is a big Bush donor?
Posted by: shortstop on April 6, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Wouldnt surpirse me a Bit if they were. The "Moral Majority" Remember?

Posted by: XB on April 6, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

even hardened Bush supporters probably would have turned on him if they had believed he consciously deceived them about this.

What say you, trolls?

Posted by: grytpype on April 6, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Drum wants Bush to "cherry pick" the analysts....

I think Drum wants Bush to make correct decisions and not fuck up on the colossal scale that we see in Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong Kevin).

Posted by: grytpype on April 6, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

I take it none of you folks have been reading the translations of Iraq documents proving Saddam attempts to obtain nukes, contact with terrorists, etc., SINCE 9/11?

Posted by: Don P. on April 6, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

grytpype:

I don't know about the "trolls", but I am starting to change my mind. Have you read any of these: http://70.169.163.24/recentPosted.aspx

Posted by: Don P. on April 6, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

I want to thank those posting who bring fresh air into the discussions. While not a complete list by any means, thanks Jayarbee, notthere, AIP, Buford, et.al. I hope your patience lasts.

One of the trolls actually thinks Saddam was able to fly WMD out to Syria, through the no-fly zones. Whack job. We may wish to consider whether we really want to convince loons to "join" the human race, wouldn't they better be left in the bin labelled the Republican Party?

Just sayin'

Posted by: Sky-Ho on April 6, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Anyway, anyone who doesn't believe Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria, heh, give me some of what you're smoking.

I really, really hate this argument. There is exactly zero evidence that Saddam had WMD -let alone shipped them anywhere. But let's just suppose he did for a moment. Then instead of knowing the WMD rests with Saddam - it has vanished into the hands of Syria, Iran, or terrorists according to the trolls. So how then does Bush's war on Iraq make us safer? Isn't this result much worse than Saddam having WMD and does it not show that Bush is monumentally incompentent by not guarding against such a dispersal of WMD (kinda like the emptying of that Iraqi armory after the US invasion)?

So which is it trollies? Bush is a pathological liar or monstrously stupid and incompetent?

Posted by: ckelly on April 6, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

One of the trolls actually thinks Saddam was able to fly WMD out to Syria, through the no-fly zones.

Not to mention there would be satellite and airplane photos, radar evidence, and tons of other concrete proof that this occured.

Funny that none of that has shown up. I mean the Bush administration would be plastering this all over the place if they had hard evidence that Saddam really had WMD and had moved them.

Of course, why Saddam wouldn't have USED THEM on US troops during the invasion is never raised in the so called "minds" of the trolletariate. I mean, what's the point of having WMD if you never use them?

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 6, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Bush invaded Iraq, when he invaded Iraq because he wanted to be re-elected. Since the moment he was appointed to the presidency, he fashioned his cabinet and his policies with one central theme, how not to repeat the mistakes of this father. Bush 41 was very popular when we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, but 41 took the sensible approach to armed conflict and got out when we had achieved our mission. He did not allow mission creep to take over and listened to the sound advice of his generals that taking out Saddam would embroil the U.S. in a prolonged conflict. 41 also did not have a thoroughly pliant Congress to lick his shoes on command.

41 had a lousy economy to deal with and with no armed conflict and no "war president" to buoy his popularity, he suffered as a result.

Baby Bush was intent on not repeating those "mistakes." The problem for the American people is that they were not really mistakes. 41 made the right decision to get out of Iraq when he did. He shared information with Congress less than Clinton, but not clammed up like 43. Baby Bush was intent on sharing nothing, deceiving everybody and fomenting some sort of national calamity whereby he could ride a wave of patriotism. He didn't want 9/11 to happen in my opinion, but he wasted no time to exploit it for his own personal, political and cynical gains. He knew that Afghanistan would fall fairly readily and he was afraid he would duplicate 41's record. Very popular in foreign affairs, but after the excitement died down, they would realize they were worse off fiscally with him in office. So he needed another armed conflict besides Afghanistan and he worked tirelessly to get it. And it worked. Then he worked to conflate support for the troops with support for him. And that worked too.

Now reality is slowly becoming apparent. The American people, if they want to achieve any balance, need to remember who benefitted while BabyBush was distracting them. It will seem like a class war, because it will be, because it has been. The first battle was won by the filthy rich, hiding their gold under an American flag.

Posted by: coltergeist on April 6, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Bush Supporters - Please explain to me why you think Saddam allegedly shipping his WMD to Syria or Lebanon is a "victory" for Bush. Wasn't that the whole reason for the invasion of Iraq? To keep his WMD from winding up in the hands of GOD KNOWS WHO?

Posted by: Red on April 6, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

The Capital Hill Police are racists! I thought the left was rooted in stopping racism. Where's the outrage?

Posted by: Jay on April 6, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

If you're keeping your eyes and ears open, the deeper we dig into this, the clearer it becomes that it was NOT "conventional wisdom" among the intelligence community that Saddam had WMD, and certainly none that were a threat to the US. So, yes, it does affect Bush's argument.

The administration just plain lied to start a war, and we still don't know why we're there or what we're trying to achieve.

And for all the yap we put out, American blood and Iraqi blood is being spilt for these shits' decisions.

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

"Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to be re-elected" - coltergeist

Excuse me a minute; hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Hasn't the left been telling us for years now that the American public is, and was, firmly against the war in Iraq, and yet you claim he did it for re-election purposes? No wonder you guys lose elections.

Posted by: Jay on April 6, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

President Bush, March 17, 2003:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
Vice President Cheney, August 26, 2002:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
There was doubt on all of the administration's claims, both the president and the vice president had been told there was doubt, and they both unequivocally stated that there was no doubt, which was a flat-out lie.

Posted by: croatoan on April 6, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, Jay ...
"OK so the "intelligence community" disputed the veracity of the Nigeria aluminum issue "

Aluminum would be Jamaica. I can see how you could get confused as the inhabitants of both countries are superficially similar in appearance.
Yeah, you meant uranium, I'm aware of that.

The aluminum tubes on the other hand, turned out to be remarkably similar to the components of the missiles that UN inspectors forced the Iraqis to destroy because their unladen range exceeded what was permitted them.

As an aside, I think the UNMOVIC folks went a little overboard, as those missiles would have a much reduced range with an actual payload.
Analogously, I could get a Chevy Suburban to get 25 mpg if I pulled out all the seats, paneling, extraneous sheet metal and frame material, glass, and replaced the fuel tank with a 5 gal plastic jerry can.

Posted by: kenga on April 6, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

"We still don't know why we are there and what we're trying to achieve" - notthere

Well, maybe after Saddam is convicted, the government place permanent memebers and the military/security forces succeed in securing the country and our troops start heading home, maybe then we could sit down and figure it out. Again, no wonder you guys lose elections.

Posted by: Jay on April 6, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

It would affect his argument if the conventional wisdow was that Saddam did not have WMD.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Nice try though.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Cherry-picking intelligence from a handful of doubters in the intelligence community is for fools.

Posted by: MountainDan on April 6, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

You have hold of the wrong end of the stick on this. What it shows is that Mr. Bush has, at every turn, said and done what his voters have forced him to say and do. They allow him no options, no wiggle room. Here we have the leach in the very act of being jerked, and you do not see it. There is no question of Mr. Bush's voters "turning on him". They are the masters, he is the slave. They are the culprits, he is the pawn. Whatever punishment he deserves, they deserve a thousandfold. Until you face up to this, you cannot understand anything.

Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on April 6, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

croatoan finally found something!

Bush was obviously wrong (it could be reasoned that he lied, there certainly was reasonable doubt that Saddam had WMD).

In the context of the run-up to the war, this seems more like overly zealous rhetoric though. It certainly wasn't the justification for the war.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

And the left is different how Frank? And isn't that the meaning of democracy, governing for the people, by the people, of the people. Or would you prefer that a Republican President listen to the Democrat minority? Again, is it any wonder why you guys lose elections?

Posted by: Jay on April 6, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

I have thought since 2002 that with a wink and a nod, the whole administration knew they were deceiving the country into supporting the Invasion of Iraq ("F Saddam we are taking him out"). But they were hoping all along that Saddam would do "something stupid" that would justify the invasion even if the deception was exposed. Probably is, Saddam never really did anything Stupid to "help" the Bush Administration.

Posted by: Robert on April 6, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

ckelly: what's wrong with the trifecta:
Pathelogical liar, monstrously stupid and incompetent!

Jay:
Before the war, over 50% of UK voters were against it. After the invasion 64% supported the government (for a time). In the US the process has often given a bump to the President, and I would rate US inate patriotism stronger than the UK.

On achievement: who had the latest poll on the US troops? Was it 18% who believe they should stay until mission completed, 72% out within the year, 50% out within 6 months. Correct me please so we get it exact. But the commander-in-chief has already handed extraction to the next administration. If I was the general in Iraq, I sure would want my troops to have a good idea of their commitment. This is a clear indicator that this administration has no idea about giving troops clear objectives and expectations. This is not going to be good for morale or efficiency.

One more sign they have no idea what they are doing. But they're willing to play with peolpes lives. Crock of shit!

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Robert, I agree with exception. I saw the wink-nod desire for invasion too, but Saddam did do lots of stupid things that justified the war (see congressional war act). I didn't see any deception (though I did see a bit of hype that I didn't like and I thought would come back to bite them in the ass, which it did.)

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

notthere,

For a better perspective on how were doing see comment in this thead by John Lynch (2nd from the bottom right now).

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008750.php

It's been fun, but I better get to dinner.

Good night.

Posted by: aaron on April 6, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

CRAP! There is no evidence that congress would have investigated Bush under any circumstances, before, after or during the 04 election. It's a faulty premise. Turd Blossom was probably worried about political hay, but not congressional hay.

Posted by: bcinaz on April 6, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with bcinaz. And even now, when there is a growing consensus about this shit, they aren't doing a damn thing.

Posted by: Kenji on April 6, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Another question is: why would they go to such lengths to start the war in the first place? Why so much stretching so soon? Why are they working feverishly in 2002 to set up a case based on intelligence so shaky?

Why indeed?

Maybe it's because Iraq has the 2nd largest oil resources in world.

Maybe it's the oil!

Keeps coming around to the why but we darn not say that it's about oil, that Bush coveted that resources as make huge profits and don't EVER have to under oath when they visit congress in any hearings. Just exactly why did James Baker the III go to all those countries, like France, Germany and Russia, all countries whom had oil contracts in Iraq and then "settle" with them? What dispute was Baker settling?

Why is the Bush administration building those billion dollar military bases in Iraq and that billion dollar embassy in Iraq as if the US has no intention of EVER leaving Iraq and why does this adminstragion care so little for the Iraqi people or even American military veterans.

Why does the US pretend this war isn't about oil when it's obvious it's about nothing else but oil? Why did Bush work so hard to lie about the Iraq war indeed and why does those big OIL CEO's never have to be "under oath" with talking to congress?

Frank Herbert was right - "It's the oil stupid".

It's not WMD - It's not democracy for Iraq, it's not that we have to fight the terrorist over there becaue that has only made more terrorist - it's the oil and it's never been anything else but the oil.

When the Iraq courts finally get around to excuting Saddam - Iraq is going to explode. There is no way Bush is going to hang on to oil in Mideast without trying nuke parts of the Mideast - and that will freak out the rest of entire world.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 6, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

OT: Scooter Libby testified under oath that it was the President that asked him to disclose Valerie Plame's name.....Developing

Posted by: GOD on April 6, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

The electorate had an opportunity to make Bush eat yellow cake during the 2004 election. They did not. Now we must all eat yellow cake as a consequence of our ignominy.

Posted by: Hostile on April 6, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Jay - Please explain to me why you think Saddam allegedly shipping his WMD to Syria or Lebanon is a "victory" for Bush. Wasn't that the whole reason for the invasion of Iraq? To keep his WMD from winding up in the hands of GOD KNOWS WHO?

Posted by: Red on April 6, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Red, if you would actually read, I never made that claim. I don't give a fuck about his WMD's. The violation of 17 UN resolutions over 12 years and the mass graves were enough reason for me to take the bastard out. Period.

Posted by: Jay on April 6, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

"When George Bush touted aluminum tubes and uranium from Africa as firm evidence of Iraqi nuclear ambitions in his 2003 State of the Union address, was he aware that the intelligence community had significant doubts about both of these items?"

Posted by: A Hermit on April 6, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Several very funny things in this thread. As others have pointed out, one is the whimsical notion of an aggressive congressional investigation of Bush as a cause for Administration anxiety about anything.

The others were comments by Chaufist.

Posted by: R.Porrofatto on April 6, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, there is racism running rampant through the Capital Police dept. Now is the time for the left to put their money where their mouth is and stop these racist thugs. Where is the outrage????

Posted by: Jay on April 6, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Oops...

"When George Bush touted aluminum tubes and uranium from Africa as firm evidence of Iraqi nuclear ambitions in his 2003 State of the Union address, was he aware that the intelligence community had significant doubts about both of these items?"

Hell, I knew about those doubts. But then, I actually read the papers...

Posted by: A Hermit on April 6, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

R.Porrofatto:

You have to admit Jay's quite the comedian as well.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 6, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, if that's the case, it sounds like we should attack Israel next.

Posted by: Red on April 6, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

The violation of 17 UN resolutions over 12 years and the mass graves were enough reason for me to take the bastard out. Period.

So I guess Israel is next on your list?
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on April 6, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hey A Hermit...right on! The CIA did not believe it's own people (DOE) it hired an outside contractor.......why? Who is Joe T.?

Give a look here:
Events leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Project: Inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq
Open-Content project managed by Derek Mitchell

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&iraq_themes=terroristTies)

and: CIA Resisted Doubts on Aluminum Tubes Thought to Be for Iraqi Nuke Program

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005/4/1/4b352bc1-c511-4b95-8056-ca2e0defb31f.html

Posted by: avahome on April 6, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Dr. Morpheus and others:

The supposed air shipments of WMD to Syria were disguised as aid shipments after a Syrian dam disaster. The airlifts are a matter of public record.

Personally, I don't consider the source reliable enough to make this particular story a slam-dunk, but at least you need to get your objections in line with the facts.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 6, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK


Posted by Jay on April 6, 2006 at 10:47 AM: Let's talk about something that's really important and that is the racism of the Capitol Hill police force and that poor victim Cynthia McKinney. That's the issue the left should be talking about. Don't ya think?

Posted by Jay on April 6, 2006 at 11:05 AM: The Capital Hill Police are racists! I thought the left was rooted in stopping racism. Where's the outrage?

Posted by Jay on April 6, 2006 at 12:27 PM: Hey, there is racism running rampant through the Capital Police dept. Now is the time for the left to put their money where their mouth is and stop these racist thugs. Where is the outrage????

Hey, there is a shithead running rampant through this thread. Now is the time for him to put his head where his ass is and stop this race baiting. Where is his outhouse????


Posted by: jayarbee on April 6, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

aaron: if you read this.

Thanks for the thread. Lynch no help at all.
Powell, schmowell. Any general would want clear objectives. Also contingency plans, flexibility, built in reserves, post victory plan, and an exit strategy(ies). So Lynch thinks Jr. might have set out 1 of these 5 parts, and he thinks we did well on them.

Well, WMD is a no brainer. They weren't there! And that was the only original reason for going there. Terrorism had already been discounted by anyone who was listening at all, let alone the WMD. On terrorism, any fighters from outside are not going to be welcome once the US leave, so I don't expect that to be a problem then unless we Afghanistanize the place.

Removing Saddam was always going to be a consequence of taking out Iraq, but democratizing Iraq was not put on the ever-goalpost-moving agenda, it was regime change, remember. It's just that the hubris ridden neos thought they could impose a bunch of out of touch ex-pat cronies in place. It was the Iraqis who forced the move towards democracy. Bremer was a near disaster. Honestly, how close is a democratic government? As mentioned previously, GW has already moved the decision of when to leave Iraq to the next administration, and I don't see any plans.

Has anyone in this post reminded all you guys that GW is ending funding for rebuilding? It took over 2 years and billions of $ wasted to develop the present policy, but to quote a soldier in Iraq "It has been take, hold, build. So what is it now? Take, hold, hold?" You could hear the resignation.

So I would give a 1, generously a 2, and that would be out of 5 because I still don't see security, clear objectives or a plan to achieve them, or an exit strategy.

Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

I take it Fox just crawls right up your ass. That had to be a bitter pill to swallow when Dan Rather was castrated over his comically inept forgeries I'm sure you still believe in. -RDW

Bush supporters flee from direct debate and accountability by employing irrelevant straw-man diversions. You pretty much have to be a brainwashed cult member to deny what everyone already knows: Bush knowingly lied about the case for war against Iraq - lied about al Qaeda connections to Saddam, lied about WMDs, lied about nukes, lied about Saddam's connection to the 911 attacks, etc.

Laughably, you dodge addressing the president's dishonesty (read: unconstitutional and criminal behavior) by saying some TV reporter lied. Even if it can be shown that Dan Rather has never said a truthworthy statement in his entire life, it doesn't change the fact that Bush lied.

My other allegation was that hardcore Bush supporters take their talking points from the conservative media. Ironically, your attempt to dodge the accusation by attacking Dan Rather's integrity only serves to prove my point.

FYI the Dan Rather documents were never proven to be forgeries (conservative bloggers falsely claimed that the use of superscript pre-dated electric typewriters - even though that's false). Instead, CBS could not produce adequate proof of the chain of custody of the documents (a common problem with leaked documents).

Not surprisingly, the attack on the legitimacy of one document is itself a dodge. It's basically the OJ "if the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit" argument: never mind the mountain of irrefutable evidence, records, and testimony, we have one sheet of paper of questionable origin, so therefore we can pretend this somehow negates all the other facts.

Brass tacks: you are supporting a dishonest, incompetent, profligate draft-dodging coke-monkey. His only real achievement is to divert trillions in tax-payer money from the working class to the ultra-super-wealthy (well, mostly by borrowing it from future generations of Americans). If you're not one of the wealthiest 1%, you're voting against your own economic interests. But hey, why confuse the Fox talking points with facts!?

Posted by: Augustus on April 6, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

The violation of 17 UN resolutions over 12 years and the mass graves were enough reason for me to take the bastard out. And I would too, if the Army would ignore my criminal record and let me wear panty hose.

Posted by: Jane (Jay's Transvestite Alter Ego) on April 6, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

The supposed air shipments of WMD to Syria were disguised as aid shipments after a Syrian dam disaster.

Along with all the facilites and equipment required for the storage, maintenance and manufacture of said "WMD" ? And all the personnel that knew anything about the "WMD"
program ?

Must have been one heck of an airlift...

Posted by: Stephen on April 6, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush, March 17, 2003:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
Vice President Cheney, August 26, 2002:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
There was doubt on all of the administration's claims, both the president and the vice president had been told there was doubt, and they both unequivocally stated that there was no doubt, which was a flat-out lie.

Posted by: croatoan on April 6, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

It's interesting that Joe Wilson agreed with both Bush and Cheney.

http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/big_cat.html

In an op-ed in the LA Times on Feb 6, 2003, just days after the Jan 28 SOTU with the 16 words, Wilson said this:

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

Hussein and Aziz both told me directly that Iraq reserved the right to use every weapon in its arsenal if invaded, just as it had against Iran and later the Kurds.

The fact that thousands of men, women and children had died in these attacks fazed them not one bit. In fact, Aziz could barely be bothered to stop puffing on his Cuban cigar as he made these comments, of so little importance was the use of chemicals to kill people.

It is probably too late to change Husseins assessment, and that will make any ensuing battle for Iraq that much more dangerous for our troops and for the Iraqis who find themselves in the battlefield."

So what did Joe Wilson believe and when did he believe it?

Posted by: Campesino on April 6, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

The biological WMDs were shipped to Botswana as pharmaceutical supplies in little vials for eradication of AIDs in the African country.


Posted by: lib on April 6, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Bush was using evidence based on FORGED documents.

How naive can one be to believe this admin not only was aware they were forged but has some knowledge of who, what, when, where and how?

The fraud and forgery of the nuclear connection to cause a devastating war when exposed will be the end of this creepy admins rule. Even the dumb Fox-watching rabble will turn on them and their neocon nitwit advisors.

Posted by: Chrissy on April 6, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Jayarbee, interesting post at 8:13.

But in order to make this point in our slogan driven public discourse, don't you have to simplify it to the point where you become entirely isolationist?

Posted by: as on April 6, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Back in 2004, even hardened Bush supporters probably would have turned on him if they had believed he consciously deceived them about this."

Well ... no. 'Hardened' Bush supporters wanted the USA to depose Saddam with or without the existence of WMD. After all, Iraq had violated 12 UN resolutions, had shot at US armed forces in the no-fly zone, had plotted to assassinate a former President, and had defied the terms of their surrender. 'Hardened' Bush supporters felt that these reasons alone were enough. And what the hell is a hardened Bush supporter? Does Kevin mean 'conservatives'?

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on April 6, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well ... no. 'Hardened' Bush supporters wanted the USA to depose Saddam with or without the existence of WMD. After all, Iraq had violated 12 UN resolutions, had shot at US armed forces in the no-fly zone, had plotted to assassinate a former President, and had defied the terms of their surrender. 'Hardened' Bush supporters felt that these reasons alone were enough. And what the hell is a hardened Bush supporter?

I think a 'hardened' Bush supporter would be some jackoff who, after the war devolves into a predictibly grotesque farce and killing field for Americans and Iraqis would retroactively paste nearly irrelevent causus bellae into the initial push for war -- violated 12 (?!) UN resolutions! Plotted to assassinae a former President!

Funny, that wasn't the reason at the time. I remember shrieking bullshit about 'the war on terror' 'wmds' and 'mushroom clouds' -- no? When did the Borg start caring about the UN anyway?

hardened Bush supporters only care about saving Master's face. They really don't give a shit that Americans have died for literally no reason.

Posted by: n.o.l.t.f. on April 6, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

n.o.l.t.f.

That was a very curious response to my post.

"I think a 'hardened' Bush supporter would be some jackoff"

didn't wait too long for the name calling, eh? You just lost some who might otherwise agree with you. Personally, I could not care less about what you think of me or my masturbation activities.

"would retroactively paste nearly irrelevent causus bellae into the initial push for war --"

Liar, liar. I didn't paste - came from my own wee little brain ... and memory. Strange that you admit that these reasons ARE relevant.

I have no idea what the heck 'causus bellae' nmeans, but this is America. Get with the program and assimilate!

"violated 12 (?!) UN resolutions!"

If you don't think that UN resolutions are important enough to fight for, then I guess you agree with me - the UN is an impotent institution that is meaningless when it comes to brutal dictatorships that kill and torture their own.

"Plotted to assassinate a former President!"

If that fromer President had been Clinton would it matter to you? Would it matter to you if they had succeeded? It is really strange, I think, for a person to claim that a plot to assasinate a former President is hardly important at all. I think many would disagree with you.

"Funny, that wasn't the reason at the time."

Funny, you should read the Authorization for the Use of Force and then come back here and tell me that these things were not listed as causes for action. You can try to rewrite history for the ignorant, but you're gonna fail with those who are even minimally informed.

"hardened Bush supporters only care about saving Master's face. They really don't give a shit that Americans have died for literally no reason."

nyah, nyah, nyah. And hardened anti-war libs really don't give a shit about the hundreds and thousands of Iraqi men women and children who have been tortured, mutilated, taken from their families, fed into wood chippers, and killed.

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on April 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Sunbeltjerry, displaying the mental prowess typical of Bush trolls, thinks that thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children (get with the program- this is America- learn English punctuation) were tortured and mutilated while still at home, fed through wood chippers and THEN killed (gotta admire the toughness of those Iraqis- take a wood chipping and keep on ticking). Or perhaps you meant something else and the real meaning was obscured by your mangled verbiage?

By your logic (using the term as loosely as possible) it's certainly a good thing we invaded Iraq then. I'm sure most Iraqis would prefer to be tortured and/or killed by Americans and the new Iraqi government rather than by the old one.

Also, if you could stop eating paste long enough, perhaps you could contemplate how you laughably misconstrued the poster's use of the word above (although your response did seem a mite defensive-accused of plagiarism a lot, are you?). While you are doing that little bit of research, maybe you could look up irrelevant and relevant. No matter what you think, they arent the same word.

Get back to us when you share a common language.

Posted by: solar on April 6, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Just like a thin-skinned conservative: First assume that the post was attacking you personally (when it was never specified), then feel like a victim long enough to blame me for your support for war because I hurt your feelings. Deep principle.

Don't you find it more than a little ironic that the most of the reasons listed in the Authorization weren't what were given as the reason of war (causus belli -- I tried to pluralize it, but my Latin is more than rusty) to the American people? Did Bush make the case that we needed to uphold the sanctity of the UN? No. His father did, when he made his case.

But his son scared the shit out of Americans with bloated rhetoric, wildly overstating the threat.

The Authorization was, to some, an attempt to force Hussein's hand -- which it did. He opened up Iraq for inspections again.

Then Bush ignored the UN inspectors and went to war anyway.

As far as going to war over a planned assassination -- I find it far-fetched. What proof were we given? Clinton had responded by bombing one of the Hussein palaces after this first surfaced, almost ten years ago. Why was that relevent three years ago?

Liberals have been concerned with Hussein since hardened Bush supporters were giving him handshakes, so spare me. The blunt force of war is rarely a precise solution to barbarity.

Posted by: n.o.l.t.f. on April 6, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

"The blunt force of war is rarely a precise solution to barbarity."

Can we tatoo that on Christopher Hitchens' forehead?

Posted by: brewmn on April 6, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Why do you claim the shipments of WMD to Syria are a matter of public record, tell folks to get their facts straight, then provide a link that indicates no such thing.

The link you provide is merely a document that talks about aid shipments to Syria. No mention of disguise, no mention of WMD. What gives?

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 6, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Solar: Nice comments about my mangled verbiage -- that allows you to avoid discussing the content of my post. Quite cynical, aren't you?

"it's certainly a good thing we invaded Iraq then."

I'm glad you agree!

Do you see what I've done here? Just like what you did. I take a bit of your post and use it against you in a purely cynical way, all the while not discussing your actual point.

"I'm sure most Iraqis would prefer to be tortured and/or killed by Americans and the new Iraqi government rather than by the old one."

You might be right!

"perhaps you could contemplate how you laughably misconstrued the poster's use of the word above ... maybe you could look up irrelevant and relevant. No matter what you think, they arent the same word."

ummm, the poster wrote 'nearly irrelevent.'

irrelevant: Unrelated to the matter being considered.

So, follow me fellow paste-eater (apparently), the poster wrote that the items I mentioned were 'nearly' unrelated to the matter. Nearly. Now purse your lips together, squint your widdle eyes, and think real hard ... if something is 'nearly' not related then it IS, necessarily, related.

In other words, relevant.

relevant: Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.

what a maroon - and please, don't post a remark taking me to task for using the Bugs Bunny version to insult you.
=============
n.o.l...whatever.

"Just like a thin-skinned conservative: First assume that the post was attacking you personally (when it was never specified), then feel like a victim long enough to blame me for your support for war because I hurt your feelings."

Am I not a hardened Bush supporter? Was your comment not directed at hardened Bush supporters? Let's not get ridiculously disingenuous now ...

and I blamed you for my support of the war?

Huh?

"Don't you find it more than a little ironic that the most of the reasons listed in the Authorization weren't what were given as the reason of war ... to the American people?"

You can still go to the WH website and read these reasons that weren't given to us.

Twilight Zone, baby.

"Did Bush make the case that we needed to uphold the sanctity of the UN? No. His father did, when he made his case."

Bush Jr. made the case that the UN resolutions don't mean a thing if they aren't enforced. Seems logical to me.

"Then Bush ignored the UN inspectors and went to war anyway."

I'm curious. You must be aware that Saddam and Iraq had agreed to inspections and then closed areas off to inspection, many many times. So I'm wondering, how long would you have played this game? How many years were we trying to get them to cooperate?

"As far as going to war over a planned assassination -- I find it far-fetched. What proof were we given? Clinton had responded by bombing one of the Hussein palaces after this first surfaced, almost ten years ago. Why was that relevent three years ago?"

So, I think you're saying, if someone plots to assasinate your former leader(s), the proper response is to lob a bomb at a palace? And perhaps kill a few innocent workers - moms, dads, children? I think the proper response is to depose the government. At any rate, ss time passes, the relevance of an assasination plot does not lessen.

"The blunt force of war is rarely a precise solution to barbarity."

War, by its very nature, is never a precise solution. But it is sometimes a necessary evil - I'm sure you can come up with some examples.

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on April 6, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I had to scroll past a lot of troll spittle to get to the good stuff so I may have missed some other good comments.

Posted by: daCascadian on April 6, 2006 at 3:30 AM
Posted by: jerry on April 6, 2006 at 8:11 AM
Posted by: jayarbee on April 6, 2006 at 8:13 AM
Posted by: Marc on April 6, 2006 at 8:25 AM
Posted by: Gregory on April 6, 2006 at 9:21 AM
Posted by: shortstop on April 6, 2006 at 9:39 AM
Posted by: Buford on April 6, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Posted by: Doofus on April 6, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Posted by: notthere on April 6, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Posted by: cmdicely on April 6, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Posted by: ckelly on April 6, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Posted by: XB on April 6, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 6, 2006 at 11:03 AM
Posted by: coltergeist on April 6, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on April 6, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Posted by: Augustus on April 6, 2006 at 1:10 PM
Posted by: Chrissy on April 6, 2006 at 1:47 PM
Posted by: n.o.l.t.f. on April 6, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Posted by: solar on April 6, 2006 at 2:50 PM
R. Porrofatto and Alek Hidell, too.

Word! Word! Word!

CHAUFIST: Okay, Drum schmuck, Bush quoted British intelligence who, now this may, IS hard for you and your readers to understand, STILL STAND BY IT.

The WH didn't stand by it, Bushtard, and retracted their statements after Joe Wilson's column. See here.

Trolletarian on April 6, 2006 at 9:54 AM: Drudge links to a story revealing Libby has testified that Bush ultimately provided the permission to out Plame!

The president always knows.

See also Christy's post at FDL on Libby's revelation that Bush and Cheney authorized the leak via Waas.

PW on April 6, 2006 at 9:59 AM: What she meant was, "People don't want to know. They just want to get on with their lives." And so we can look forward to more administrations which bank on inattention, ennui, and our less than full commitment to citizenship.

Yes, but there are some who desire truth and justice and have the legal means to see it through. Remains to be seen all in all. Times will change. Otherwise, an excellent post, PW, and spot on for the prevailing attitudes that exist now. Color me optimistic for I believe that truth and justice eventually become victorious. Just because Bush no longer holds office, when he leaves, doesn't mean he can avoid justice. We can always cut off his presidential perks at the least. I'm calling for Karma to come around without delay and let the highest and best manifest. That may mean Americans need to heal first, justice second. In any therapeutic recovery, tackling the hardest issues are wisely reserved for later once the patient is well into healing. You don't pitch a World Series ballgame with a broken ulna, no?

Vanya: rdw, What motive would any Democrat have to reopen bases in Germany? Have you heard a Democratic politician make an empassioned case for a continued US military presence in Europe? Please cite any example you have.

Vanya, I'm with you on this one. Are you kidding, rdw? LOL! Oh, but Bushtards will attempt to lead you through the barnyard to change the subject. Or they are simply deranged.

As far as the Waas piece goes, posted about it last week as other posters did here at WaMo. Left Coaster, too. But Kevin is just now getting around to it with Sargent's post. Sheesh. No wonder I've been checking other blogs first before coming here. The comment thread posters are the gold here (not the trolls) at PA, IMO. Kevin goes off and on like a flickering light bulb. Good gosh, Kevin Drum! Get with it, man!

Other news: TalkLeft says Fitz Almost Ready for New Indictments.

Read also FDL's Jane Hamsher post today on Bush's confrontation with a patriot who got through the Bushie screening process at Charlotte, NC.

Desperately, Bushtards spin, spin, spin.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 6, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Cross posted with Kevin. Finally he gets to the nuggets. No worries.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 6, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter sunbeltfuckwit:

"Waaah, mommy, they were mean to me."

I did, in fact, focus on the content of your multiple posts. I find that they are schizophrenic (e.g., you exalt the supremacy of the UN at one turn, while deriding it as immaterial at another: bemoan the death of innocents while simultaneously applauding a war that has killed tens of thousands of the same); virtually illiterate; and obviously the work of just another somewhat baffled and stupid freeper troll.

So tell me- did Saddam really pass them through the wood chipper and then (a la Rasputin) kill them? Do you have a lunatic fringe explanation for Iraqis' miraculous ability to survive wood chipping? Were the aluminum tubes from Nigeria (I know this was one of your fellow troll's contribution to fuckwittery, but hell, you probably believe that too) used as wood chip shields? Were the wood chippers hidden in Syria?

On to your pathetic struggles with the English language. You now claim "nearly irrelevant" and "relevant" mean exactly the same thing. You also believe that Dubya will some day leave Laura and run away with you. Neither belief is factual (there is a long line of Bush lovers in front of you) or worthy of note. (Your assertion that there is a binary and only a binary meaning to the words relevant and irrelevant is further undercut by your own statement "At any rate, ss time passes, the relevance of an assasination plot does not lessen." Internal consistency? Not really your strong suit.)

Now please tell us again how "cut and paste" and "paste" mean the same thing. Perhaps if you continue the struggle here, you might someday achieve a fourth grade writing level. I see a GED in your future.

Everything anyone needs to know about you is contained in your response to my question regarding Iraqi preferences about who tortures or kills them. You, being a lunatic fringe idiot, sincerely believe that freedom for Iraqis means only that they are being killed by a different set of people. Iraqis would both object to this definition of freedom and to their deaths at the hands of any group. With lunatic fringe friends like you do Iraqis need any enemies?

Posted by: solar on April 6, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Solar:

Wow! I touched a nerve, but ttfn!

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on April 6, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

notthere: The yellow cake documents were an easily dissabused plant whose route seems to have been almost circular, coincidentally from Niger via Italy (Berlusconi being one of the few Bush supporters in Europe) through UK to US; wonder if that is where it started, too.


we already know that in the u-s...it was...

cheney..to libby..to judith miller..to the nyt..to cheney quoting the nyt while on meet the press...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on April 6, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, What motive would any Democrat have to reopen bases in Germany? Have you heard a Democratic politician make an empassioned case for a continued US military presence in Europe? Please cite any example you have.

I never said anything about motive. The Democrats don't speak of it because they are utterly powerless to stop it. My point was that GWB has initiated the most dramatic realignment of US foreign policy in 60 years and it will not be reversed. We have moved dramatically away from Europe toward Asia.

There's little doubt liberals will lament this shakeup once they get a clue. The French are what you aspire to be. It's European public opinion that has you so upset. Conservatives have a huge advantage here. We don't give a crap what the French think.

Bypassing the EU is also much like bypassing the UN. The fact the US does not particiapte in braindead agreements like Kyoto and abandons old treaties which have outlived their usefullness such as the AMB treaty is what makes us a superpower. The adults are in charge making adult decisions which cannot be reversed. NO doubt libs would like to but it's not an option.

You do remember Kerry promising job one was going to be to travel to Europe for the classic liberal apology tour to repair relations? Conservatives don't do apology tours and if they did the last place it would happen is in Western Europe.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

FYI the Dan Rather documents were never proven to be forgeries

They were not only obvious frauds but comically inept frauds. Danny boy was fired for being stupid.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Even shorter sunbeltfuckwit:

"I'm a coward."

Posted by: solar on April 6, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

it doesn't change the fact that Bush lied.

You've never proved Bush ever lied. There's nothing for me to address or dodge. We all know Dan Rather is a fraud but pointing that's out is not a dodge. It's an example of FoxNews's integrity versus the Networks. Here we had a network anchor use an obviously fraudalent letter to make an accusation against a sitting President 4 weeks in front of an election and the other stations barely covered it.

CBS stupidly, beyond stupidly, tried to defend itself for 10 days. Their attempted coverup was as inept as the crayon quality forgery. ABC and NBC barely covered it. Fox meanwhile was on top of it and Fox was vindicaed almost immediately.

The same it true BTW of the SBVs. Fox covered the Xmas in Cambodia story in detail proving Kerry lied about every aspect of his tall-tale. It was rather pathetic when you think about it. NO MSM outlet covered the obvious lies. Fox also reported that while Kerry received 3 purple hearts the wounds for each were incredibly insignificant with two not even requiring a band-aid. We got to see what kind of a man he is.

The fact is if you want fair and balanced you've got to go to Fox. I do like Fox and watch them regularly. It's come in handy. A few weeks back I was talking to a friend with a teenage daughter with an interest in working for the State Dept. I was able to advise her to learn languages other than French and German because those diplomatic posts are for all practical purposes being eliminated. Papa had no idea.

I watch Fox because I have a thirst for knowledge, not someones agenda.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

I watch Fox because I have a thirst for knowledge, not someones agenda.
Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 6:01 PM


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*wipes tears from eyes*

That has got to be one of the funniest things I have read from a member of the trolletariat in a very long time! I guess the studies that determined that FOX news viewers were less factually accurate in their knowledge compared to those that got their news from other mainstream sources is knowledge that rdw was unaware of (What. A. Shock. Not.) It is hard to imagine any better example of an oxymoronic statement that what rdw said, and what makes it tragically comical is that he actually believes what he wrote was truthful, instead though it was pure truthiness.

Thanks again rdw for making such a complete joke out of yourself and your "knowledge" of current issues and events, it is no wonder that you are such a loyal member in good standing of the trolletariat.

FOXNEWS has no agenda....*shakes head and leaves guffawing loudly* Wow they can find trolletariat that will repeat anything without actually realizing just how much they are declaring both their ignorance and their willingness to surrender their ability for critical thought in exchange for feeling like a part of the "in" crowd. No wonder Bush and the GOP look like a cult, they act like it, especially with those members of the cult of personality of GWB like our resident trolletariat rdw as their main supporters and defenders.

Posted by: Scotian on April 6, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

"I was able to advise her to learn languages other than French and German because those diplomatic posts are for all practical purposes being eliminated."

Good Christ, another moron chimes in.

I guess the State Department is unaware that the US Embassy in Paris is about to close, based on Rightwing DickWad's say so. Better shutter the consulates at Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nice, Rennes, Strasbourg and Toulouse, too. Shut down our UNESCO and OECD missions in France. While you are at it, let's tell the 53 US government agencies that have a presence in France that Rightwing DickWad's tinfoil hat told him they can come home. Meanwhile, close the embassy in Switzerland, too and the two consulates. Never mind that French is one of the official languages of the UN. While we're working on that close the embassies in Belgium, Benin, Burkina-Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Monaco, Niger, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo, and Vanuatu because Rightwing DickWad has never heard of any of them and doesn't know French is an official language of each of them.

Close the embassy in Munich and our four consulates in Germany! Close up shop at NATO! Shut down the International Red Cross! Let's ignore our 5th and 8th biggest trading partners (and the world's 7th and 9th largest economies)because Rigthwing DickWad had an embolism!

What this proves, more than anything, is that one should not take career advice from the unemployed.

BTW, it is certainly easy for a couch potato chickenhawk like you to criticize men who have put themselves in harm's way in their country's service. What injury have you risked or taken for America?

Posted by: solar on April 6, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

I guess the State Department is unaware that the US Embassy in Paris is about to close, based on Rightwing DickWad's say so

I didn't say the French or German embassies were going to close. But for all practical purposes anyone looking for a future in the diplomatic services should make that assumption. What Condi said is the relative size of our diplomatic staffs in Europe versus Asia and elsewhere should be relative the respective populations. You do the math. We have large staffs in France and Germany and a very small staff in India. India has 1B people France 55M. That would be why Condi announced at Georgetown those expecting to transfer to an EU posting in the near future will be disappointed. They have 3 years to downsize and simply will not replace those leaving until India has about 19 State dept personnel for every staffer in France.

We can at least agree almost nothing is happening in France or Germany in terms of global or regional diplomacy and in fact it only makes sense to have a lot more staff in India where relations are getting better all the time.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Close up shop at NATO! Shut down the International Red Cross! Let's ignore our 5th and 8th biggest trading partners (and the world's 7th and 9th largest economies)because Rigthwing DickWad had an embolism!

No reason to close NATO or ignore our trading partners. But trade with France and Germany is negotiated via the EU. Why have large staff's in France and Germany? Why keep 135,000 troops in Germany? Why not keep 2,500 and adjust as necessary?

The EU is as large as the USA economically. Shouldn't they provide for their own defenses?

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

Realignment? How old are you, rdw? The US has been moving forces out of Europe for decades, it just accelerated since '91.

They haven't been moving out at this rate. Permanent Troop reductions are near 90% in 2 years. What remains is primarily a hospital, airbase and storage depot.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see how much success Ukraine and the Baltic State will have now pulling out of the Russian orbit if NATO has been effectively neutered and Russia controls the flow of gas and oil to Western Europe. By the time Americans get a clue what Russia is up to it will be too late for you. Spasibo.


Vanya,

Why can't the EU provide for their own defense? They have as large an economy and more people. If you ask them they'll be happy to tell you they're far more competent than we are. Isn't getting out of their way and letting them lead a good thing?

Isn't it a good thing Russia sells large amounts of Natural Gas to Europe? They need European cash. It makes them inter-dependent. Doesn't it also dilute OPEC control?

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

There's only one more thing to post after reading Scotian's appropriately hilarious response. Thanks for settling the score, Scotian.

Meanwhile rdw...


.....................BUSHTARD...........................
............................*.......*................................
..............................\../.......ZZZZZ..................
............................./uu\..../............................
.........................../...o...\................................
........................./............\..............................
...............q....../......W......\.......p...................
.................\.../...................\..../....................
..................\/.......................\/......................
..............Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh!....................
......................................................................


Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 6, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

"I was able to advise her to learn languages other than French and German because those diplomatic posts are for all practical purposes being eliminated."

"I didn't say the French or German embassies were going to close."

Not just an idiot, but a lying idiot as well. By the way, moron, these are American Embassies we are talking about, not French or German embassies. I fear you are too dumb to feed yourself.

Also, I relaize that as the perfect Bush troll you can neither read nor honestly report what you do manage to sound out but here is what Rice actually said at Georgetown:

"... is clear today that America must begin to reposition our diplomatic forces around the world, so over the next few years the United States will begin to shift several hundred of our diplomatic positions to new critical posts for the 21st century. We will begin this year with a down payment of moving 100 positions from Europe and, yes, from here in Washington, D.C., to countries like China and India and Nigeria and Lebanon, where additional staffing will make an essential difference."

100 jobs from Europe and Washington! What a miserably stupid and dishonest little troll you are. Yep, we can all bow to your tinfoil expertise in this matter.

Posted by: solar on April 6, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

Solar,

You need to read further. The staffing at our embassies will more closely reflect relative populations of the host countries.

From the State Dept website:

Global Repositioning At present, the allocation of American diplomatic resources still has vestiges of our Cold War posture. We have nearly the same number of State Department personnel in Germany, a country of 82 million people, as we do in India, a country of over one billion people. Diplomats are generally located in embassies in Europe, and centralized within capital cities.

To meet current diplomatic challenges, the Secretary will begin a major repositioning of U.S. diplomatic personnel across the world. In a multiyear process, hundreds of positions will be moved to critical emerging areas in Africa, South Asia, East Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Immediate Action. Beginning this year, 100 current positions largely from Europe and Washington will be moved. To accomplish this goal, existing State Department resources will be readjusted to fit new priorities.

Long Term Commitment. In the coming years hundreds will move across borders and into the front lines of diplomacy where they are needed most.


Condi and George are changing everything. The message to the ambitious inside the State Dept and those wishing for a career is about as clear and straightforward as it gets.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

solar,

So why do you think Condi used Germany and India as an example of an imbalance? Is she saying India with 12x's as many people should have 12x's the staff?

Does seem logical!

How about 17x's as many as in France?

The initial move of 100 represents somewhere near 15% - 25% of the postings to France and Germany.

Condi also cited the fact 200 major cities with over 1M citizens have no State Dept contact. We have 5 offices in France in cities with under 500K and in Marseille with 800K. Why?

What do you make of the fact this speech delivered almost 3 months ago has received scant attention? This is really great stuff. GWB announces a major diplomatic pullout from Western Europe and it gets no mention. I see this as a free hand.


Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK
Is she saying India with 12x's as many people should have 12x's the staff?

Does seem logical!

It would be logical if the principle job of US consular officials was, say, to provide some direct service to the population of the country in which they are located, need for which was principally a function of the population of the country.

Of course, if Dr. Rice believes that that is the case, she has as little business being secretary of state as someone with as little initiative and judgement as she showed has being National Security Advisor.


Posted by: cmdicely on April 6, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Solar,

Regarding our staff in Canada. They're critical. We need them to keep the Canadians digging for Oil and Gas to supply our needs. We get the refined oil. They get the pollution. What a deal! They blow the doors off of Kyoto. Canada will be the number one abuser of the Kyoto agreement. Increases in USA emissions over the target limits will be less than 1/2 Canada's increase in emissions despite faster economic growth in the USA.

It's going to be fun watching the finger pointing as we near 2012.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, if Dr. Rice believes that that is the case, she has as little business being secretary of state as someone with as little initiative and judgement as she showed has being National Security Advisor.

Business or not she is the Secretary of State.

There are obviously other critical factors involved such as trade and tourism and the current diplomatic environment. And each of these also point to a necessary and substantial shift in resources.

As France and Germany fold into the EU there is a lessor need to deal with either as a separate entity. Just the fact we have long and stable relationships suggests productivity improvements in technology and communication should allow for large reductions in staff levels of just 20 years ago. It seems silly to have offices in 5 cities in France with less than 500k people when 200 cites with over 1M have no 'representation'.

Regarding India it's abundantly clear there is a major move to dramatically improve relations with the worlds largest English speaking Democracy and one of it's fastest growing economies with unlimited potential and opportunity. The recent deal on nuclear energy is a significant breakthrough which will pave the way for even more significant trade deals. Condi Rice has also been instrumental in improving relations throughout Southern Asia including Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia as well as with Japan, Australia and South Korea. Australia has long been our closest ally but with a recent free trade deal we're closer than ever. We also completed a free trade deal with Singapore and are currently negotiating the same with Malayasia and South Korea.

We have trade and defense deals under negotiation with Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, India AND Pakistan. In each case preliminary deals have already been approved. This State Dept has been quite active.

Posted by: rdw on April 6, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Is this what happens when trolls get meth?

Posted by: adklfj on April 6, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Condi and George are changing everything. The message to the ambitious inside the State Dept and those wishing for a career is about as clear and straightforward as it gets.

Indeed, the message is very clear:

The state department's Intelligence and Research Bureau was correct in its scepticism before the war about Saddam Hussein's possession of WMDs, but was ignored. The department was correct in its assessment in its 17-volume Future of Iraq project about the immense effort required for reconstruction after the war, but it was disregarded. Now its reports from Iraq are correct, but their authors are being punished. Foreign service officers are to be sent out like tethered goats to the killing fields. When these misbegotten projects inevitably fail, the department will be blamed. Passive resistance to these assignments reflects anticipation of impending disaster, including the likely murder of diplomats.

The Bush administration's preferred response to increasing disintegration is to act as if it has a strategy that is succeeding. "More delusion as a solution in the absence of a solution," said a senior state department official. Under the pretence that Iraq is being pacified, the military is partially withdrawing from hostile towns in the countryside and parts of Baghdad. By reducing the number of soldiers, the administration can claim its policy is working going into the midterm elections. But the jobs the military doesn't want to perform are being sloughed off on state department "provisional reconstruction teams" (PRTs) led by foreign service officers. The rationale is that they will win Iraqi hearts-and-minds by organising civil functions.

The Pentagon has informed the state department it will not provide security for these officials and that mercenaries should be hired for protection instead. Internal state department documents listing the PRT jobs, dated March 30, reveal that the vast majority of them remain unfilled by volunteers. So the professionals are being forced to take the assignments in which "they can't do what they are being asked to do", as a senior department official told me.

Read the whole article , it's quite enlightening.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 6, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Is this what happens when trolls get meth?

LOL! Apparently.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 6, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK
We have 5 offices in France in cities with under 500K and in Marseille with 800K. Why? rdw 9:44 PM
Number of American tourists.
rdw 10:17 PM: There are obviously other critical factors ...And ... these also point to a necessary and substantial shift in resources. This State Dept has been quite active.
On the contrary, there is nothing that demands a shift. If more were needed elsewhere, more staff with expertise in the other regions could be added. This State Department has been extraordinarily ineffectual. Posted by: Mike on April 7, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

I guess I'll just call you retarded dickwad from now on.

I read Sec. Rice's speech. What's more, unlike you (a looney bin refugee communicating with aliens through pie plates) I understood it. She did not say that we were closing any facilities in France or Germany, that we would staff State facilties based on host country populations, proportionally, or that even the 100 people would be removed from France and Germany, etc. etc. Everything you said was either a blatant lie or merely the result of your native stupidity, iliteracy, and just plain psycho dumbfuckery.

You are nearly the perfect Bush voter- a stupid, uneducated, easily led, sheeplike chickenhawk.

BTW you know as much about Kyoto as you do about State- nil.

Posted by: solar on April 7, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

We have 5 offices in France in cities with under 500K and in Marseille with 800K. Why? rdw 9:44 PM

Number of American tourists.

Tourism is down substantially in France and does not require much of a state Dept presence anyway.

rdw 10:17 PM: There are obviously other critical factors ...And ... these also point to a necessary and substantial shift in resources. This State Dept has been quite active.


On the contrary, there is nothing that demands a shift. If more were needed elsewhere, more staff with expertise in the other regions could be added.

Not in these days of tight budgets. Condi has made it clear we are not expanding. We are re-organizing. The comparison of German and Indian staffs was deliberate. The messge was clear.

This State Department has been extraordinarily ineffectual

Condi and Bush are getting big things Done. India alone will exceed anything done in the Clinton administration.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

BTW you know as much about Kyoto as you do about State- nil.

I know a lot about Kyoto. It's an absolute piece of garbage. It is the dumbest treaty ever negotiated in the history of man. It is a total disaster for Canada.

They will be without question the WORST polluters under the agreement. The increase in emissions by Canada will be 50% above their limits and DOUBLE the increase from the USA.

It's a beautiful thing they're making this 'sacrifice' entirely for the USA. What pals! The tripling of Tar Sands production is an ecological disaster for Canada. It is the filthiest extraction process known to man. And every drop is being exported to meet US demand.

Tell me that's not perfect. We get the oil. They get the pollution. ANWR would be much cleaner but I'm OK with the pollution aspect. Let's keep it in Canada. Plus the Oil in ANWR isn't going anywhere. If we need it later we'll use it later.

It's going to be great fun to watch Canadians debate their aproaching dilemma. What to do about missing the targets? Do they pay tens of billions to countries like Russia for pollution credits OR do they pull out of he treaty?

How ironic Russia stands to make billions. They get credits only because their economy collapsed after 1990. They've done absolutely NOTHING to reduce pollution. They've also expressed contempt for the entire concept of Global Warming and under no circumstances would EVER agree to pay a dime to anyone if they missed a Kyoto target. They only signed it knowing some liberal saps might actually take Kyoto seriously.

This is a train wreck. I can't wait. Only a liberal could design something so stupid in so many ways.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

You are nearly the perfect Bush voter- a stupid, uneducated, easily led, sheeplike chickenhawk

It must be especially annoying to get up every morning for 8 long years and realize I won and you lost.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

So the professionals are being forced to take the assignments in which "they can't do what they are being asked to do", as a senior department official told me.

Windhorse,

it appears you and Condi are on the same page. There's a major demand for moving staff from France and Germany to countries where they're needed. Is this really that hard to figure out?
Surely someone stationed in Europe for a while hd gained extensive experience and savvy and will be able to handle most anything anywhere else. It only makes sense to spread that wealth around.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

Condi and I are not on the same page at all. I was concerned about terrorist attacks against the U.S. way back in the late '90's after seeing a documentary about bin Laden -- while Condi was doing her level best to ignore the problem and all the intelligence warnings that were flying at her so she could be an adminstration suck up.

And if you think the prospect of endangering American lives in Iraq as some sort of "just deserts" for having worked for that "liberal" State Department is funny -- well, then you're quite obviously the sociopathic fuck that most people here pretty much assume you are.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 7, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

It must be especially annoying to get up every morning for 8 long years and realize I won and you lost.

RDW: Unlike idiots like you, for us politics isn't a tribal "win" or "lose" type of thing, we just want good government.

In fact, you show what an idiot you are by reducing discussions of this type down to an inconsequential sporting event or a winning by one tribe over another.

Apparently the day you registered as a Republican is the day you became a stalinist and henceforth supported anything that "your" guys do, whether illegal, unethical, or unamerican.

Posted by: pjhawk on April 7, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Bias asside, Fox News does provide more, better, and more balanced information than the other networks. Don't let their opinions turn you off. Their bias is easy to see through and their coverage is much better.

Posted by: aaron on April 7, 2006 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINK

Should have said "bias and sensationalizm".

Posted by: aaron on April 7, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK

Solar should have his own blog, he's hilarious (I'm laughing at you, not with you).

Posted by: aaron on April 7, 2006 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

And if you think the prospect of endangering American lives in Iraq as some sort of "just deserts" for having worked for that "liberal" State Department is funny -- well, then you're quite obviously the sociopathic fuck that most people here pretty much assume you are.

That's it, let the anger out, you'll feel better. The adults will still be in charge but you'll feel better.

Actually these relocations are not destined for Iraq. The largest groups wil be going to India and places like Malaysia and Indonesia. They will not be going into War Zones.

Isn't this long overdue? It's clear our economic interests started to shift two decades ago. Our future growth will not be coming from Europe and tourism will continue to drop as other destinations are build up. It's also true that diplomatically Franc and Germany are a dead zone. They are now part of the EU. There's simply no reason to have large staffs in France or Germany just as there's no reason to have a single soldier in Western Europe or South Korea. They can defend themselves.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Unlike idiots like you, for us politics isn't a tribal "win" or "lose" type of thing, we just want good government.

Well then be happy! The adults are in charge. We're getting terrific government. Unemployment is down to 4.7% with 211,000 new jobs added in March with low inflation and interest rates. GWB has been aggressively diversifying US economic interests so we're more exposed to booming Asia and less exposed to weak Europe. All of the excess of the late 90's, the tech bust, accounting scandals, stock market crash, recession etc are past. We have clear skies ahead.

The tax cuts will be extended and the expenses from the GWOT will soon start to moderate.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

"It must be especially annoying to get up every morning for 8 long years and realize I won and you lost."

Let's see:

You've never run for or won political office.
You've never served America in any capacity.
You don't work for, donate to, or campaign for any political candidate.
You either don't vote or can't due to criminal record, alien status, or mental incapacity.
You don't pay taxes to support the government.

So tell me, lying Retarded DickWad- what exactly did YOU win?

And even though your lies about the State Dept. have been proven to be just that, you continue to troll them some more. Truly pathological.

Aaron, I guess that was supposed ot be a witty "asside".

Posted by: solar on April 7, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

solar,

Chill!

Ok, I didn't win. I stand corrected. My candidate won. Your candidates lost. They've lost to GWB 4 times actually.

I have served proudly in the Navy. I do pay taxes but am hapy to say I've used the tax code to my advantage. I do not donate to politicians but I do function as a conduit thanks to Fox and Rush. I am very well informed and cherish my encounters with liberals. Especially when it comes to whackjobs like Dan Rather, Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, J Murtha, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary, etc.

My kids are proudly conservative as is my wife and we all had fun during the Kerry campaign tweaking liberal friends. I could never get any of them to explain to me how John got two purple hearts for incidents that never required so much as a band aid. I could never get any of them to explain Johns ephinany on Xmas in Cambodia.

The interesting thing with my in-laws, my wife is one of 8, was asking them to remember what it was like for their oldest brother to come home from Vietnam and be accused by many of being a war criminal and then to watch a young John Kerry make that accusation and remind them.

You are correct. I didn't win. But I hepled my party win.


Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

rdw - Does the KoolAid come in any other flavors?

Posted by: Red on April 7, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Not actually words:

hapy
ephinany
hepled

Not actually the truth:

"I have served proudly in the Navy."
(Given your struggles with the English language, perhaps the Russian Navy?)
"Your candidates lost. They've lost to GWB 4 times actually."
(I don't live in Texas. I do have a congressman and a Senator who are Democrats. It must be hard for you being this stupid.)

"I am very well informed and cherish my encounters with liberals. Especially when it comes to whackjobs like Dan Rather, Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, J Murtha, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary, etc."

(You've never met any of these people, outside of your "whackjob" fantasies. And, of course, each of them has accomplished more and contibuted more to America than shiftless fuckwits like you ever will. As to being informed, you are one of the most clueless losers trolling this site- which is saying something).

"...what it was like for their oldest brother to come home from Vietnam and be accused by many of being a war criminal and then to watch a young John Kerry make that accusation and remind them."

(Nothing about this sentence is even remotely true.)

"But I hepled my party win."

(Didn't campaign, didn't run, didn't contribute, didn't deny that you can't vote. Some help you are- keep up the non-work, willya?)

Not actually the epitome of morality:

"I do pay taxes but am hapy to say I've used the tax code to my advantage."

Tax cheat. Figures.

Posted by: solar on April 7, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Doesn't Karl Rove have more important things to do than post here as "rdw"?

Posted by: Bierce on April 7, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Truly, rdw has the faith of Goebbels standing by Hitler's side in the Bunker in April 1945. It is inspiring.

Posted by: Madman on April 7, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

rdw - Does the KoolAid come in any other flavors?

As you would guess I have high standards. I'm a Yuengling Lager guy.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

"...what it was like for their oldest brother to come home from Vietnam and be accused by many of being a war criminal and then to watch a young John Kerry make that accusation and remind them."

(Nothing about this sentence is even remotely true.)

Actually it is. Much of Hollywood and many on the far left treated Vietnam Vets like scum. These Vets dod not receive the thanks the Desert War vets and now the Iraqi vets are receiving and we all know it. The SBV ads showing kerry accussing veterans of atrocities killed his candidacy.

"But I hepled my party win."

(Didn't campaign, didn't run, didn't contribute, didn't deny that you can't vote. Some help you are- keep up the non-work, willya?)

But I did talk to people. I have 4 daughters 3 of whom are voting conservatives and a 4th will be in 2012. They know never to trust a thing they hear on ABC unless it's confirmed on Fox. They saw the Rather debacle and to this day are stunned anyone would think of defending it. They knew it was an obvious fraud anyway but their point was, Isn't it the responsibility of ANY CREDIBLE journalist or honest person to authenticate a document BEFORE using it to trash someone. Isn't that common decency?

Yes, it is.

My kids are of the opinion if you defend Dan Rather you can only be a loser. It's simply and obviously dishonest.

I've also exlained to at least 30 people just how stupid the Xmas in Cambodia story was. That's just as good as Dan Rather. He wasn't in Cambodia. It wasn't Xmas and Nixon absolutely wasn't President when it happened. He got EVERY aspect of his ephinany wrong and the MSM NEVER picked this up over 20 years and 3 Senate campaigns.

Kerry is a liar and a bad one at that and they're morons.

You have to place yourself in my area when these discussions take place. This is me talking to a liberal often in a group. When I point out just how stupid some of these things were they think I'm calling them stupid. You can see the steam come out of their ears.

They're real anger is that they're defenseless. They're also defeated. They just don't have the facts and they know it. My sister-in-law knew Kerry has his ephinany on xmas in Cambodia listending to President Nixon in 1968. She heard it often enough. Not until I bet her $10 it was nonsense and I could prove it was nonsense in 15 seconds did she find out. In front of about 8 people I asked her, "Who was President in December of 1968"?

She was stunned and embarrased. She knew I had her but wouldn't conceded immediately. She said it had to be Nixon because otherwise the press would have caught Kerry in the lie right away.

The cool think here is we had both just seen the commercial. Kerry lied under oath. Her sons were impressed as well. They remain baffled the MSM let him slide for 20 years.

I didn't swing the election but 1,000,000 like me hepled.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

rdw has the faith of Goebbels standing by Hitler's

That's original. Never heard the hitler analogies before.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon Retarded DickWad, you know you've heard the Nazi stuff before. I know this is true because much of your lunatic fringe psychotic babble comes straight from the nativist, racialist, militia freaks that you doubtless hang with.

So you celebrated YOUR electoral victory when YOU didn't even add your own personal puny vote. So what is it- a felony conviction? Not a citizen? Adjudged mentally incompetent by a court? All three?

As it happens, I'm a Vietnam veteran- went there, lived through it, came back to tell about it, and served a number of years afterward. The lunatic fringe myth of how veterans were treated that you peddle didn't happen. If it did happen as you claim it did, were you one of the people spitting on veterans and calling them war criminals? I have to laugh at your idiocy about Hollywood mistreating Vietnam vets- how typically moronic and dishonest of you.

As to your lies about Kerry- it's often the case that folks like you, who are somewhat less then men, want to tear down better men. The closest your fat ass ever came to Cambodia is where it's parked right now. What the fuck would you know about it? Since you are freeper trash, all you can bleat is the lie that Kerry said everyone who served in Vietnam was a war criminal. Never happened. Sadly, more than a few of those who served were.

As an unemployed wingnut and a self-professed tax cheat, what in the name of God have you ever contributed to this country? Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Posted by: solar on April 7, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Since you are freeper trash, all you can bleat is the lie that Kerry said everyone who served in Vietnam was a war criminal. Never happened. Sadly, more than a few of those who served were.

Never said Kerry claimed that everyone who served in Vietnam was a war criminal. What I've said, and what many others have said, that by making blanket accusations of large numbers of atrocities, and not naming names, he smeared everyone who served as a potential war criminal.

It was a rotten thing to do. Fortunately there was justice served this time. These ads were undoubtedly the most effective of the entire campaign. Kerry had no answer and no defense.

Regarding Xmas in Cambodia, which set everything up regarding criticism of his service, Kerry lied through is teeth in comically inept fashion. Stating Nixon was President on Xmas 1968 was stupid. Much worse for him was the fact the MSM was even dumber. If they had done just the slighest bit of questioning they would have realized his 'story' needed a little work. He told it over 25 years and not once did the MSM realize it was a dumb story. They could have warned him 25 years ago and he could have corrected himself and he'd be President.

BTW: There are war criminals in every war and on every side.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I have to laugh at your idiocy about Hollywood mistreating Vietnam vets- how typically moronic and dishonest of you

Hollywood never mistreated the troops directly. That would have taken balls. Just the same Hanoi Jane isn't famous for her support of the troops either.

I love the folks in Hollywood. Alec Baldwin and Barby Streiand are endlessly entertaining. Kerry actually had Ben Affleck open some of his campaign appearances. Ben is a moron. At least Clooney had the sense to tell Kerry he was going to do him a favor by staying away.

George knows he can get the hollywood crowd to take him seriously but to his credit he knows the reason he's famous is because he's pretty not because he's bright. He knows his limitations. He's eye candy with a very nice bank account. He'll make 'serious' movies his peers will love him for. But no one will watch them. He'll be loved but he'll never be influencial.

Isn't it ironic how liberals panned Reagan for so many years for being 'just' an actor and he's ranked in the top 10 of all Presidents but now we have generatons of actors desperately trying, but failing, to be taken seriously? Hanoi Jane, Asner, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand, Warren Beatty, Afleck, Clooney, etc.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

"What I've said, and what many others have said, that by making blanket accusations of large numbers of atrocities, and not naming names, he smeared everyone who served as a potential war criminal."

That is simply because you are a Retarded DickWad. This, too, never happened.

Good thing for Hollywood that you have no money. Thus they don't have to worry that you won't buy their products.

One thing you failed to mention about all of the above folks - they all pay taxes. You don't. Who supports the troops and who doesn't?

P.S. I understand why you hate George Clooney- he told the truth about another one of your fascist idols, Joe McCarthy. Maybe you need to get the tinfoil adjusted on your head if you think he cares what you, or anyone like you, thinks. My my, with people criticizing Tailgunner Joe, Hitler, and Bush, your head must be about to explode.

Posted by: solar on April 7, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Thus they don't have to worry that you won't buy their products.

Money is the last of the worries of these rich white playboys. Clooney never had a hard day in his life. Georgie's star turn with tailgunner Joe was all about ego. He wanted to make an 'important' picture. He pleased all of the usual suck-ups but he didn't come close to what he really wanted.

He wanted influence. At most 4M people actually saw the film. 120 voted in the last election. That's a little over 3% of the voting public. Plus I'm sure we can agree his audience was 100% liberal. George sang to the choir. He influenced nothing.

The fact is poeople under the age of 60 have zero interest in Joe and few have any idea of what he did. Even semi-literate libs confuse him with the more famous House committee. Of course Senator Joe had absolutely no connection.

It's comical to try to explain Joe to 20 or 30 or 40 somethings. A generation with an awareness of how Reagan defeated communism and saw some the horror of their lives.

Me: Joe was a red baiter. He was obsessed with hunting down communists in the govt.

Them: Wasn't that a good thing?

I think George also wanted to praise the network news. Not after Dan Rather. Most young people were shocked at how easy is was to play Dan for a sap and he was the Dean of network anchors. George wanted to portray these people are heroes. People today see grossly overpaid diva's. And that was before CBS decided to pay the perky one $20M. They don't even take themselves seriously.

Nice try George. No cigar.

Posted by: rdw on April 7, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 584

Posted by: Mike Furir 699 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 485

Posted by: Mike Furir 782 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 840

Posted by: Mike Furir 869 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 964

Posted by: Mike Furir 777 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 515

Posted by: Mike Furir 832 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 242

Posted by: Mike Furir 150 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 218

Posted by: Mike Furir 622 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 356

Posted by: Mike Furir 418 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 347

Posted by: Mike Furir 302 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 945

Posted by: Mike Furir 880 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike Furir Mike 89

Posted by: Mike Furir 341 on April 8, 2006 at 5:03 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